9-11 Complete Information Guide
via: http://www.loosechangeguide.comSection I: Introduction, The First Events
00:51March 13th, 1962 Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presents a proposal to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, named "Operation Northwoods."
Lemnitzer may have been the most rabid anticommunist of anyone in a high position in the U.S. Throughout the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations he continually pushed for an invasion of Cuba. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, that idea was not welcome in the White House.
The document proposed staging terrorist attacks in and around Guantanamo Bay, to provide a pretext for military intervention in Cuba. The plans included:Starting rumors about Cuba using clandestine radio.
Landing friendly Cubans inside the base to stage attacks.
Starting riots at the main gate.
Blowing up ammunition inside the base, starting fires.
Sabotaging aircrafts and ships on the base.
Bombing the base with mortar shells.
Sinking a ship outside the entrance, staging funerals for mock victims.
Staging a terror campaign in Miami, Florida and Washington, DC.
And finally, destroying a drone aircraft, over Cuban waters.
The passengers, federal agents in reality, would allegedly be college students on vacation.
A plane at Eglin Air Force Base would be painted and numbered as a duplicate of a registered civil aircraft belonging to a CIA front in Miami. The duplicate would be substituted for the real plane and loaded with the passengers. The real plane would be converted into a drone. The two planes would randezvous south of Florida. The passenger laden plane would land at Eglin Air Force Base to evacuate its passengers and return to its original status. The drone would pick up the scheduled flight plan and over Cuban waters transmit a "mayday signal" before being blown up by remote control.
Note that no one was to be killed in the fake plane scheme. (Thanks CurtC.) We know about this idea because the document has been declassified. The idea was rejected, of course.
02:19The plan was rejected by McNamara, and President John F. Kennedy personally removes Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Good move. But the suggestion that he was removed for submitting this plan is misleading. It certainly didn't endear him to McNamara and Kennedy, though, and when his term ran out he was transferred to Europe to become the head of NATO.
While "Operation Northwoods" has provided the raw material for an entire cottage industry of 9/11 conspiracy theories, to my knowledge no one has demonstrated the slightest connection to 9/11 itself. I mentioned this to a conspiracy theorist recently, and he said "Well, the CIA killed JFK, and George W. Bush's father was head of the CIA." I had to remind him that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK, and George H.W. Bush was a Texas oilman who hadn't even run for Congress yet in 1963.
I am astonished that CTists keep bringing up Operation Northwoods as a reminder that dangerous, deceptive schemes can be cooked up by the U.S. government, as if the fact that we are in Iraq isn't reminder enough. Perspective, people, perspective!
Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.
10 takeoffs and 13 landings? That is one special plane!
This is supposed to work with the "Operation Northwoods" idea that drone aircraft with fake passengers could be used in a "false flag" terrorism scheme. The problem with that connection is that piloted planes were used to kill thousands of real people on 9/11. Has any conspiracy theorist, anywhere, shown evidence that the planes were not piloted? No.
February 28th, 1998. The Global Hawk, Raytheon's Unmanned-aircraft-vehicle, completes its first flight over Edwards Air Force Base in California, at an altitude of 32000 feet, cruising altitude for a commercial jetliner.
Global Hawk? Three minutes and twelve seconds and nothing you've said has had any demonstrable connection to 9/11.
1999. NORAD begins conducting exercises in which hijacked airliners are flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.03:21
June, 2000. The Department of Justice releases a terrorism manual, with the World Trade Center in crosshairs.
Makes sense. That's the north tower, WTC 1, in the crosshairs. It was bombed by Islamic terrorists in 1993. The terrorists were trying to knock the north tower into the south, killing tens of thousands of people. They did a lot of damage, but "only" six people died, and the cyanide gas that had been packed with the bomb was incinerated by the explosion.
September, 2000. The Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank whose members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, releases their report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defences." In it, they declare that " the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. "I have yet to come across a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who DID NOT use this quote as "evidence" that the terrorist attacks were an "inside job" by the neo-cons in the U.S. government. However, the PNAC quote is about the typically slow growth of military technology, abetted by budget cuts in defense R&D. It is in no way a plan or suggestion for a "new Pearl Harbor." Is it plausible that these "conspirators" would publicly announce a plan to kill thousands of Americans?
According to CT logic, these "conspirators" are the smartest, most devious, most capable connivers the world has ever seen - but are incredbly stupid. This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always tell the media I did it.
The PNAC document was released just before the Presidential election of 2000. It is highly critical of the cuts in defense spending made during the Clinton administration, as well as being critical of how defense spending was allocated during those years.
The document is mostly concerned with the transformations the authors believe are necessary to keep America's military dominent in a world where many adversaries may soon have
1) Long range missiles, and
2) Satellite-based battlefield-awareness technology
In the few pages of excerpts in Appendix D, the word "transform" or "transformation" is used 36 times.
What is the main thrust of the PNAC plan for military transformation? A nationwide missile defense shield, and dominance of outer-space for offensive and defensive purposes. That's right: "Star Wars."
That type of technology would not have stopped the attacks of 9/11. So what about those low-tech terrorists that we're at war with now? "Rebuilding America's Defenses" does mention terrorism a few times:
A brief mention, regarding budget cuts
And once more, about advanced biological warfare
So, no indication there that terrorism is an immediate threat to the U.S. Now, let's look at the "Pearl Harbor" comment in context. (For further excerpts, go to Appendix D at the end of this document., or Click here to view the full report.)
Now, if you wanted to increase defense spending in the areas that the PNAC recommends, what is the LAST thing you'd want to do? Answer: get involved in a ground war and subsequent occupation of a country where many citizens are fighting a guerilla-style campaign against you and against each other with AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs made from cell phones and 10,000 tons of old artillery shells.
As I am writing this, on May 6, 2006, the news has come on: 3 car bombs have gone off in Baghdad and one in Karbala, killing at least 30 Iraqis, including 10 soldiers, and several Italian and Romanian troops. In Basra, a British helicopter was shot down, killing its five crew members, and rescuers were bombarded with fire bombs and rocks. They opened fire on the rioting crowd, killing 4 Iraqis, including a child, and wounding 30. Yesterday, Porter Goss, the incompetent CIA chief, was forced to resign.
The disaster in Iraq is the opposite of what the PNAC would want to happen to help effect the military transformation they desired in 2000. So why did those same people lie to us and use fear of terrorism as a pretext to invade Iraq? Because they thought replacing Saddam Hussein would be easy. They didn't listen to the generals, they ignored the intelligence reports, and they expected to be greeted with open arms by the Iraqi people after ousting Hussein. These are the people the CTists think are so clever that they can hide a massive conspiracy. They're the same neo-cons who are under investigation for their petty revenge against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. They couldn't even handle THAT without screwing up.
The PNAC report displays some of the neo-con's cockiness about the U.S. military presence in the Mid East (emphasis mine):
There we have several very confident, matter-of-fact statements about what how the U.S. should impose its military presence on the Mid East. So we established bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect our oil interests. But we failed to defend New York and Washington, D.C. against terrorists who were furious at the fact that we had bases in their back yard, and who declared a Jihad against the U.S. because of it.
In 2003, the U.S. closed its bases Saudi Arabia. And all those billions that could have been spent on missile defense are being frittered away in a war with a country that did not, and could not, attack us. Not exactly according to plan, eh?
Some related questions for conspiracy theorists:
Suppose you are correct, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an "inside job" perpetrated by elements within the U.S. government. Now suppose that ONE person admitted to the plot, or ONE person, (you, for instance) found out the truth, and could prove it. How long would it take for the neo-cons or Republicans, or whomever was responsible, to regain their credibility? 100 years? Never? This isn't "Operation Northwoods" were talking about here. Try to keep some perspective.
If the U.S. planned the attacks of 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, why did they use 15 Saudis as "scapegoats," and not 15, or 20, Iraqis?
"Conspiracy Theorists:Why are you allowed to speak?" If, as so many CTists claim, the Bush administration has a "stranglehold" on the media, why have countless administration scandals been reported, why are the CTists allowed to freely publish and promote their claims, why am I allowed to post this document on the internet, and why is Bush's "favorable" rating in the polls at 33% (AP poll this week)? And why are ex-military leaders allowed to speak so freely against their former boss?
Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld:
Another Ex-General Rumbling Against Rumsfeld:
Another General wants Rummy to go:
These stories are from major media outlets and from smaller organizations.The last is from CrooksAndLiars.com. Conspiracy theorists, why is CrooksAndLiars.com allowed to exist?
Back to the video.
According to CT logic, these "conspirators" are the smartest, most devious, most capable connivers the world has ever seen - but are incredbly stupid. This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always tell the media I did it.
The PNAC document was released just before the Presidential election of 2000. It is highly critical of the cuts in defense spending made during the Clinton administration, as well as being critical of how defense spending was allocated during those years.
The document is mostly concerned with the transformations the authors believe are necessary to keep America's military dominent in a world where many adversaries may soon have
1) Long range missiles, and
2) Satellite-based battlefield-awareness technology
In the few pages of excerpts in Appendix D, the word "transform" or "transformation" is used 36 times.
What is the main thrust of the PNAC plan for military transformation? A nationwide missile defense shield, and dominance of outer-space for offensive and defensive purposes. That's right: "Star Wars."
That type of technology would not have stopped the attacks of 9/11. So what about those low-tech terrorists that we're at war with now? "Rebuilding America's Defenses" does mention terrorism a few times:
In fact, national military forces, paramilitary units, terrorists, and any other potential adversaries will share the high ground of space with the United States and its allies.
AndAmerica's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energyproducing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other "non-state actors." The relative importance of these elements, and the threats to U.S. interests, may rise and fall over time. Europe, for example, is now extraordinarily peaceful and stable, despite the turmoil in the Balkans. Conversely, East Asia appears to be entering a period with increased potential for instability and competition. In the Gulf, American power and presence has achieved relative external security for U.S. allies, but the longer-term prospects are murkier. Generally, American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the great victories won in the 20th century - which have made Germany and Japan into stable democracies, for example - maintain stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st-century successes, especially in East Asia.
A brief mention, regarding budget cuts
When the USS Lincoln carrier battle group fired Tomahawk cruise missiles at terrorist camps in Afghanistan and suspected chemical weapons facilities in Sudan, it did so with 12 percent fewer people in the battle group than on the previous deployment.
And once more, about advanced biological warfare
Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
So, no indication there that terrorism is an immediate threat to the U.S. Now, let's look at the "Pearl Harbor" comment in context. (For further excerpts, go to Appendix D at the end of this document., or Click here to view the full report.)
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence. The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm, that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present opportunities for America's adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.
Now, if you wanted to increase defense spending in the areas that the PNAC recommends, what is the LAST thing you'd want to do? Answer: get involved in a ground war and subsequent occupation of a country where many citizens are fighting a guerilla-style campaign against you and against each other with AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs made from cell phones and 10,000 tons of old artillery shells.
As I am writing this, on May 6, 2006, the news has come on: 3 car bombs have gone off in Baghdad and one in Karbala, killing at least 30 Iraqis, including 10 soldiers, and several Italian and Romanian troops. In Basra, a British helicopter was shot down, killing its five crew members, and rescuers were bombarded with fire bombs and rocks. They opened fire on the rioting crowd, killing 4 Iraqis, including a child, and wounding 30. Yesterday, Porter Goss, the incompetent CIA chief, was forced to resign.
The disaster in Iraq is the opposite of what the PNAC would want to happen to help effect the military transformation they desired in 2000. So why did those same people lie to us and use fear of terrorism as a pretext to invade Iraq? Because they thought replacing Saddam Hussein would be easy. They didn't listen to the generals, they ignored the intelligence reports, and they expected to be greeted with open arms by the Iraqi people after ousting Hussein. These are the people the CTists think are so clever that they can hide a massive conspiracy. They're the same neo-cons who are under investigation for their petty revenge against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. They couldn't even handle THAT without screwing up.
The PNAC report displays some of the neo-con's cockiness about the U.S. military presence in the Mid East (emphasis mine):
After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. In addition to the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, the United States now also retains what amounts to a near-permanent land force presence in Kuwait. A substantial heavy task force with almost the strength of a brigade rotates four times a year on average for maneuvers and joint training with the Kuwaiti army, with the result that commanders now believe that, in conjunction with the Southern Watch fleet, Kuwait itself is strongly defended against any Iraqi attack. With a minor increase in strength, more permanent basing arrangements, and continued no fly and "no drive" zone enforcement, the danger of a repeat short-warning Iraqi invasion as in 1990 would be significantly reduced. With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed.
There we have several very confident, matter-of-fact statements about what how the U.S. should impose its military presence on the Mid East. So we established bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to protect our oil interests. But we failed to defend New York and Washington, D.C. against terrorists who were furious at the fact that we had bases in their back yard, and who declared a Jihad against the U.S. because of it.
In 2003, the U.S. closed its bases Saudi Arabia. And all those billions that could have been spent on missile defense are being frittered away in a war with a country that did not, and could not, attack us. Not exactly according to plan, eh?
Some related questions for conspiracy theorists:
Suppose you are correct, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an "inside job" perpetrated by elements within the U.S. government. Now suppose that ONE person admitted to the plot, or ONE person, (you, for instance) found out the truth, and could prove it. How long would it take for the neo-cons or Republicans, or whomever was responsible, to regain their credibility? 100 years? Never? This isn't "Operation Northwoods" were talking about here. Try to keep some perspective.
If the U.S. planned the attacks of 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, why did they use 15 Saudis as "scapegoats," and not 15, or 20, Iraqis?
"Conspiracy Theorists:Why are you allowed to speak?" If, as so many CTists claim, the Bush administration has a "stranglehold" on the media, why have countless administration scandals been reported, why are the CTists allowed to freely publish and promote their claims, why am I allowed to post this document on the internet, and why is Bush's "favorable" rating in the polls at 33% (AP poll this week)? And why are ex-military leaders allowed to speak so freely against their former boss?
The Revolt Against Rumsfeld
The officer corps is getting restless.
By Fred Kaplan Posted Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at 6:07 PM ET
Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that's nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld's resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically," and a man who "has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."
But the most eye-popping instance appears in this week's Time magazine, where retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not only slams the secretary and what he calls "the unnecessary war" but also urges active-duty officers who share his views to speak up. Newbold resigned his position in late 2002-quite a gesture, since he was widely regarded as a candidate for the next Marine Corps commandant. His fellow officers knew he resigned over the coming war in Iraq. The public and the president did not. He writes in Time:
"I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat-al-Qaeda. - [T]he Pentagon's military leaders - with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. - It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again." Source
The officer corps is getting restless.
By Fred Kaplan Posted Wednesday, April 12, 2006, at 6:07 PM ET
Some of the most respected retired generals are publicly criticizing Rumsfeld and his policies in a manner that's nearly unprecedented in the United States, where civilian control of the military is accepted as a hallowed principle. Gen. Anthony Zinni, a Marine with a long record of command positions (his last was as head of U.S. Central Command, which runs military operations in the Persian Gulf and South Asia), called last month for Rumsfeld's resignation. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who ran the program to train the Iraqi military, followed with a New York Times op-ed piece lambasting Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically," and a man who "has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world, and his unrealistic confidence in technology to replace manpower."
But the most eye-popping instance appears in this week's Time magazine, where retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, the former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not only slams the secretary and what he calls "the unnecessary war" but also urges active-duty officers who share his views to speak up. Newbold resigned his position in late 2002-quite a gesture, since he was widely regarded as a candidate for the next Marine Corps commandant. His fellow officers knew he resigned over the coming war in Iraq. The public and the president did not. He writes in Time:
"I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat-al-Qaeda. - [T]he Pentagon's military leaders - with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. - It is time for senior military leaders to discard caution in expressing their views and ensure that the President hears them clearly. And that we won't be fooled again." Source
Another general joins ranks opposing Rumsfeld:
Defense secretary 'carries too much baggage,' Swannack says
Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 12:48 a.m. EDT (04:48 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.
"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday. Source
Friday, April 14, 2006; Posted: 12:48 a.m. EDT (04:48 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The commander who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq has joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.
"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr on Thursday. Source
Another Ex-General Rumbling Against Rumsfeld:
Increasing Number of Retired Top Military Leaders Want Defense Secretary to Resign
By John Yang, ABC News
April 13, 2006 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has collected "Rumsfeld's Rules," bits of advice and guidelines gleaned during his four decades in government and industry - nearly 160 items in all when they were published on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page as he took office in 2001.
These days, a small but growing number of retired commanders would like Rumsfeld to think about one he came up with while he was President Gerald Ford's chief of staff: "Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance."
The latest to join the chorus was retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, now says the Pentagon's civilian leadership needs a "fresh start." He told the Washington Post: "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork." Source
By John Yang, ABC News
April 13, 2006 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has collected "Rumsfeld's Rules," bits of advice and guidelines gleaned during his four decades in government and industry - nearly 160 items in all when they were published on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page as he took office in 2001.
These days, a small but growing number of retired commanders would like Rumsfeld to think about one he came up with while he was President Gerald Ford's chief of staff: "Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance."
The latest to join the chorus was retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-05, now says the Pentagon's civilian leadership needs a "fresh start." He told the Washington Post: "We need leadership up there that respects the military as they expect the military to respect them. And that leadership needs to understand teamwork." Source
Another General wants Rummy to go:
On Shepard Smith's Studio B, an 8th general has called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Ret. Marine General Paul Van Ripper was interviewed by FOX News reporter Bret Baier.
Video-WMP Video-QuickTime
Van Riper claims that he constantly talks with many active duty and retired senior officers who share his view that there needs to be new civilian leadership in the Pentagon. He says that Rumsfeld has not fought the war in Iraq competantly and has run the Pentagon with intimidation. FOX does try to play up the "second hand "information angle, but since Murtha came forward-we all know how many of our military leaders really feel.
Video-WMP Video-QuickTime
Van Riper claims that he constantly talks with many active duty and retired senior officers who share his view that there needs to be new civilian leadership in the Pentagon. He says that Rumsfeld has not fought the war in Iraq competantly and has run the Pentagon with intimidation. FOX does try to play up the "second hand "information angle, but since Murtha came forward-we all know how many of our military leaders really feel.
These stories are from major media outlets and from smaller organizations.The last is from CrooksAndLiars.com. Conspiracy theorists, why is CrooksAndLiars.com allowed to exist?
Back to the video.
October 24th, 2000. The Pentagon conducts the first of two training exercises called MASCAL, which simulate a Boeing 757 crashing into the building. Charles Burlingame , an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, Participates in this exercise before retiring to take a job at American Airlines, where, less than a year later, his Boeing 757 allegedly crashes into the building. That's wrong. Burlingame had been a pilot with American since 1979. Source (Thanks CurtC)
04:19
April, 2001. NORAD plans an exercise in which a plane is flown into the Pentagon, but is rejected as "too unrealistic". To clarify, they didn't intend to fly a real plane into the Pentagon.
June, 2001. The Department of Defense initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a hijacking. Not exactly. See below.It states that for all non-immediate responses, the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense. Nothing odd about that. The rules didn't change for immediate threats like hijackings.
04:43
Attorney General John Ashcroft begins flying on chartered jets, for the remainder of his term, due to a "threat assessment" by the FBI.
During that time he took commercial flights for personal travel and government flights for work-related travel. The threat was personal, not national. From Ashcroft's 9/11 Commission testimony:
BEN-VENISTE: Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another.
And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.
At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.
Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?
ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.
ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.
I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.
The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.
These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.
And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly.
At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.
Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?
ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.
ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.
I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation.
The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft.
These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.
04:57
July 4th, 2001. Osama Bin Laden, wanted by the United States since 1998, receives medical attention at the American Hospital in Dubai, where he is visited by a local chief of the CIA.
This was reported by the French paper Le Figaro, quoting an anonymous source. The story is unconfirmed. I'm not aware of any evidence at all that this happened.
July 24th, 2001. Larry A. Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center 7, signs a 3.2 billion dollar, 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex, six weeks before 9-11. This was the result of a very long, very public open-bid process. Included in the lease is a 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism.Remember the 1993 bombing? But had Silverstein conceived of the idea that the entire complex could be destroyed, he certainly would have purchased more insurance. $3.5 billion was not nearly enough to rebuild totally. More on insurance issues later.
In fact, according to court documents, Silverstein initially only wanted to insure the center for $1.5 billion. His lenders wanted a figure more like $5 billion. He finally settled for a figure in between, $3.5 billion. Source
September 6th, 2001. 3,150 put options are placed on United Airlines' stock. A put option is a bet that a stock will fall. That day, put options were more than 4 times its daily average.
Higher than normal, yes. But this number had twice been over 8,000 during the year 2001. Source
Bomb sniffing dogs are pulled from the World Trade Center, and security guards end two-weeks of 12 hour shifts.They had been put on two weeks earlier because of phoned-in threats. The unusual thing is that they had been on extra duty for those two weeks, not that they were pulled off.
September 7th, 2001. 27,294 put options are placed on Boeing's stock, more than 5 times the daily average.With economic indicators for airlines falling, and airfares dropping, investors bet that manufacturers will receive fewer orders. Boeing stock had been declining since before 2000. (Thanks, Tirdun)
September 10th, 2001. 4,516 put options are placed on American Airlines, almost 11 times its daily average.American stock had been falling, and on Friday, Sept. 7 they announced a prediction of higher-than-expected losses for Q3 and Q4, on top of a Q2 loss. On Monday, investors made the safe bet that the stock would continue to fall. 911myths.com has covered this issue in depth.
And from the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5, note 130:
And from the 9/11 Commission Report, chapter 5, note 130:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
Newsweek reports that a number of top Pentagon brass cancel their flight plans for the next morning.
No, on Sept 24 they report that Pentagon brass canceled TRAVEL plans
That's all. The story is extremely vague, and has no named source. We don't know where these unnamed officials were supposed to be going or coming from. Source
On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.
But no one even dreamed that four airliners would be hijacked and plunged into targets in New York and Washington. Some officials complain that the intelligence community has been too focused on terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction-biological, chemical and nuclear-while overlooking low-tech threats-like the use of penknives and box cutters to hijack a plane.
The Threat Committee has every reason to worry about bin Laden's trying to get hold of a nuke. During the New York trial of the men accused of bombing the embassies in Africa, one bin Laden associate testified that the boss had hatched a 1993 plan to spend $1.5 million to buy black-market uranium. He apparently failed-that time.
But no one even dreamed that four airliners would be hijacked and plunged into targets in New York and Washington. Some officials complain that the intelligence community has been too focused on terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction-biological, chemical and nuclear-while overlooking low-tech threats-like the use of penknives and box cutters to hijack a plane.
The Threat Committee has every reason to worry about bin Laden's trying to get hold of a nuke. During the New York trial of the men accused of bombing the embassies in Africa, one bin Laden associate testified that the boss had hatched a 1993 plan to spend $1.5 million to buy black-market uranium. He apparently failed-that time.
That's all. The story is extremely vague, and has no named source. We don't know where these unnamed officials were supposed to be going or coming from. Source
06:16
San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a phone call warning him not to fly the next morning. Brown said the call was not alarming in nature, it was normal. His flight was scheduled at 8 a.m., and he took it then. Pacifica Radio later reveals that this phone call came directly from National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. This is an unconfirmed story. Brown said the call came from his airport security people. A "worldwide" travel warning had been issued on Sept. 7, but did not involve travel in the U.S.
06:29
And in Pakistan, at a military hospital , all of the urologists are replaced by a special team, How many urologists would normally be at a Pakistani military hospital? I have yet to see any confirmation of this story. In order to host their guest of honor, Osama Bin Laden, "Guest of honor": your words, or those of the hospital? Were they "hosting" or treating? Who is carefully escorted inside to "be watched carefully and looked after". I don't have a whole lot of experience with hospitals, but aren't they generally where people go to "be watched carefully and looked after? CBS later reports that on this day, bin Laden is admitted to a military hospital in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, for kidney dialysis treatment. Pakistani military forces guard bin Laden. They also move out all the regular staff in the urology department and send in a secret team to replace them. It is not known how long he stays there. [CBS News, 2/28/2002]
06:45
September 11th, 2001. The National Reconnaisance Office in Chantilly, Virginia is preparing for an exercise in which a small corporate jet crashes into their building.
NORAD is in the middle of a number of military exercises. Note: prior to 9/11/01, NORAD was responsible only for threats coming from outside U.S. borders. Only once in the prior decade had NORAD attempted to intercept a stray civilian aircraft over U.S. soil, which was golfer Payne Stewart's plane, after its crew and passengers fell unconscious.
The first, "Vigilant Guardian", is described as "An exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide".The 9/11 Commission report described it as an exercise "which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union". (Chapter 1, note 116) Contrary to conspiracy theorist claims that air defenses had "stood down" on 9/11, they were unusually "geared up." Because of the semiannual exercises that had been going on for several days, NORAD radar stations and battle rooms were fully staffed, with top commanders there to make decisions.
The second, "Northern Vigilance", moved fighter jets to Canada and Alaska to fight off an imaginary Russian fleet.Most people don't know that NORAD is a joint U.S./Canadian organization. The normal force of fighters on alert to protect the country remained in place: 14 at 7 air bases.
Three F-16s from Washington DC's National Guard at Andrews Air Force Base, 15 miles from the Pentagon, are flown 180 nautical miles away for a training mission in North Carolina. These planes would not have been on alert status. Two F-16s practicing bombing runs in southern New Jersey were not armed.07:31
This left 14 fighter jets to protect the entire United States.
Which was normal. Military budget cuts over the previous few years had drastically reduced the number of fighters on alert. Remember the "Peace Dividend?" During the cold war the U.S. had over 100 bases with aircraft ready to scramble. It's important to understand the meaning of "alert" as opposed to "Combat ready." "On alert" means the plane is fueled, armed and ready to go, with pilots waiting in the ready room for a scramble order. "Combat Status" means a plane will be ready for combat, usually in 24 to 72 hours. Some people will cite the number of air bases near the flight paths of the hijacked planes. That does not mean that planes and pilots were ready to go at a moment's notice. A brief overview of NORAD's difficult job on 9/11 is here.
" Hi, Boston Center TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York. And we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out."NORAD Command " Is this real or exercise? "
" No, this is not exercise, not a test. "
" Do we wanna think about scrambling an aircraft? "
Video of north tower being hit by AA flight 11. Another problem throughout the video: there are few graphics telling the viewer when events are happening, when "live" news footage was etc. We don't know if we're getting a correct chronology or if creative editing is being applied. In fact, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the next part of the conversation took place at 9:49 and was in reference to flight 93 in Pennsylvania. 
Here's a report I hadn't seen before, from a man who was in the north tower and saw flight 11 approach: (Source)
From a window on the 61st floor in the north tower, Ezra Aviles had seen everything. He knew it was no bomb. His window faced north, and he saw the plane tearing through the skies, heading straight for the tower. It had crashed into the building over his head-how far, he was not sure. In fact, its lower wing cut the ceiling of the 93rd floor, and its right wing had ripped across the 98th floor, at the very moment that Patricia Massari was speaking to her husband about her home pregnancy test.
Aviles worked for the Port Authority. He dialed five numbers, leaving identical messages, describing what he saw, and telling everyone up the chain of command to begin the evacuation. He called one colleague, John Paczkowski, but reached his voice mail. "It seems to be an American Airlines jetliner came in from the northern direction, toward-from the Empire State Building, toward us," Aviles said. He ticked through a list of notifications-he had called the police and the public affairs office, and had beeped the chief operating officer for the agency. "Smoke is beginning to come, so I think I'm gonna start bailing outta here, man.... Don't come near the building if you're outside. Pieces are coming down, man. Bye."
" That's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes. " " Uh, yeah, you know, everybody just left the room. "
08:12
[Radio Interview] " The first question I have is basically to get from you a sense of how you would rate the American media in their coverage of the events of the attack last September? "
Bring on the Hunter S. Thompson voiceovers.
[Hunter S. Thomson] "well let's see eehmmm, shamefully is a word that comes to mind "08:31 TV Newsman Peter Jennings: " This just in you are looking at obviously very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. "
[Hunter S. Thompson] "but overall, the American journalism was cowed, and intimidated by the this massive flag-sucking, this patriotic, orgy..."
Almost 9 minutes in, the title sequence begins.
" you know if you're criticizing the President it's unpatriotic and there's something wrong with you and you may be a terrorist...
so, so in that sense, Hunter S. Thomson, there's not enough room for dissenting voices?
" Well, there's plenty of room, just not enough people willing to take the risk. "
09:02
" I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft or to be more specific. Some people said they thought they saw a missile. " Unidentified voiceover. There was definitely a blue logo, [it was] circular logo on the front of the plane "
111-117: Unidentified voiceover & interviewer. We know from other sources that the interviewee is Marc Birnbach, a freelance photographer. The video doesn't mention what Birnbach's vantage point was, which would be good to know (see below).
" It definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides. ""Mark, [sic] if that what you say is true those could be cargo planes? You said, you didn't see any windows in the sides?"
This is United N612UA, (flight 175) as it would look at approximately 1 mile.
Birnbach was over two miles away when he saw it. Source
Can you pick out the windows on airliner at 12,000 feet?
"I didn't see any windows on sides. It was not a normal flight that I had ever seen, at an airport, it was a plane that had a blue logo on the front " He probably doesn't see a lot of planes going 500 mph at the airport, either. "and, and it just... it did not look like it belonged in this area."
Hunter S. voiceover again "It's sort of a herd mentality a lemming-like mentality. If you don't go with the flow you're anti-American and therefore a suspect."
TV Newsman on the scene "This is as close as we can get to the base of the World Trade Center - You can see the firemen assembled here, the police officers, FBI agents and you can see the Two Towers, a huge explosion, raining debris on all of us. We better get out of the way"
South tower collapses. This is out of chronological order, because we haven't seen it being hit yet. Notice how the debris falls much faster (in the video, at free-fall speed) than the bulk of the building.
Cut to very brief shot of WTC 7 collapsing., approx. 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. South side (left in video still), where most of the fire and structural damage is, gives first. You can see the walls cracking at the top left of the building. Conspiracy buffs hate to show the other side of the building which shows smoke billowing out of nearly every visible floor. There was an enormous amount of fire in that building. Here's a quote from FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, who was calling the shots on the scene (quote not in video):
Think there wasn't an inferno in WTC 7? Click here.
Then we quick-cut back and forth between WTC 7 collapsing and some building being demolished. There's no narration, just head-banging music.
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt." [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]
Think there wasn't an inferno in WTC 7? Click here.
Then we quick-cut back and forth between WTC 7 collapsing and some building being demolished. There's no narration, just head-banging music.
Since we're on the topic of WTC 7, let's take a look at some more quotes from the experts who were on the scene. These are collected on the excellent website Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
Looking south towards ruins of WTC 6 and 1. WTC 7 is at left. Photographer is 200 meters from WTC 1.
10:42"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn't know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we're heading east on Vesey, we couldn't see much past Broadway. We couldn't see Church Street. We couldn't see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski Source
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn't know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site. Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we're heading east on Vesey, we couldn't see much past Broadway. We couldn't see Church Street. We couldn't see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we'll go down, let's see what's going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we're going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn't look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn't really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight. So I'm standing there. I'm looking at the building. It didn't look right, but, well, we'll go in, we'll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there's creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski Source
Looking south towards ruins of WTC 6 and 1. WTC 7 is at left. Photographer is 200 meters from WTC 1.
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department Source
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers Source
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan Source
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. Source
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7- did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that's a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn't seem so bad. But that's what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn't want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody- My feeling early on was we weren't going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn't make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn't go further north on West Street. And I couldn't go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
Source
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers Source
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan Source
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. Source
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away? Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7- did you have to get all of those people out? Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that's a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn't seem so bad. But that's what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn't want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody- My feeling early on was we weren't going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn't make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn't go further north on West Street. And I couldn't go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
Source
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Hunter S. voiceover again. " You sort of wonder, when something like that happens, "
North Tower (WTC 1) has just started to collapse. The top, which weighs about 100 million pounds, has fallen about 1 floor. Antenna started first: see smoke and debris being ejected from its base.
Some CTists say there was no inferno in these buildings.
Smoke is being pushed out of the collapse zone. Had explosives caused the collapse, you would have seen an effect like this BEFORE the top started to fall, not AFTER.
Some CTists say there was no inferno in these buildings.
Smoke is being pushed out of the collapse zone. Had explosives caused the collapse, you would have seen an effect like this BEFORE the top started to fall, not AFTER.
In the circled area is what "controlled demolitions theory" advocates like to call a "squib," a jet of material caused by explosive charges timed to be in synch with the top-down collapse.
Just watch the video to see how wrong they are. It's perfectly clear that the material in the "squib" isn't being blasted out of the building, it's FLOWING, at exactly the speed that the top is falling. No explosion could cause that slow-motion effect. It's simply the "plunger" effect of air being compressed.
Just watch the video to see how wrong they are. It's perfectly clear that the material in the "squib" isn't being blasted out of the building, it's FLOWING, at exactly the speed that the top is falling. No explosion could cause that slow-motion effect. It's simply the "plunger" effect of air being compressed.
The video shows the same "squib" from another angle, with debris being SQUEEZED out. As the collapse picks up speed, you can see these bursts of compressed air get more energetic,. Again, not what you'd see with explosions.
The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives "Ludicrous."
10:44The Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., which is widely considered to be the worlds top explosive-demolition firm, calls the idea that the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives "Ludicrous."
H.S.T. again " who stands to benefit? Who had the opportunity and motive? You just gotta look at this basic things. I don't assume that I know the truth about what went on that day." Whew! "And yeah, I just look around looking for who had the motive, who had the opportunity, who had the equipment, who had the will... " Islamic Jihadists had the will, and the way. "I've spent enough time on the inside, well the White House, and, you know campaigns, and i've known enough of the people who do these things,"
Who launch terrorist attacks against Americans? And if you know them, Hunter, why didn't you say so in any of your books or articles? Maybe these attacks could have been prevented if you had just given us a hint.
"to know that, the public version of the news, of an event, is never really what happened. And these people I think are willing to take that even further." Beliefs are one thing, evidence another. That's why I'm spending my time doing this. Anyone can spout conspiracy theories.
It's been 4 ½ years since the attacks. Has any conspiracy theorist, anywhere, turned up a single piece of evidence that implicates any individual not already named in the "official" version?
If you have no evidence that anyone in your version was involved in any way, why are you are absolutely convinced that the U.S. government committed the atrocities of 9/11?
11:50It's been 4 ½ years since the attacks. Has any conspiracy theorist, anywhere, turned up a single piece of evidence that implicates any individual not already named in the "official" version?
If you have no evidence that anyone in your version was involved in any way, why are you are absolutely convinced that the U.S. government committed the atrocities of 9/11?
(Unnamed interviewer) "It seems a very long bow to me, but are you sort of suggesting that this worked in a favor of the Bush administration?"
Hunter S.: "Oh absolutely, ...Absolutely." All speculation.
This quote should probably read "as the missile to damage" (Thanks CurtC). All flying weapons are missiles. Rumsfeld uses military-speak all the time. He never said he believed it was anything but flight 77 that hit the Pentagon. Or would you have us believe that Rummy just slipped up and blew the conspiracy wide open - to Parade Magazine? I can't believe I just defended Donald Rumsfeld.
9:38. Arlington, Virginia.
Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 MPH
13:42
First, let's meet Hani Hanjour. Hanjour came to Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland, one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane. However, when Hanjour went on three test runs in the second week of August he had trouble controlling and landing a single engine Cessna 172.
"Hello, my name is Marcel Bernard and I'm the chief flight instructor here at Freeway. Hani Hanjour, well basically what happened with him is... he showed at the airport and wanted to get checked out in the aircraft you see, he was already certified, he didn't come to us for flight training. Yeah, he already had a pilot's license. He already earned a - it was private, instrument, commercial at a school in Arizona - I don't remember the name of the school. He already had certificates in hand and we sometimes occasionally have pilots who come to us that don't want flight training, but just want to rent our aircraft."
"Which is the case of Hani Hanjour?"
"This was the case of Hani, he wanted to get "checked-out" as we call it to rent our aircraft. And our insurance requires that he flies with one of our instructors to be found competent to rent. And that was the process that he was going through. And consensus was, he was very quiet, average, or below average piloting skills, English was very poor, so, that's about the best description I can get, give you for his demeanor. At that time very uneventful from my perspective.
15:16
Regardless, air traffic controllers at Dulles International Airport that were tracking Flight 77. All thought that it was a military plane.
Second. The light poles. On November 22nd, 2004, a private jet en route to Houston to pick up George Bush Senior clipped a single light pole and crashed a minute away from landing at Houston's Hobby Airport.
And yet, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground, without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.
Instead, they seem to have just popped out of the ground.
15:59
Third. You only have to look at the photos from that day to realize that whatever hit the Pentagon did not bounce off the lawn.
If Flight 77 had crash landed and skidded into the Pentagon, it would have looked like this.
Fourth. Why is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77?
Unidentified voiceover: "You know, it, it might've appeared that way, but from my closeup inspection there's no evidence" There's no evidence(see # 185)? How close ARE you? And WHO are you? "of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." It didn't crash near the Pentagon, it went right into it! "The only sight is the actual side of the building that's crashed in," Sounds significant. I wonder if there could be a plane in there. "and as I said the only pieces left that you can see" Oh, so you CAN see pieces, even from a distance. "are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate,"
The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. WHAT? Sorry, that's not the "official" explanation. Indeed. From these pictures, it seems that there is absolutely no trace of a Boeing 757.
But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, No one claims this. Then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 people found at the Pentagon? Because they're dedicated professionals who care about getting things right. The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, which was responsible for the task, was also responsible for identifying the dead in Shanksville. In part. Good thing, too, That was another difficult job, and they were able to positively identify all the flight 93 victims.
Keep that in mind for later. When you'll be making an actual claim that's backed by actual evidence? We'll see.
So what is a Boeing 757 made of? I called Boeing to ask, but... Hmm - oak? Brick? Corn cobs? The operator informed me that Boeing refuses to give out any information regarding the construction of their aircraft. Due to the attacks of September 11th. Yes, it's quite secret stuff, what planes airliners are made of.
17:50
But what we do know, is that the 757 has two Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy
Jet fuel, also known as kerosene, is a hydrocarbon, which can retain a constant temperature of 1120 degrees Celsius after 40 minutes, but only if the fuel is maintained.
The fuel would have burned off immediately upon impact. No, it takes time to burn off.
Therefore, it is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by kerosene. No one claims it was, straw man.
Likewise, the two engines should have been found relatively intact at the Pentagon.
18:34
Instead, there was a single turbo-jet engine approximately 3 feet in diameter found inside the building. No, that's an engine part, not an engine.
It's part of the compression section. After this photo was published by American Free Press
Readers wrote in to suggest that the turbine was a piece from the Auxiliary Power Unit - APU mounted in the tail section of the 757. Readers should have checked engine parts first.
Chris Bollyn (of the AFP) contacted Honeywell in Phoenix, Arizona, the manufacturer of a 757's APU. An expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity told him that: "There's no way that's an APU wheel." Phew! At least someone around here knows their arse from their APU.Bollyn then contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce, The two companies that manufacture 757 engines. Pratt & Whitney pointed Bollyn towards Rolls-Royce and John W Brown a spokesman for Rolls-Royce told Bollyn that:
In an article written by Karl Schwartz,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-nets Security Systems
19:33
He believes that the piece is a JT8D Turbojet Engine from the US Air Force A3 scottwarrior
Jet engines have a center shaft which must be balanced as well as bare seals on the front and back. A certain director may be in need of some balancing, and may have a leaky seal or two. The (FEMA) photo shows the front seal and a rotar [sic] hub missing its fan blades. Wrong. These blades are easily removed in a collision such as the one found at the Pentagon.
19:59
The United States Air Force has only a few A3's left in operation, And they're all accounted for. You can check for yourself if you don't believe me. And they're stored in Van Nuys California at Hughes Aircraft,
20:18
The second identifiable piece of debris was allegedly a piece of the fuselage
Skeptics have claimed that this is proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon . This, the hundreds of other parts, the eyewitnesses, the remains, the forensics, the videos... But this piece could have come from any American Airlines plane. Wrong. And look at the background. See debris there? Might be worth looking into. And why is it not singed or scratched after a 530 MPH impact and a subsequent fireball? IT'S TORN TO SHREDS!!!
20:38
The third piece of debris was a diffusor case.
Let's look a little closer at the diffusor case of a 757. Show me yours and I'll show you mine.
Do you see the triangular bezels around the openings?
The remainder of the debris was light enough to have been carried by hand.
21:01
And employees at the Pentagon were seen carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.
21:04
If Flight 77 was vaporized on impact, it would be the first time in aviation history.
Helios Airways Flight 522, a Boeing 737, en route to Athens, Greece crashed into a hillside at full speed. 121 passengers, all dead. Fire. Tail sections. Wing sections. Engines. Cockpit. Bodies. Catch my drift? What's this. Got to do. With a plane. Hitting. The Pentagon. At 530. Miles per hour?
21:38
Fifth. Why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757? Assumption. When are you going to present experts? These photos were taken before the roof of the outer ring had collapsed.
The only damage to the outer wall is a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter.
A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, 44 feet high, has a 124 foot wingspan, and weighs almost 100 tons.
Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole, without leaving any wreckage on the outside? We've already seen photos of the wreckage outside. You're being dishonest.
This is not even close to representing the correct approach angle.
Why is there no damage from where the wings, or the vertical stabilizer,
Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact? They are meant to be bomb-resistant. Remember, you mentioned the construction work? Why are the cable spools directly in front of the hole completely untouched?
And as for the inside of the Pentagon, there's another hole approximately 16 feet in diameter It's about 12 feet. It was expanded for safety and to help with debris removal. Found on the other side of the C ring, three rings from the impact. For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete.
23:23
The nose of a commercial airliner is composed of light-weight carbon. This is what usually happens to the nose of a commercial airliner in a plane crash. If the nose caused this hole, where's the rest of the debris from the plane?
Sixth, the eyewitnesses. Some saw a huge 100 ton commercial airliner. Yes. How many didn't say that?. Do a tally. " And I looked off, I was, you know looked out my window I saw this plane, jet, American Airlines jet coming."
Some saw a small, 8 to 20 passenger commuter plane.
" ...maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the sides... " That makes 1. The others? And some saw a United States Military helicopter. And? "...when it occured, he said that he saw a helicopter circle the building." Who? "He said that it appeared to be a US Military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is. And that he then saw a fireball going to the sky. "
April Gallop was working in the Pentagon's west side when it was hit. And did not see the plane hit, unlike all of the witnesses in the link above.
In Jim Marrs' book Inside Job, April claims... Marrs is a professional conspiracy theory author. "While in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once."
25:25
So if a Boeing 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then what did? Assumption. Eyewitnesses inside and outside the building were thrown to the ground by what they described as a shockwave. And how is this is inconsistent with a 757 traveling at 530 mph?
Even the Sheraton Hotel, 1.6 Miles away, was rocked by the blast. Of course it was. A number of military personnel at the Pentagon specifically mentioned smelling cordite.
Cordite and jet fuel have two very distinct smells. Cordite is a compound used in ammunition, which is comprised of nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin. It is cool-burning, produces little smoke and no flash, but produces a strong detonation wave. "No flash" is incorrect. As for the rest, that is why cordite is used as a naval gun propellant, not as a payload explosive. (Thanks Mark) And, eyewitnesses described a bright, silvery flash.
Jet fuel combustion, i.e. the planes that struck the Twin Towers, is bright yellow at best.
Watch this. [Another video of test airliner crash]
A massive smouldering fireball, no silvery flash, [Just like at the Pentagon] no shockwave. No shockwave? How does he know that? It's a VIDEO of a test crash. And at the Pentagon, a tiny bright silvery flash, which shakes nearby buildings.
27:01
Whatever it was, it might have been related to the two planes that were in the air after the crash. Speculation. You have no evidence whatsoever that this might have been so. The first one was uniformly identified as a C-130.
The second plane was an unmarked white plane flying over Washington DC. Did you ask anyone who would know, about that plane? How do you know it was unmarked?
"Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park directly across from the White House, perhaps about 200 yards from the White House residence itself. About 10 minutes ago there was a white jet circling overhead. "
"Now you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House, that is restricted airspace. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we can tell.
28:01
At 9:25, Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, initiated a national ground stop, which prevents further takeoffs and requires all planes in the air to land.
28:29
And finally, why did people keep reporting a second explosion at the Pentagon?
Where did this fireball come from?
Instead, they released 5 frames from a camera across the heliport, even though none of them show a 757. Because of the slow frame rate of the camera.
And finally, why do satellite photos taken 4 days before 9/11 show a white marking on the front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon 4 days later?
Here's the animation for statement 333.
Anyway, why would a path be necessary if it was a Tomahawk cruise missile that did the damage?
Or was it an anti-tank missile?
Or an A-3 Skywarrior?
Or an 8-to-20-passenger plane?
Or a military helicopter?
Or two mysterious planes overhead?
Or a cordite bomb?
29:55
And is it merely a coincidence that the Pentagon was hit in the only section that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack,
30:03
And that Donald Rumsfeld was safe in his office on the opposite end of the building?
30:42
9:59. New York City, New York. The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses to the ground in approximately 10 seconds.
Official explanation? Falling debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire, The NIST report on WTC 7 isn't out yet. Real investigations take time. Which ignited several fuel tanks inside the building. Why not show the building when smoke was pouring from nearly every floor? If this is true, then it would be the third building in history to collapse because of a fire.
31:56
On July 28th, 1945, a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Narrator says B-52, which is an 8-engine jet. 14 people dead, 1 million dollars in damage. But, the building stands intact to this day.
On February 14th, 1975, a three alarm fire broke out between in the 9th and 14th floors in the North Tower.
On May 4th, 1988, a 62 storey skyscraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 4 floors.
It did not collapse. Because firefighters fought the fire the whole time and put it out. On February 23rd, 1991, a 38 storey skyscraper in Philadelphia, built in 1973, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It did not collapse.
On October 17th, 2004, a 56 storey skyscraper in Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof. Guess what? It did not collapse. Fire was put out by military helicopters. No airliners hit, etc.
33:07
On February 12th, 2005, the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32 storey tower framed in steel reinforced concrete, burned for almost 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10 stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors of the building fell, the building itself did not collapse.
And yet on September 11th, 2001, two 110 storey skyscrapers, completed in 1973, burned for 56 minutes and 103 minutes respectively, over 4 floors, Evidence that they burned on 4 floors only? And did you notice that airliners hit them? Before collapsing completely to the ground. One might argue, that this was due to the construction of the World Trade Center. Or, one might make a much better argument that the buildings stood as long as they did because they were so well built. Let's look at, what was inside those buildings.
33:52
The Twin Towers were composed of 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, elevators, 43,600 windows, 60,000 tons of cooling equipment, and a 360-foot television antenna. The core of each tower was 87 by 133 feet, comprised of 47 [Steel] box columns 36 by 16 inches thick. Those are the outer dimensions. The columns were hollow.The North Tower was completed in 1970 standing at 1368 feet tall and the South Tower was completed in 1973 clocking in at 1362 feet tall, making them the tallest buildings in the world until the Sears Tower was completed in 1974. And to think... the government want have us believe that these massive structures were destroyed by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Nope, the government didn't say that. You did, straw man.
However, eyewitnesses, video footage and a little common sense quickly refutes that claim. I look forward to seeing your evidence. 34:57
The second plane hits the South Tower between the 78th and 82nd floors at 9:03 AM, barely hitting the southeast corner, the majority of the jet fuel exploding outside in a massive fireball.
Yet, this Tower collapses first, even though the North Tower was hit straight on,
35:26
And had already been burning for 18 minutes longer.
Several factors are involved here.
1) Because the south tower was struck closer to a corner, the forces on the damaged area may have been more uneven than in the north tower, which was struck head-on and fairly centered. We've seen how the top of the south tower tilted sharply towards its damaged side as it fell.
2) Flight 175 was traveling at approximately 550 mph when it struck the south tower,, far faster than flight 11 when it hit the north tower the additional kinetic energy it carried may have done more damage to structural members and fire protection.
3) The south tower was hit at a point much lower than the north, and had far more weight bearing on the damaged areas: in terms of square footage, the equivalent of the entire Chicago Citigroup Center (right) on top of a weakened, off-center base.
4) The fire protection on the south tower steel was only half as thick (3.4" or 2 cm) as the insulation in the north tower. Source (interesting side note to CTists; if skyscrapers can't be brought down by fire alone, why do they fireproof them?)
35:30
Galileio's Law of Falling Bodies calculates the time in which an object will travel a certain distance in complete freefall. Here goes the free-fall argument again. Distance (D) = 16.08 times Time in seconds squared.
The South Tower was 1362 feet (415 m) tall.
1362 = 16.08 times 84.70. Or, 9.2 seconds.
36:05
The Twin Towers came down in nearly freefall speed.
200,000 tons of steel shatters into sections no longer than a couple feet long.
425,000 cubic yards of concrete is pulverized into dust.
So what brought down the World Trade Center? Gravity. Let's ask the experts. Please. It's about time, isn't it? Van Romero. Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
Ten days later. "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."
36:48
Why would Romero change his mind so suddenly?
36:52
Hyman Brown. Civil Engineering Professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager.
" It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it... although the buildings were designed to withstand "a 150-year storm" and the impact of a Boeing 707,"
Kevin Ryan. Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel that was used in the World Trade Center,
In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology: "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119." This standard is for certifying entire building assemblies. Source (Thanks Mark)"The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications." Who are "we?""Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F."
Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. He didn't. You're making that up. Another example of dishonesty. "This story just does not add up." Why isn't there a single structural engineer who agrees with you? "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
Days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan was fired from his position. In the water testing department.
38:20
Not even the experts agree with each other.
"There were 2 explosions."
"Federal Agencies that were down there do believe that there was some sort of explosive device," Unidentified speaker. Who, in which agencies? "somewhere else besides the planes hitting."
"Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, "
39:35
"Albert Turi, he received word of the possibility of the secondary device" Possibility of "a" secondary device is what he actually said. "that is another bomb going off, he tried to get his men out as quickly as he could," Assumption. Most explosions in the world are not due to bombs. "but he said that there was another explosion which took place and then, an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the Towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building," Speculation "The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building." Speculation "There were two or three similar huge explosions and the building" Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "literally shook, it literally shook at the base of this building. First one and then the other, some say after secondary explosions. "
" ...big explosion happened, all of a sudden the elevator blew up, smoke, I dragged the guy out, his skin was hanging off," Unidentified speaker. Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "and I dragged him out and I helped him to the ambulance. We started coming down the stairs from the eighth floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "Just came out of the tunnel, and it blew." "The subway tunnel?" "Yeah. "
"So, tell us what's happening out there."
"We just witnessed some kind of secondary, follow up explosion on the World Trade Center number 2." "Secondary." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "We understand now there has been a secondary explosion on Tower 2." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?
40:58
"There was another major explosion. The building itself, literally the top of it came down sending smoke and debris everywhere." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?
"To me it sounded like, to me it sounded like an explosion..." Yes. I'm sure it did sound that way. Is there evidence of a bomb? "We heard a big explosion coming down." Yes. It did come down. Is there evidence of a bomb? "Everything it went black. Everything came down, glass started popping, people got hurt, stuff went on top of them," Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb? "and there was a big explosion, and everything got dark. Real dark like smoke." Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb?"The FBI is here as you can see, they had roped this area off, they were taking photographs and securing this area. Just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "Get out of the area. The second Tower is coming down."
"Did they tell you the second Tower is coming down?" "Yes, it's about to collapse." A reasonable assumption, considering what happened to WTC 2. "At 10:30 I tried to leave the building. As soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion." Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb?"And another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust. I ran inside the building, the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another 5 minutes we were covered again with more silt and more dust. And then a Fire Marshall came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."
"We just saw that as well, the second Tower, the only one that was standing, Tower number one just ah we saw some kind of explosion a lot of smoke come out of the top " Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "of the Tower, and then it collapsed down onto the streets below."
"David Lee, what can you tell us?"
"John, just seconds ago there was a huge explosion and it appears right now the second World Trade Tower has just collapsed." Yes. It made a lot of noise. Is there evidence of a bomb? One eyewitness was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, two and a half blocks from the South Tower, when he saw a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.
He saw about six of these flashes, accompanied by a crackling sound before the Tower collapsed.
A second explosion can be heard nine seconds after the crash. An explosion, or what sounded like an explosion. Is this surprising? "...sounded like some crash..." Again, how many of these people are reporting the same event(s)? we don't know.
43:31
So, what happened in the North Tower? Ask Willy Rodriguez.
Willy, a janitor who worked in the World Trade Center for 20 years was in sub level 1 when the North Tower was hit.
"And all of a sudden we heard boom! And I thought it was a generator that blew up in the basement. And I said to myself: Oh my God, I think that's the generator."
45:14
The windows in the lobby of the North Tower were blown out, and marble panels were blown off of the walls. Not surprising. Marble and glass aren't very flexible. This was brushed off as damage from a raging fireball that went barreling down the elevator shafts. Brushed off? How is describing an explosion, which many people described, brushing something off? However, the World Trade Center's core and elevator shafts were hermetically sealed, AKA, air-tight. Ridiculous. Geez, I wonder how people got in and out of the elevators? The fire could not possibly have had enough oxygen to travel 1,300 feet down, retaining enough energy to destroy the bottom 8 floors of the building.
On 9-11, New York City lost 343 firefighters at the World Trade Center. Since they were the ones inside the Towers before and as they collapsed, I'd say they've got a pretty good grasp on what happened. Speculation. How many surveyed the damage at the point of collapse? So, what does the FDNY think? First, we have this interview from the Naudet brothers' documentary.
"...what do we do? We made it outside, we made it about a block?" "We made it at least 2 blocks and we started running... Boom-boom-boom-boom. Floor by floor it started popping out. It was like, as if they had detonated?" "Yeah, detonated." "Take out the building. Boom-boom-boom-boom." Simile: "like" or "as if" they had detonated. "...all the way down, I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down. Could not..."
In these interviews, numerous members of Engine 7 describe explosions preceeding the collapses. How many? Not to mention the damage to the lobby of the North Tower. And?
"I heard a loud boom. And my first... I was, I was right at the desk there on the lefthand side when you come into Tower 1. And I walked out, you know I didn't go out I walked to where all the doorway, where the glass was broken, and I looked out and i've seen in the building across the street. I seen the shadow coming like the, I seen the shadow on a building across the street coming down. I wasn't expecting to see the damage that I saw in the lobby. And, and the people, the bodies, the burned people, the injured people, I really wasn't prepared for that. The lobby was about 6 storeys high and the lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded there." Simile."It's a... all the glass was taken out, there were 10 foot by 10 foot, a marble panels that were once walls that were loose from the wall of the Trade Center. I went around by the freight elevator and I could see it was just blown."
47:42 "30th floor. We hear another...explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"And at that time we heard a huge explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
Firefighter Louie Cacchioli told People Weekly: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.
"Battalion 3 to Dispatch, we've just had another explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"...Warren Street, because of the secondary explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"We've got numerous people covered with dust from the secondary explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"We got another explosion on the Tower, 10-13, 10-13." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"Tower 2 has had a major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse surrounding the entire area." Yes. The building did collapse.
"I was involved in the secondary, uh, explosion at Tower 1, Kay..." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
48:59
Chief Palmer had reached the fire on the 78th floor of the South Tower and devised a plan to put it out.
9:52 a.m., 13 minutes before collapse. "... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." That code means fatalities.
If the 78th floor was a raging inferno like the government would have us believe, then Palmer wouldn've got as far as he did
On August 12th, 2005 an additional 15 hours of radio transmissions and transcripts of interviews with firefighters Was finally released to the public.
49:40
Firefighters describe 2 events consistent with the controlled demolition:
Bright flashes from inside the building Could have been caused by electrical cables & boxes going. And a number of crackling sounds before the buildings collapsed.
50:27
The collapse of the World Trade Center was picked up by Columbia University's observatory in Palisades, New York. The South Tower registers at 2.1 earthquake. The North Tower registers at 2.3 earthquake. Won-Young Kim told Chris Bollyn that their seismographs pick up underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. That's nice. These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Mag. 1 and 2.
Converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage but not causing significant ground shaking.
51:11
Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Told the American Free Press that in the basements of the WTC, (Uh oh, another AFP article. Let's see if they get it right.) Where 47 central support columns connected to the bedrock, Hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after September 11th.
51:42
The highest temperature was in the east corner of the South Tower, where a temperature of 1377F was recorded. Hot enough to melt aluminum. The molten steel in the basement was more than double that temperature. Speculation that it's steel. Who measured that it was double the temperature? No one. Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center?
In all the videos of the collapses explosions can be seen bursting from the buildings 20 to 30 storeys below the demolition wave.
Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. And here.
You're probably asking, if there were bombs in the building, how would they get in there without anyone noticing?
There were a number of unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both the Twin Towers and building 7 were evacuated for 'security reasons'.
54:07
So who authorized all this?
Securacom, now known as Stratesec, is an electronic security company backed by Kuwait-American corporation, which provided security for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport, and from the early 1990s up to the day of 9-11, the World Trade Center...
54:58
Not even FEMA was allowed into Ground Zero.
Essentially, they blocked off a crime scene and destroyed all the evidence.
Guess who was allowed into the site? Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.
The demolition was conducted for no apparent reason, and drew numerous complains from the neighborhood. You're killing me here! Killing me! The site remains vacant to this day and a reason for the demolition has never been disclosed.
10:06 AM. Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Flight 93 was en route from New Jersey to California with 45 passengers,
"I wanna get quickly to Chris Chaniki he's a photographer with the Pittsburgh affiliate a Fox affiliate. He was back there just a couple minutes ago and Chris, I've seen the pictures, it looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground." Simile: "looks like". "Basically that's right, the only thing you can see from; where we were was a big gouge in the earth" "From where we were." he was not an investigator. "and some broken trees." Right. Because aircraft parts hit them. "You could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we can see there wasn't much left." That's right, from where they could see.
"Any large pieces of debris at all?"
"No, there was nothing. Nothing, that you can distinguish that a plane had crashed there. "
"You couldn't see anything. You just see dirt, ash and people walking around, broken trees." Broken trees? Might be a clue...
Wally Miller, a Somerset County coroner, told the Houston Chronicle "It looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky." Simile. And it certainly contradicts the photographer's report. The coroner got close.
In the Washington Post...
"It looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it." Simile And as for the passengers...
58:05
"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there."
"...No signs of any survivors at the site of the Nigerian plane crash" Nigeria? Is that where flight 93 is? "that is the word from the Red Cross, which has a representative on site. The first pictures of the crash scene show a large crater where the Boeing 737 broke into the small pieces. The plane crashed shortly after taking off from Lagos in a heavy storm. The flight was going to the Nigerian capital of Abuja and was believed to be carrying some senior Nigerian officials."
You ready for this? Cleveland.
Cleveland, apparently
At 11:43 on September 11th, WCPO, a local TV station in Cincinatti, Ohio, reported that two planes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to a bomb threat. United Airlines identified one of the planes as Flight 93.
Are you confused? No. Well, it gets better. It could hardly get worse. Check it out. I did. At approximately 10 AM, Cleveland Hopkins Airport was evacuated, amidst rumors that a hijacked plane was going to land. That was flight 1989. Passengers had to leave, but couldn't drive. They had to walk or hitchhike.
Buses weren't allowed to leave. People were sent home. According to Associated Press and local Ohio papers, one plane landed at approximately 10:45.
But Delta Airlines confirmed that their plane, Delta 1989, landed in Cleveland at 10:10.
Therefore, Flight 93 landed at Cleveland at approximately 10:45.
But a passenger from Delta 1989 describes "60 or so" passengers.
So, to sum up.
Delta 1989 landed at 10:10, was evacuated at 12:30, almost two and a half hours later, and 69 passengers were taken to FAA Headquarters. Flight 93 landed at 10:45 and evacuated within a half hour,
01:01:16
The question remains, what happened to the 200 or so passengers from Flight 93? All 44 people on flight 93 died. It's interesting to note that the combined total of all the passengers from all four flights is 198. Okay... Or 243. Depending on who you ask. I asked the guy at the newsstand, and he said it was 674. Whom did you ask? We may never know what really happened to Flight 93.
But we do know what didn't happen.
Somebody check Cleveland for that missing "C"
Whenever this evidence is presented to people, you'll usually get one of many different questions. Evidence? I'm sorry, did I miss something? The first one being, if different planes were used, what happened to the original ones? That's not the first question I thought of when I heard this tale. Unfortunately, we may never know what really happened. Funny, you seemed to know in the first version of "LC." But if we could examine the black boxes from the planes that were used, Black boxes were recovered from 77 and 93. We could prove that they weren't the original flights.
01:03:26
The 9-11 Commission says "The cvrs and fdrs from American 11 and United 175 were not found..." Yet, the FBI claims to have found the passport of Satam al-Suqami, which managed to fly out of his pocket, through the explosion and onto the streets of Manhattan below.
So, four different black boxes, made from the most resiliant materials known to man, were destroyed. Speculation. We don't know what happened to them. Yet, a passport, made from a fragile material known as paper, managed to survive?
Who writes this stuff? You do. Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, told CBS News that "It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders."
Turns out Ted's right. Nicholas Demasi, a firefighter who helped the recovery efforts claims in the book Behind the Scenes: Ground Zero, "At one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site. From what agency? Doesn't he know? And who assigned him? To search for the black boxes from the planes. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three."
I guess it all comes down to who you'd rather believe. I believe evidence. No evidence has been presented that the boxes were recovered. FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. And Donald Rumsfeld said the data on the cockpit voice recorder was unrecoverable. As for Flight 93, it was the only flight where the cockpit voice recorder was recovered. Hey, how'd that happen? And didn't you just say that the CVR of flight 77 was found? It was played for the families in April, 2002, but not before they signed an agreement saying that they wouldn't talk about it.
Dylan Avery and other "Truth Seekers" dispute this statement.
They couldn't even take notes. But the transcript has been released.
01:05:01
And for some reason, the last three minutes of the tape was unaccounted for.
The FBI had no explanation for the discrepancy. Why would the 9-11 Commission tell us Flight 11 and 175's recorders weren't found?
It's an interesting postscript that Flight 93 was spotted on April 10th, 2003 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport,
01:06:08
Next. What about the cell phone calls?
Most of them are only a couple sentences long, before the callers end the conversation, only to call back later. Huh. That's terrible phone etiquette.
01:06:22
Flight Attendant Betty Ong allegedly placed a call from Flight 11. Allegedly, huh?
According to the 9-11 Commission, although the conversation lasted 23 minutes, only 4 and a half minutes was recorded.
"And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there's somebody stabbed in business class. And there's... We can't breathe in business class. Somebody's got mace or something. Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can't even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is... Okay, and do we... and our number 5 -our first class passengers are - galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can't get into the cockpit, the door won't open." Does Ms. Ong sound like a woman on a hijacked plane who just saw three people murdered?
Why is nobody in the background screaming?
01:07:24
Flight attendant Madeline Sweeney allegedly talked with her ground manager Michael Woodward for 25 minutes. Allegedly? Michael Woodward says "actually."
She describes 4 hijackers. The FBI says there were 5. Hmm. Could be a mistake made in the heat of the moment. She says the hijackers were in rows 9 and 10. The FAA says there were all in row 8.
Near the end, she screams, "I see buildings. Water. Oh my God!"
Madeline was a flight attendant out of Boston for 12 years. I think she would have recognized Manhattan. No comment.
A man claiming to be Mark Bingham called his mother, Alice, who was visiting his sister-in-law. "Claiming to be." His mother certainly says it was him.
The caller says, "Mom? This is Mark Bingham." When was the last time you called your mother and used your full name? What an effing creep you are, Dylan Avery. "I just want to tell you that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys on board and they have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the Airfone," and then "You believe me, don't you, Mom?"
"Yes Mark, I believe you, who are these guys?"
Then he was interrupted by someone who was speaking in a low-toned male voice, speaking what sounded like English. After 30 seconds of muffled sounds, the caller repeats "I'm calling you with an Airfone." Loose Change says this technology didn't exist in 2001.
His mother asks him again, "Who are these guys?"
After another pause he returns and asks again, "You believe me, don't you, Mom?"
There was another pause, and the phone just trailed off.
To date, none of the calls, except for Betty Ong's call to American Airlines, has been released to the public.
But to be honest, none of that matters.
In an experiment called Project Achilles, he took a series of cell phones onto a Cessna 172
Don't believe me? Even American Airlines has put their foot in the government's mouth.
Why would American Airlines spend thousands of dollars on this technology in 2004 Because it had become reliable and cost-effective, and the demand was there. When cell phones worked so well on September 11th, 2001?
Another example was Colin Powell saying, "I am being treated well by my captors." With just a 10-minute recording of somebody's voice, they are able, in almost real time, to clone someone's speech. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy.
The following is a the text of a pamphlet I handed out at the premiere of the film "United 93" on April 25, 2006. The creators of "Loose Change were there to gain publicity and protest the official "lie" that the passengers of flight 93 fought for their lives.
01:10:38
So what about the hijackers?
In the same article, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that "the identity of several of the hijackers is in doubt."
01:11:09
So how many hijackers turned up alive? At least 9 of them.
Mohand Alshehri is alive in Saudi Arabia. Evidence that it's not just a guy with the same name?
Khalid Almihdhar is a computer programmer in Mecca. Almihdhar the hijacker was a known, experienced Islamic militant and Al Qaeda member. Source
Salem Alhazmi works at a chemical plant in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. Alhamzi the hijacker was a known, experienced islamic militant and Al Qaeda member. Source
Saeed Alghamdi is training to be a pilot in Tunis. Der Spiegel investigated this particular claim, and found that it appeared to be a case of mistaken identity. Source
Ahmed Alnami is an administrative supervisor for Saudi Airlines. Again, that's just a guy with the same name. The hijacker Alnami went missing from his family in December, 2000. Source
We already covered Waleed and Abdulaziz. And last but not least, Mohammed Atta's father claimed to receive a phone call from his son on September 12th.
Oh, that's right. The Bin Laden confession tape.
According to the FBI's website, Osama is left-handed.
Until the government can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Al-Qaeda was behind September 11th,
01:14:09
First, we have Larry Silverstein, the man who purchased the World Trade Center in July, 2001.
According to the San Fransisco Chronicle, more than $2.5 Million dollars has remained unclaimed.
01:15:33
"One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center."
In 1993 the value of the gold was estimated at one billion dollars, rumored to be owned by Kuwaiti interests. 1993? When the World Trade Center was destroyed, the amount of gold "far exceeded the 1993 levels."
There's gold in them thar dump trucks!
Rumor has it that over $160 billion dollars in gold were stored in the World Trade Center.
01:16:45 --> 01:16:50
As workers got closer to the gold, authorities began restricting access to Ground Zero, Well, restricting access to the vaults, anyway. Joined by FBI and Secret Service agents. Yup. One worker who was directed away from the tunnel told a reporter, "If I tried to go down there, they would have shot me." Chicken. Heavy-machinery operators and others worked under the watchful eye of more than 100 armed officers. I would expect so.
So, let me get this straight.
01:17:35
After September 11th, President Bush had and continues to have permission to do and say whatever he wants,
The Patriot Act.
The Department of Homeland Security.
Afghanistan.
Iraq.
A lie which killed thousands of people, only in turn killing hundreds of thousands more, to make billions upon trillions of dollars.
And harassed by both the government and media alike, for even daring to question the official story.
"to convince people here in New York and elsewhere that 9-11 was a self-inflicted wound. "
"Jimmy, welcome. Why are you doing this?"
"Thanks for having me, Geraldo. I'm doing this because a fool and his money are soon parted. I'm a patriot trying to defend this country from the real terrorists,"
But by a group of tyrans [sic], ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep their stranglehold on this country.
01:19:20
So what are we going to do about it?
It's up to you.
Ask questions. Demand answers.
1) The Pod/missile/flash being removed from the [sic]
2) The B-52 error
3) Where the passengers are. I wish I knew, but I do not, and have nothing but theories."
The following section includes
Appendix A: Internet Resources
Appendix B: Summary of LC2E errors
Appendix C: 9/11 Air Defense Response
Appendix D: Excerpts from the PNAC "Pearl Harbor" report
Appendix E: Changes from LC first edition
I became aware of 9/11 conspiracy issues and of "Loose Change" by reading a forum for critical thinkers and debunkers of the ridiculous on the James Randi Educational Foundation website. There is a lively, informative discussion of 9/11 conspiracy issues there, and unlike the "Loose Change" forum, you won't be banned for disagreeing. Just be sure you've done your homework, because the JREFers have done theirs.
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Government Reports
9-11 Commission Report
NIST Report WTC
FEMA WTC Report Chapter 1
FEMA WTC 1 & 2
FEMA WTC 4,5,6
FEMA WTC 7 Report
NIST Report Fire & WTC Structural Steel
NIST WTC Public Briefing
NIST WTC Materials Testing Videos and Computer Simulations
General 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking Sites
9-11 Myths...Reading Between the Lies
Popular Mechanics: Debunking the Myths
9-11 Conspiracy Smasher
Refuting 9-11 Conspiracy Theories
9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction
Controlled Demolition? Think Again.
Wikipedia's 9/11 links
General 9-11 Engineering Issues (not too technical)
PBS Nova Online: Why the towers fell
BBC Horizon WTC Program with Transcript
WTC Collapse: JOM Article
How Building Implosions Work
Collection of MIT Articles About 9-11
A Few Eyewitness and Victim Stories, Remains & Debris Identification
Flight 77 Eyewitness Accounts
Flight 93: 40 Lives, One Destiny
Flight 93 Personal Effects Returned
DNA & 9-11
Flight 77 & Pentagon DNA Analysis
WTC & Pentagon Aircraft Debris Photos
FEMA NYC attack photos
Articles That Are More Technical
Forensics - Physical Constants of Materials
MIT WTC Materials & Structures Analysis
JOM analysis of WTC Steel
9-11 The Technical Side (CAD Digest)
9-11 WTC (CAD Digest)
Frank Greening's WTC Collapse Report
Addendum to Greening's WTC Report: Energy Transfer
Frank Greening's questons about NIST Report
Terrorism & 9/11
Terror Warnings Timeline (CT Slant)
FBI Statement on Hijackers' Activities
Killtown's Hijacking, Aircraft, & Phone Calls page (CT slant)
Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25
Total flubs: 426
On September 11, 2001 the normal contingent of 14 fighters was on alert to protect the United States. Four of those were responsible for the northeast: two at Otis ANGB on Cape Cod and two at Langley AFB in southern Virginia. Before 9/11 NORAD was responsible for intruders heading to the U.S and Canada from outside our borders, not from within. Air Force planes were available for internal intecepts but did not take a proactive role: the FAA would have to request them to scramble if needed. NORAD and the FAA did run hijacking exercises that involved planes coming from outside the U.S., but as far as I know they did not plan for simultaneous multiple-plane hijackings , or for hijackings starting within the U.S.
From the 9/11 Commission report:
Would the hijacked planes be easy to find? No. The hijackers turned off the planes' identifying transponders, so that Air Traffic Control would have to sort them out from a few thousand radar blips on screen in the northeast. And NORAD's radar system mostly looked outward from the coast, not inward.
On 9/11 the U.S. air defense system was not "engaged in as many as 15 war games simulating hijacks and attacks." There is specifically no record of hijacking drills being performed. The only military radar "clutter" was on NORAD screens in Colorado, and was eliminated as soon as the real-world alert was issued. Source
Here is NORAD's timeline of events:
As for the FAA's culpability, the 9/11 Commission report does say the FAA did not follow proper procedure for notifying the military:
And:
So, confusion? Absolutely. Major problems that needed fixing? You bet. Evidence of conspiracy? None.
REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000
ABOUT THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a nonprofit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project. William Kristol is chairman of the Project, and Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson and John R. Bolton serve as directors. Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape anew century favorable to American principles and interests?"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities." Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20thcentury should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught gusto embrace the cause of American leadership."
- From the Project's founding Statement of Principles
PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY____
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 293-4983 / Fax: (202) 293-4572
Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in defense spending have eroded the American military's combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon's plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has found itself undermanned, inadequately equipped and trained, straining to handle contingency operations, and ill-prepared to adapt itself to the revolution in military affairs. Without a well-conceived defense policy and an appropriate increase in defense spending, the United States has been letting its ability to take full advantage of the remarkable strategic opportunity at hand slipway.
With this in mind, we began a project in the spring of 1998 to examine the country's defense plans and resource requirements. We started from the premise that U.S. military capabilities should be sufficient to support an American grand strategy committed to building upon this unprecedented opportunity. We did not accept pre-ordained constraints that followed from assumptions about what the country might or might not be willing to expend on its defenses.
[Goals]
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
¥ Defend the American homeland;
¥ fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
¥ perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
¥ transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs;" To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today's force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the "Base Force" outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
Permanently based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey "tilt-rotor" aircraft for the Marine Corps.
CANCEL "ROADBLOCK" PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,
and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding
while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of
space control.
EXPLOIT THE "REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS" to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
¥ maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
¥ produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
I
NCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross
domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.
...
In sum, the 1990s have been a "decade
of defense neglect."
...
Four Essential Missions
HOMELAND DEFENSE.
America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War,
nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the
new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the
United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and
weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action
by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current
missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
LARGE WARS.
Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly
deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to
unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces.
This resembles the "two-war" standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over
the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and
potential new conflicts.
CONSTABULARY DUTIES.
Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade's experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today's most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.
TRANSFORM U.S. ARMED FORCES.
Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called "revolution in military affairs," sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets.
Transformation Forces
The fourth element in American force posture - and certainly the one, which holds the key to any longer-term hopes to extend the current Pax Americana - is the mission to transform U.S. military forces to meet new geopolitical and technological challenges. While the prime directive for transformation will be to design and deploy global missile defense system, the effects of information and other advanced technologies promise to revolutionize the nature of conventional armed forces. Moreover, themed to create weapons systems optimized for operations in the Pacific theater will create requirements quite distinct from the current generation of systems designed for warfare on the European continent and those new systems like the F-22 fighter that also were developed to meet late-Cold-War needs.
Although the basic concept for a system of global missile defenses capable of defending the United States and its allies against the threat of smaller and simpler ballistic missiles has been well understood since the late 1980s, a decade has been squandered in developing the requisite technologies. In fact, work on the key elements of such a system, especially those that would operate in space, has either been so slowed or halted completely, so that the process of deploying robust missile defenses remains a long-term project. If for no other reason, the mission to create such a missile defense system should be considered a matter of military transformation.
As will be argued more fully below, effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of U.S. military forces abroad. Without it, weak states operating small arsenals of crude ballistic missiles, armed with basic nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction, will be a in a strong position to deter the United States from using conventional force, no matter the technological or other advantages we may enjoy. Even if such enemies are merely able to threaten American allies rather than the United States homeland itself, America's ability to project power will be deeply compromised. Alas, neither Administration strategists nor Pentagon force planners seem to have grasped this elemental point; certainly, efforts to fund, design and develop an effective system of missile defenses do not reflect any sense of urgency. Nonetheless, the first task in transforming U.S. military to meet the technological and strategic realities of a new century is to create such a system. Creating a system of global missile defenses is but the first task of transformation; the need to reshape U.S. conventional forces is almost as pressing. For, although American armed forces possess capabilities and enjoy advantages that far surpass those of even our richest and closest allies, let alone our declared and potential enemies, the combination of technological and strategic change that marks the new century places these advantages at risk. Today's U.S. conventional forces are masters of a mature paradigm of warfare, marked by the dominance of armored vehicles, aircraft carriers and, especially, manned tactical aircraft, that is beginning to be overtaken by a new paradigm, marked by long-range precision strikes and the proliferation of missile technologies. Ironically, it has been the United States that has pioneered this new form of high-technology conventional warfare: it was suggested by the 1991 Gulf War and has been revealed more fully by the operations of the past decade. Even the "Allied Force" air war for Kosovo showed a distorted version of the emerging paradigm of warfare.
Yet even these pioneering capabilities are the residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s; over the past decade the pace of innovation within the Pentagon has slowed measurably. In part, this is due to reduced defense budgets, the overwhelming dominance of U.S. forces today, and the multiplicity of constabulary missions. And without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation have lacked urgency. Nonetheless, a variety of new potential challenges can be clearly foreseen. The Chinese military, in particular, seeks to exploit the revolution in military affairs to offset American advantages in naval and air power, for example. If the United States is to retain the technological and tactical advantages it now enjoys in large-scale conventional conflicts, the effort at transformation must be considered as pressing a mission as preparing for today's potential theater wars or constabulary missions - indeed, it must receive a significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two
decades.
In addition, the process of transformation must proceed from an appreciation of American strategy and political goals. For example, as the leader of a global network of alliances and strategic partnerships, U.S. armed forces cannot retreat into a "Fortress America." Thus, while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers. To remain as the leader of a variety of coalitions, the United States must partake in the risks its allies face; security guarantees that depend solely upon power projected from the continental United States will inevitably become discounted. Moreover, the process of transformation should proceed in a spirit of competition among the services and between service and joint approaches. Inevitably, new technologies may create the need for entirely new military organizations; this report will argue below that the emergence of space as a key theater of war suggests forcefully that, in time, it may be wise to create a separate "space service." Thus far, the Defense Department has attempted to take a prematurely joint approach to transformation. While it is certain that new technologies will allow for the closer combination of traditional service capabilities, it is too early in the process of transformation to choke off what should be the healthy and competitive face of "interservice rivalry." Because the separate services are the military institutions most attuned to providing forces designed to carry out the specific missions required by U.S. strategy, they are in fact best equipped to become the engines of transformation and change within the context of enduring mission requirements.
Finally, it must be remembered that the process of transformation is indeed a process: even the most vivid view of the armed forces of the future must be grounded in an understanding of today's forces. In general terms, it seems likely that the process of transformation will take several decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more. Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The break point will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs - tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example - that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to
come.
..
Persian Gulf
In the decade since the end of the Cold War, the Persian Gulf and the surrounding region has witnessed a geometric increase in the presence of U.S. armed forces, peaking above 500,000 troops during Operation Desert Storm, but rarely falling below 20,000 in the intervening years. In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other neighboring states roughly 5,000 airmen and a large and varied fleet of Air Force aircraft patrol the skies of Operation Southern Watch, often complemented by Navy aircraft from carriers in the Gulf and, during the strikes reacting to Saddam Hussein's periodic provocations, cruise missiles from Navy surface vessels and submarines. Flights from Turkey under Northern Watch also involve substantial forces, and indeed more often result in combat actions.
After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. In addition to the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, the United States now also retains what amounts to a near-permanent land force presence in Kuwait. A substantial heavy task force with almost the strength of a brigade rotates four times a year on average for maneuvers and joint training with the Kuwaiti army, with the result that commanders now believe that, in conjunction with the Southern Watch fleet, Kuwait itself is strongly defended against any Iraqi attack. With a minor increase in strength, more permanent basing arrangements, and continued no fly and "no drive" zone enforcement, the danger of a repeat short-warning Iraqi invasion as in 1990 would be significantly reduced. With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed.
As recent strikes against Iraq demonstrate, the preferred weapon for punitive raids is the cruise missile, supplemented by stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft. Carrier aircraft are most useful in sustaining a campaign begun with missiles and stealth strike aircraft, indicating that a surface action group capable of launching several hundred cruise missiles is the most valuable naval presence in the Gulf. With a substantial permanent Army ground presence in Kuwait, the demands for Marine presence in the Gulf could be scaled back as well.
...
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence. The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm, that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present opportunities for America's adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.
In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow's U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:
¥ Global missile defenses.
A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and space based components.
¥ Control of space and cyberspace.
Much as control of the high seas - and the protection of international commerce - defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new "international commons" be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the "info sphere" will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.
¥ Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces.
In exploiting the "revolution in military affairs," the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions.
Missile Defenses Ever since the Persian Gulf War of 1991, when an Iraqi Scud missile hit a Saudi warehouse in which American soldiers were sleeping, causing the largest single number of casualties in the war; when Israeli and Saudi citizens donned gas masks in nightly terror of Scud attacks; and when the great "Scud Hunt" proved to be an elusive game that absorbed a huge proportion of U.S. aircraft, the value of the ballistic missile has been clear to America's adversaries. When their missiles are tipped with warheads carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, even weak regional powers have a credible deterrent, regardless of the balance of conventional forces. That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America - North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria - "already have or are developing ballistic missiles" that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad. And one, North Korea, is on the verge of deploying missiles that can hit the American homeland. Such capabilities pose a grave challenge to the American peace and the military power that preserves that peace.
The ability to control this emerging threat through traditional nonproliferation treaties is limited when the geopolitical and strategic advantages of such weapons are so apparent and so readily acquired. The Clinton Administration's diplomacy, threats and pleadings did nothing to prevent first India and shortly thereafter Pakistan from demonstrating their nuclear capabilities. Nor have formal international agreements such as the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime done much to stem missile proliferation, even when backed by U.S. sanctions; in the final analysis, the administration has preferred to subordinate its nonproliferation policy to larger regional and country-specific goals. Thus, President Clinton lamented in June 1998 that he found sanctions legislation so inflexible that he was forced to "fudge" the intelligence evidence on China's transfer of ballistic missiles to Pakistan to avoid the legal requirements to impose sanctions on Beijing.
At the same time, the administration's devotion to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union has frustrated development of useful ballistic missile defenses. This is reflected in deep budget cuts - planned spending on missile defenses for the late 1990s has been more than halved, halting work on space-based interceptors, cutting funds for a national missile defense system by 80 percent and theater defenses by 30 percent. Further, the administration has cut funding just at the crucial moments when individual programs begin to show promise. Only upgrades of currently existing systems like the Patriot missile - originally designed primarily for air defense against jet fighters, not missile defense - have proceeded generally on course.
Most damaging of all was the decision in 1993 to terminate the "Brilliant Pebbles" project. This legacy of the original Reagan era "Star Wars" effort had matured to the point where it was becoming feasible to develop a space-based interceptor capable of destroying ballistic missiles in the early or middle portion of their flight - far preferable than attempting to hit individual warheads surrounded by clusters of decoys on their final course toward their targets. But since a space-based system would violate the ABM Treaty, the administration killed the "Brilliant Pebbles" program, choosing instead to proceed with a ground-based interceptor and radar system - one that will be costly without being especially effective.
While there is an argument to be made for "terminal" ground-based interceptors as an element in a larger architecture of missile defenses, it deserves the lowest rather than the first priority. The first element in any missile defense network should be a galaxy of surveillance satellites with sensors capable of acquiring enemy ballistic missiles immediately upon launch. Once a missile is tracked and targeted, this information needs to be instantly disseminated through a world-wide command-and-control system, including direct links to interceptors. To address the special problems of theater range ballistic missiles, theater-level defenses should be layered as well. In addition to space-based systems, these theater systems should include both land and sea-based interceptors, to allow for deployment to trouble spots to reinforce theater systems already in place or to cover gaps where no defenses exist. In addition, they should be "two-tiered," providing close-in "point defense" of valuable targets and forces as well as upper-level, "theater wide" coverage.
Current programs could provide the necessary density for a layered approach to theater missile defense, although funding for each component has been inadequate, especially for the upper-tier, sea based effort, known as the Navy Theater-Wide program. Point defense is to be provided by the Patriot Advanced Capability, Level 3, or PAC-3 version of the Patriot air defense missile and by the Navy Area Defense system, likewise an upgrade of the current Standard air defense missile and the Aegis radar system. Both systems are on the verge of being deployed.
These lower-tier defenses, though they will be capable of providing protection against the basic Scuds and Scud variants that comprise the arsenals of most American adversaries today, are less effective against longer-range, higher-velocity missiles that several states have under development. Moreover, they will be less effective against missiles with more complex warheads or those that break apart, as many Iraqi modified Scuds did during the Gulf War. And finally, point defenses, even when they successfully intercept an incoming missile, may not offset the effects against weapons of mass destruction.
Thus the requirement for upper-tier, theater-wide defenses like the Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Navy Theater-Wide systems. Though housed in a Patriot-like launcher, THAAD is an entirely new system designed to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles earlier in their flight, in the so-called "mid-course." The Navy Theater- Wide system is based upon the Aegis system, with an upgraded radar and higher velocity - though intentionally slowed down to meet administration concerns over violating the ABM Treaty - version of the Standard missile. The THAAD system has enjoyed recent test success, but development of the Navy Theater-Wide system has been hampered by lack of funds.
Similarly, a fifth component of a theater-wide network of ballistic missile defenses, the Air Force's airborne laser project, has suffered from insufficient funding. This system, which mounts a high energy laser in a 747 aircraft, is designed to intercept theater ballistic missiles in their earliest, or "boost" phase, when they are most vulnerable. To maximize their effectiveness, these theater-level interceptors should receive continuous targeting information directly from a global constellation of satellites carrying infrared sensors capable of detecting ballistic missile launches as they happen.
The low-earth-orbit tier of the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS Low), now under development by the Air Force, will provide continuous observations of ballistic missiles in the boost, midcourse and reentry phases of attack. Current missile tracking radars can see objects only above the horizon and must be placed in friendly territory; consequently, they are most effective only in the later phases of a ballistic missile's flight. SBIRS Low, however, can see a hostile missile earlier in its trajectory, increasing times for interception and multiplying the effectiveness of theater-range interceptors by cueing their radars with targeting data. It will also provide precise launch-point information, allowing theater forces a better chance to destroy hostile launchers before more missiles can be fired.
There is also a SBIRS High project, but both SBIRS programs have suffered budget cuts that are to delay their deployments by two years. But to be most effective, this array global reconnaissance and targeting satellites should be linked to a global network of space-based interceptors (or space-based lasers). In fact, it is misleading to think of such a system as a "national" missile defense system, for it would be a vital element in theater defenses, protecting U.S. allies or expeditionary forces abroad from longer-range theater weapons. This is why the Bush Administration's missile defense architecture, which is almost identical to the network described above, was called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS).
By contrast, the Clinton Administration's plan to develop limited national missile defenses based upon Minuteman III missiles fitted with a so-called "exoatmospheric kill vehicle" is the most technologically challenging, most expensive, and least effective form of long range ballistic missile defense. Indeed, the Clinton Administration's differentiation between theater and national missile defense systems is yet another legacy of the ABM Treaty, one that does not fit the current strategic circumstances. Moreover, by differentiating between national and theater defenses, current plans drive a wedge between the United States and its allies, and risk "decoupling." Conversely, American interests will diverge from those of our allies if theater defenses can protect our friends and forces abroad, but the American people at home remain threatened.
In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. Projecting conventional military forces or simply asserting political influence abroad, particularly in times of crisis, will be far more complex and constrained when the American homeland or the territory of our allies is subject to attack by otherwise weak rogue regimes capable of cobbling together a miniscule ballistic missile force. Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence.
Space and Cyberspace
No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space. Although this would appear to be creating a potential new theater of warfare, in fact space has been militarized for the better part of four decades. Weather, communications, navigation and reconnaissance satellites are increasingly essential elements in American military power. Indeed, U.S. armed forces are uniquely dependent upon space. As the 1996 Joint Strategy Review, a precursor to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, concluded, "Space is already inextricably linked to military operations on land, on the sea, and in the air." The report of the National Defense Panel agreed: "Unrestricted use of space has become a major strategic interest of the United
States."
Given the advantages U.S. armed forces enjoy as a result of this unrestricted use of space, it is shortsighted to expect potential adversaries to refrain from attempting to offset to disable or offset U.S. space capabilities. And with the proliferation of space know-how and related technology around the world, our adversaries will inevitably seek to enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future. Moreover, "space commerce" is a growing part of the global economy. In 1996, commercial launches exceeded military launches in the United States, and commercial revenues exceeded government expenditures on space. Today, more than 1,100 commercial companies across more than 50 countries are developing, building, and operating space systems.
Many of these commercial space systems have direct military applications, including information from global positioning system constellations and better than- one-meter resolution imaging satellites. Indeed, 95 percent of current U.S. military communications are carried over commercial circuits, including commercial communications satellites.
The U.S. Space Command foresees that in the coming decades, an adversary will have sophisticated regional situational awareness. Enemies may very well know, in near real time, the disposition of all forces....In fact, national military forces, paramilitary units, terrorists, and any other potential adversaries will share the high ground of space with the United States and its allies. Adversaries may also share the same commercial satellite services for communications, imagery, and navigation....The space "playing field" is leveling rapidly, so U.S. forces will be increasingly vulnerable. Though adversaries will benefit greatly from space, losing the use of space may be more devastating to the United States. It would be intolerable for U.S. forces...to be deprived of capabilities in space.
In short, the unequivocal supremacy in space enjoyed by the United States today will be increasingly at risk. As Colin Gray and John Sheldon have written, "Space control is not an avoidable issue. It is not an optional extra." For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space - defined by Space Command as "the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space" - must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised.
The complexity of space control will only grow as commercial activity increases. American and other allied investments in space systems will create a requirement to secure and protect these space assets; they are already an important measure of American power. Yet it will not merely be enough to protect friendly commercial uses of space. As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely to become the new "international commons," where commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. Just as Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote about "sea-power" at the beginning of the 20th century in this sense, American strategists will be forced to regard "space-power" in the 21st.
To ensure America's control of space in the near term, the minimum requirements are to develop a robust capability to transport systems to space, carry on operations once there, and service and recover space systems as needed. As outlined by Space Command, carrying out this program would include a mix of reusable and expendable launch vehicles and vehicles that can operate within space, including "space tugs to deploy, reconstitute, replenish, refurbish, augment, and sustain" space systems. But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses and defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or air force, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the "Department of Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force enhancement, space control and force application." (Emphasis added.)
In sum, the ability to preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the ability to operate in space militarily; both the requirements for effective global missile defenses and projecting global conventional military power demand it. Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor past U.S. defense reviews have established a coherent policy and program for achieving this goal.
Ends and Means of Space Control
As with defense spending more broadly, the state of U.S. "space forces" - the systems required to ensure continued access and eventual control of space - has deteriorated over the past decade, and few new initiatives or programs are on the immediate horizon. The U.S. approach to space has been one of dilatory drift. As Gen. Richard Myers, commander-in-chief of SPACECOM, put it, "Our Cold War-era capabilities have atrophied," even though those capabilities are still important today. And while Space Command has a clear vision of what must be done in space, it speaks equally clearly about "the question of resources." As the command succinctly notes its long-range plan: "When we match the reality of space dependence against resource trends, we find a problem."
But in addition to the problem of lack of resources, there is an institutional problem. Indeed, some of the difficulties in maintaining U.S. military space supremacy result from the bureaucratic "black hole" that prevents the SPACECOM vision from gaining the support required to carry it out. For one, U.S. military space planning remains linked to the ups and downs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. America's difficulties in reducing the cost of space launches - perhaps the single biggest hurdle to improving U.S. space capabilities overall - result in part from the requirements and dominance of NASA programs over the past several decades, most notably the space shuttle program.
Secondly, within the national security bureaucracy, the majority of space investment decisions are made by the National Reconnaissance Office and the Air Force, neither of which considers military operations outside the earth's atmosphere as a primary mission. And there is no question that in an era of tightened budgets, investments in space-control capabilities have suffered for lack of institutional support and have been squeezed out by these organization's other priorities. Although, under the Goldwater-Nichols reforms of the mid-1980s, the unified commanders - of which SPACECOM is one - have a greater say in Pentagon programming and budgeting, these powers remain secondary to the traditional "raise and- train" powers of the separate services.
Therefore, over the long haul, it will be necessary to unite the essential elements of the current SPACECOM vision to the resource-allocation and institution-building responsibilities of a military service. In addition, it is almost certain that the conduct of warfare in outer space will differ as much from traditional air warfare as air warfare has from warfare at sea or on land; space warfare will demand new organizations, operational strategies, doctrines and training schemes. Thus, the argument to replace U.S. Space Command with U.S. Space Forces - a separate service under the Defense Department - is compelling. While it is conceivable that, as military space capabilities develop, a transitory "Space Corps" under the Department of the Air Force might make sense, it ought to be regarded as an intermediary step, analogous to the World War II-era Army Air Corps, not to the Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Navy Department. If space control is an essential element for maintaining American military preeminence in the decades to come, then it will be imperative to reorganize the Department of Defense to ensure that its institutional structure reflects new military realities.
Cyberspace, or 'Net-War'
If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then "cyberspace," and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new "global commons."
The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict. From the early use of the Internet by Zapatista insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo, communication by computer has added a new dimension to warfare. Moreover, the use of the Internet to spread computer viruses reveals how easy it can be to disrupt the normal functioning of commercial and even military computer networks. Any nation which cannot assure the free and secure access of its citizens to these systems will sacrifice an element of its sovereignty and its power.
Although many concepts of "cyber-war" have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing "control," or even what "security" on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.
Taken together, the prospects for space war or "cyberspace war" represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the U.S. armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance.
CONCLUSION
In its simplest terms, our intent is to provide forces sufficient to meet today's missions as effectively and efficiently as possible, while readying U.S. armed forces for the likely new missions of the future. Thus, the defense program described above would preserve current force structure while improving its readiness, better posturing it for its current missions, and making selected investments in modernization.
At the same time, we would shift the weight of defense recapitalization efforts to transforming U.S. forces for the decades to come. At four cents on the dollar of America's national wealth, this is an affordable program. It is also a wise program. Only such a force posture, service structure and level of defense spending will provide America and its leaders with a variety of forces to meet the strategic demands of the world's sole superpower.
Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures. This is the choice we face. It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.
(LC 2E is longer than the first version.)
Note that in the first version of "Loose Change," it is accepted that flight 93 crashed in PA. Dylan Avery even used "Let's Roll" as the last line of the first version, and he included several eyewitness reports of the plane going down. What made him change his mind?
00:00:52
8:46 A.M. New York City, New York
00:00:52
American Airlines Flight 11 is allegedly flown into North Tower
by Mohammed Atta
00:00:58
This is the widely known video of the attack
shot by Jules Naudet
00:01:03
At face value it may not look like much, however
upon closer inspection
00:01:11
In case you've missed it
00:01:16
one more time
00:01:25
if you look closely, you'll notice
that the shadow of a plane
00:01:28
meets the building after the flash occurs
00:01:31
this means that the flash is not the
fuselage colliding with the building
00:01:34
but rather - separate event
00:01:37
not to mention that the flash is
twice as wide as fuselage itself
00:01:43
within minutes of the attack
00:01:44
newsteams from all over the city had their
cameras trained on the World Trade Center
00:01:48
therefore, the second impact was covered
by almost every conceivable angle
00:01:54
this footage was shot by CNN
00:01:56
on the under side of the fuselage
an extra piece of the equipment is visible
00:02:07
when questioned about this, Boeing representatives
refused to discuss it - due to national security
00:02:13
this is what the under side of the Boeing 757
should look like
00:02:20
the following footage was taken from the documentary
Why the Towers Fell
00:02:25
oh oh oh
00:02:27
bring it back
00:02:37
you catch that?
00:02:50
a missile is fired seconds before impact
00:02:54
skeptics claim that flash is the fuselage
colliding with the building
00:02:58
if that would've be the case, it would look like this
00:03:03
also, notice that the flash is reflected on the
fuselage of the plane
00:03:09
the flash is also present on the footage
taken by Edwin Fairbanks
00:03:16
Jennifer Spell
00:03:21
CNN
00:03:27
Al Quaeda certainly could not have had
this equipment at Logan international airport
00:03:32
and even if they did, the flight crew
would've noticed it
00:03:35
so where did this plane come from?
***
[Marcel Bernard, flight instructor]
00:09:17
And that was in the second week of August?
00:09:19
I believe so, I don't remember the exact dates, but
00:09:21
you know, couple months before 911
00:09:26
Certainly after the fact we found out they were
stayin at the hotel in Laurel, supposedly
00:09:30
Laurel, Maryland ?
00:09:31
Yeah. And some of the others who were involved
00:09:35
but he had come to us to get checked out
in the aeroplane
00:09:39
so we usually take him out to the practise area
and have him do a little airwork
00:09:45
and then, certainly come back to the airport and
00:09:47
and accomplish a bunch of takeoffs and landings
and that sort of thing and
00:09:53
sometimes we practise emergencies and those
kinds of things and
00:09:59
do those kinds of maneuvres, so we can find him
competent or be comfortable to rent him an aircraft
00:10:03
to satisfy the insurance requirements
00:10:06
In his case, he was....
having problems with the landing phase
00:10:11
How was he, when he was just behind the control
of the flying?
00:10:14
I've talked to both instructors
00:10:18
that flew with him
00:10:21
and consensus was , he was very quiet
00:10:25
average, or below average piloting skills
***
00:11:49
If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon at full speed
00:11:52
the wings would rip off outside
00:11:54
sending the fuselage inside the building.
00:12:00
Why is there absolutely no trace of the wings outside?
00:12:04
In fact, why are there no pieces
of the aircraft at all?
00:12:07
Not one seat cushion, engine, vertical stabiliser, nothing.
***
00:16:01
The third and final piece of an identifiable debris is a
wheel hub.
00:16:04
This particular wheel is made by BF Goodrich Aerospace Division.
00:16:10
They also manufacture the wheels for the 757.
00:16:13
But a wheel hub from the 757 has a much larger
radius to width ratio. [A Karl Schwarz argument]
00:16:19
This tyre is used for carrier based and general rear wheels of
smaller military planes, not commercial airliners.
00:16:27
No matter where this debris came from,
it did not come from 757, period.
***
00:19:51
Some people described the plane flying directly
over their car before slamming into the Pentagon.
00:20:05
This is what happens when a car gets too close
to the way of a commercial airliner.
00:20:11
These people shoul've been blown off the highway.
00:20:16
And a number of people described a plane flying
overhead almost immediately after the crash.
***
00:23:22
On August 5th 1970 a 50 storey office building
in New York burned for more than 6 hours.
00:23:27
It did not collapse.
***
00:28:10
"We tried to get some of the people out, then there was secondary explosions,
and the subsequent collapses, I don't know how many people were in there"
00:28:16
They also noted how the collapses looked exactly like
controlled demolition.
00:28:19
" One of those, almost looks like one of those
planned implosions "
00:28:24
" But of course, there was nothing planned. "
00:28:26
" The second building that was hit by the plane
has just completely collapsed. "
00:28:30
" The entire building has just collapsed, as if
a demolition team set off "
***
00:30:03
However, there is no soot, no fire, no fuel residue.
Instead, the entire lobby is coated with a fine dust,
00:30:10
which is the signature of high explosives.
00:30:15
Mike Pecoraro was working in a 6th sub-basement
of a North Tower when the first plane struck.
00:30:20
Mike and his friend ascended to the C level and
when they arrived, they found that the machine shop was gone.
00:30:25
They found nothing there, but rubble. We're talking about
a 50 ton hydraulic press. Gone.
00:30:30
They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air.
"You could stand here, and 2 inches over you couldn't breathe."
00:30:38
The two made their way to the parking garage,
but found that it, too, was gone.
00:30:41
There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor,
and you couldn't see anything.
00:30:45
They went up 2 more levels to the building's lobby.
As they reached the B level,
00:30:48
they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed
about 300 pounds, wrinkled up like a piece of aluminium foil on the floor.
00:30:57
The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors
were missing. The marble was missing some of the walls.
00:31:02
The west windows were all gone. Broken glass everywhere, the
revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone.
00:31:08
Every sprinkler head was going off.
00:31:11
Could an explosion 90 floors above cause a uniform damage
to the lobby and sub-basements of the North Tower?
****
00:32:44
" It's a... all glass was taken out, there were
10 foot by 10 foot "
00:32:49
" a marble panels that were once walls "
00:32:55
" that were loose from a World Trade Center "
00:32:58
" I went around by the freight elevator and I can see which is blown. "
***
00:40:03
You're probably asking: If there were bombs in the building,
how would they get in there without anyone noticing it?
00:40:09
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World
Trade Center
00:40:12
told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were
numerous unannounced and unusual drills
00:40:18
where sections of both the Twin Towers and building 7
were evacuated for 'security reasons'.
00:40:25
Scott Forbes, an employee that worked for Fiduciary Trust
in the South Tower
00:40:29
told Victor Thorn at WingTV that his company was given 3 weeks
advanced notice
00:40:33
that New York's Port Authority would take out power in the
South Tower from the 48th floor up.
00:40:37
The reason given was that the Port Authority was performing a
cabling upgrade to increase WTC's computer bandwidth.
00:40:43
Forbes stated that a 'power-down' had never been initiated
prior to this occasion.
00:40:48
As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC's security
cameras were rendered inopperative
00:40:53
as were its ID systems and elevators to the upper floors.
00:40:56
There were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who
had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out.
00:41:04
Also, video cameras on top of the WTC, which were used to feed
daily images to local TV stations were strangely inoperative on 9/11.
***
00:42:37
10:06 A.M. Shanksville, Pennsylvania
00:42:42
Flight 93 was on route from New Jersey to California
00:42:46
with 45 passengers. When it went off course at 8:56
at north east of Ohio.
00:42:52
According to the official story, a group of passengers led by
Tod Beamer's cryout: Let's roll!
00:42:57
overpowered the hijackers and forced the plane to the ground.
00:43:01
However, eyewittness testimony and physical evidence
paint a much different picture.
00:43:06
Let's start with the eyewittnesses.
00:43:08
Westmoreland County received a call at 9:58 from somebody
claiming to be aboard Flight 93.
00:43:14
He said he was locked in a bathroom and told dispatchers
that the plane was hijacked.
00:43:18
He said he felt the plain going down, heard an explosion
and saw a white smoke in a cabin.
00:43:22
The line went dead shortly thereafter.
00:43:26
Eric Peterson of of Lambertsville was working with a friend in his
auto shop when Flight 93 flew overhead.
00:43:31
It was going end over end, and then dropped below a tree line and exploded.
00:43:35
Peterson saw a flash and then a mushroom cloud of smoke.
00:43:39
There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There
were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area,
00:43:44
burning. He said, he didn't see any debris longer
than a couple feet long.
00:43:48
A caller to the Howard Stern show explicitly describes
what happened:
00:44:11
And a number of eyewittnesses all agree on one thing:
00:44:15
Susan Mcelwain, who lives two miles from the crashsite
saw a white plane rocketed 40 or 50 feet over her mini-van.
00:44:22
" It came right over me, it was so low i ducked. It was travelling
real fast, but it didn't make any sound. "
00:44:28
" Then it disapeared behind some trees."
00:44:31
" A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this
fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured that it crashed. "
00:44:37
" I didn't think much more about it until the authorities started
to say there had been no other plane. "
00:44:42
" The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93
crashed and must have been there at the very moment it went down. "
00:44:48
" There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low
it was virtually on top of me. "
00:44:52
" It was white with no markings but it was definitely military,
it just had that look. "
00:44:56
" It had 2 rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the
back of a car and with 2 upright fins at the side. "
00:45:03
" I haven't found one like it on internet. It definitely wasn't
one of those executive jets. "
00:45:07
" The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around."
00:45:11
" Then, they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3000 feet up. "
00:45:16
" But I saw it, and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft
above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did. "
00:45:25
Lee Purbaugh also saw a white jet: "Yes, there was another plane. I didn't get a good look
but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon. "
00:45:34
Tom Spinelli was working at India Lake Marina, a mile
and a half away.
00:45:38
"I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash. "
00:45:45
The FBI's later explanation for the white jet was that a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 jet
00:45:51
was asked to descend from 34.000ft to 5.000ft some minutes after the crash to give co-ordinates for the site.
00:45:57
The plane and pilot have never been produced or identified.
00:46:01
Susan Mcelwain says a Falcon 20 was not the plane she saw.
00:46:05
But enough of the eyewittnesses, what about the
physical evidence?
00:46:08
" The debris here is spread over 3 to 4 mile radius "
00:46:11
" which is now been completely sealed off and is being treated
according to the FBI as a crime scene. "
00:46:17
" Governor Tom Ridge makes a remarks earlier at press
conference, he had flown over the site "
00:46:23
" he said the emergency response here was immediate "
00:46:26
" he also said, that I don't know whether you're able or not
to see the picture of this, but "
00:46:31
" this is one of those cases, where the pictures really do
tell the story, that sort of the most horrifying aspects "
00:46:37
" of this particular crash scene is how little debris is visible."
00:46:42
" There is a large crater in the ground and I'm hoping that
you are all seeing it as I'm talking about it, but "
00:46:50
" thats really all you see is a large crater in the ground and just
tiny, tiny pieces of debris, there's been at least one report that, "
00:46:57
" the investigators out there and there are hundreds of
them as I said tonight. "
00:47:01
" Uh, had found nothing larger than a phonebook ."
00:47:06
Light debris from the plane was scattered up to 8 miles away.
And a section of engine weighing a ton
00:47:11
was located 2000 yards - over a mile from a crash site.
[My understanding is that it was 300 yards downhill.]
***
00:48:23
" How big would you say that hole was? "
00:48:25
" From my estimates, I would guess it was probably
around 20 to 15 feet. "
00:48:30
" long, and probably about 10 feet wide. "
00:48:33
" What could you see on the ground if anything other than dirt and ash? "
00:48:37
" You couldn't see anything. You just see dirt, ash and
people walking around, broken trees. "
00:48:44
Chris Bollyn visited Somerset County to investigate what really
happened to Flight 93.
00:48:50
Nena Lensbouer told Bollyn that the hole was 5 to 6 feet deep and
smaller than the 24-foot trailer in her front yard.
00:48:56
She described hearing an explosion, like an atomic bomb,
not a crash.
00:49:01
Lensbouer told Bollyn that she did not see any evidence of the
plane then or at any time during the excavation at the site,
00:49:07
an effort that reportedly recovered 95 percent of the plane
and 10 percent of the human remains.
00:49:13
If the government is lying about Flight 93, is it implausible
to suggest that the rest of the story is also a lie?
***
00:52:15
Next question: What about the cellphone calls?
00:52:18
" Tonight, we're getting reports of cellphone calls from at least 3 of those 4 flights "
00:52:23
" one from a flight attendant and two from passengers that were
onboard this flight "
00:52:28
" and they talk about knifes and again no mention of guns "
00:52:31
" in the first case it was the flight that came out of Boston and that was an American Airlines flight "
00:52:36
" and it was a flight attendant, who apparently got a cellphone
call off, "
00:52:40
" I've heard variously, it was to American Airlines Operations
or maybe somewhere else, but she reported "
00:52:45
" that her fellow attendants had been stabbed in the back of the
plane and that the cabin had been taken over "
00:52:52
" and upfront that the crew of the plane had been taken over
and the plane was going down in New York, was the quote that we heard "
00:53:00
Several of these calls are extremely peculiar.
00:53:03
Flight attendant Madeleine Sweeney allegedly talked with her
ground manager Michael Woodberg for 25 minutes until the plane crashed.
00:53:10
Near the end she says: "I see buildings, water. Oh my God!"
00:53:15
As if she had never seen the Manhattan Skyline
before in her life.
00:53:20
A man claiming to be Mark Bigham called his mother Alice,
who was visiting her sister-in-law.
00:53:25
His sister took the call and gave it to Alice. The caller says:
" Mom? This is Mark Bigham. "
00:53:30
What was the last time you called your mother and used
your full name?
00:53:33
The caller continues: "I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco
and there are 3 guys who have taken over the plane and say they have a bomb "
00:53:40
" Who are these guys? "
00:53:41
The caller pauses and then: "You believe me don't you?"
00:53:45
"Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?"
00:53:47
After a pase the line went dead.
00:53:51
A man claiming to be Todd Beamer got through to a
Verizon supervisor
00:53:54
telling of 3 hijackers armed with knifes, one claiming to have a bomb, 13 minutes later he recites the 23rd Psalm of the Bible
00:54:02
and drops the phone turning to utter his rallying cry: "Let's roll!"
00:54:06
Why would Beamer spend the last minutes of his life talking to a
complete stranger as opposed to a member of his own family?
00:54:14
The remaining calls were short, no more than a couple
sentences before saying they had to go.
00:54:18
calling back a couple minutes later.
00:54:22
But the most important evidence is an experiment conducted
by A.K.Dewdney of physics911.net .
***
00:54:51
Less than a 1 in a 100 chance. The majority of the cellphone calls
made on September 11th were made at cruising altitude
00:54:58
meaning the plane was travelling at 33000 feet at
500 miles per hour.
00:55:02
The cellphone calls were fake - no "ifs" "ands" or "buts".
***
00:58:14
Until the government can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Al Quaeda was behind September 11th
00:58:19
the Americans have every reason to believe otherwise.
00:58:54
I know that it's hard to imagine that our own government
would murder almost 3 thousand people.
00:59:00
But once you begin to accept that possibility, you can no longergo back to the 19 Arabs
00:59:04
or melting trusses or Let's Roll. The official story becomes the conspiracy theory.
00:59:11
America has been hijacked, not by Al Quaeda, not by
Osama Bin-Laden,
00:59:18
but by a group of tyrants ready and willing to do whatever
it takes to keep their strangle hold on this country.
00:59:25
So what are we gonna do about it? Are we gonna sit down
and take it? Or are we gonna stand up and fight for what little freedoms we have left?
00:59:33
The story of Flight 93 is a perfect metaphor of a state of this country.
00:59:37
A group of heros willing to sacrifice themselves for the good
of nation voted to take matters in their own hands
00:59:42
no matter the consequences.
The time has come. Let's Roll. [END OF LC 1]
Fair Use Notice: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research and / or educational purposes only. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of theUS
Section II: AA Flight 77 and the Pentagon
12:479:38. Arlington, Virginia.
Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at 530 MPH
The 9/11 Commission says it was 330 degrees, most other sources I've seen say it was 270. Hanjour first overflew the Pentagon at 7,000 feet. The turnaround may have been due, not to great skill, but to inexperience.
A note on aircraft speeds . I don't have a reliable source for this, so I'm citing speeds that are commonly seen on the internet. Take these estimates of speed at time of impact with a grain of salt:
Flight 77 Pentagon: 530 mph (863 kph)
Flight 93 Shanksville: 500+ mph (805 kph)
Flight 175 WTC 2 south tower: 550+ mph (943 kph)
Flight 11 WTC 1 north tower: 430 mph (692 kph)
Yes, Wittenburg is a pilot. He is also a conspiracy theorist who does not believe that ANY aircraft hit the Pentagon, which makes him stupid or insane. Too bad, because his former co-workers were on that plane. I wonder what he thinks happened to them. He believes a missile hit the Pentagon. He has not produced a single piece of evidence to back that belief. He has not attempted to account for the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the crash. He also believes that the other 3 flights were not piloted by Arabs, because they wouldn't have the skills. I believe that Russ Wittenburg wouldn't have the skills to be an investigator.
Its final approach took it directly across Interstate-395, knocking light poles out of the ground and bouncing off of the lawn before impact. Bouncing off the lawn? Hardly.13:42
First, let's meet Hani Hanjour. Hanjour came to Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland, one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane. However, when Hanjour went on three test runs in the second week of August he had trouble controlling and landing a single engine Cessna 172.
Who says this? It's not in the video. Hanjour did have a commercial instrument-rated pilot license. Had he flown a 172 before? How about a little research, guys? Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if takeoffs and landings were what he practiced the least on the ol' flight simulator.
14:02"Hello, my name is Marcel Bernard and I'm the chief flight instructor here at Freeway. Hani Hanjour, well basically what happened with him is... he showed at the airport and wanted to get checked out in the aircraft you see, he was already certified, he didn't come to us for flight training. Yeah, he already had a pilot's license. He already earned a - it was private, instrument, commercial at a school in Arizona - I don't remember the name of the school. He already had certificates in hand and we sometimes occasionally have pilots who come to us that don't want flight training, but just want to rent our aircraft."
"Which is the case of Hani Hanjour?"
"This was the case of Hani, he wanted to get "checked-out" as we call it to rent our aircraft. And our insurance requires that he flies with one of our instructors to be found competent to rent. And that was the process that he was going through. And consensus was, he was very quiet, average, or below average piloting skills, English was very poor, so, that's about the best description I can get, give you for his demeanor. At that time very uneventful from my perspective.
A minute and 8 seconds to hear that Hanjour was a nice guy who was instrument-rated but who wasn't a great Cessna pilot? How about at least telling us that Hanjour wasn't able to rent the Cessna? From the Greenbelt (Maryland) Gazette:
The standard evaluation consists of one-to-one-and-a-half-hour flights east over the Chesapeake Bay area. Hanjour paid $400 cash and provided a valid pilot's license from Arizona, Bernard said. He failed because he showed problems landing the airplane and the flight instructor had to help him, Bernard said. But Hanjour's problems were nothing unusual, Bernard said. "There's no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
Well, that's also an oversimplification.15:16
Regardless, air traffic controllers at Dulles International Airport that were tracking Flight 77. All thought that it was a military plane.
15:15 The on-screen quote from Danielle O'Brien, Dulles ATC, is not complete. Here's the whole quote:
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Source
Second. The light poles. On November 22nd, 2004, a private jet en route to Houston to pick up George Bush Senior clipped a single light pole and crashed a minute away from landing at Houston's Hobby Airport.
If you really mean a minute, that's a long way away from the runway: sounds like the plane had other problems if it hit a light pole 2 miles away.
The wing ripped off upon impact, scattering debris over 100 yards.Impact with what, the light pole or the ground? What kind of pole was it? Where was it hit? Was the wing hit near the wingtip or root? Did anyone see the wing being torn off by the light pole? How big was the jet: probably a lot smaller than a 757 if it was private. I assume it was traveling at landing speed, not at 530 mph, correct? You need to know all this in order to make your point.
15:46And yet, Flight 77 managed to tear 5 light poles completely out of the ground, without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.
How do you know the wings weren't damaged?
Here's a still from the video of one of the "undamaged" light poles. Honest.
Here's a still from the video of one of the "undamaged" light poles. Honest.
Instead, they seem to have just popped out of the ground.
They have breakaway bases for the safety of auto occupants, as do most highway light poles in the U.S. Nothing popped out of the ground. (Thanks Mark)
Another photo of an "undamaged" pole, not from "LC"
15:59
Third. You only have to look at the photos from that day to realize that whatever hit the Pentagon did not bounce off the lawn.
Who said anything "bounced off" the lawn?
Here's the still photo introduced that's supposed to prove that assertion.
Here's the still photo introduced that's supposed to prove that assertion.
If Flight 77 had crash landed and skidded into the Pentagon, it would have looked like this.
"Crash landed and skidded?" What in the world are you talking about?
Instead, it looked like this, without a single scratch on the lawn. This stuff would be hilarious if the subject wasn't so serious.
If flight 77 had crashed like this, it would have slid across several lanes of highway that was filled with bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Funny, none of the dozens of witnesses reported that happening.
Fourth. Why is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77?
WHAT??? There is much wreckage outside the Pentagon and a huge amount inside, including the remains of passengers & crew. But here's the image you use to show that there was none:
Unidentified voiceover: "You know, it, it might've appeared that way, but from my closeup inspection there's no evidence" There's no evidence(see # 185)? How close ARE you? And WHO are you? "of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon." It didn't crash near the Pentagon, it went right into it! "The only sight is the actual side of the building that's crashed in," Sounds significant. I wonder if there could be a plane in there. "and as I said the only pieces left that you can see" Oh, so you CAN see pieces, even from a distance. "are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate,"
Anywhere around where he was standing, that is. Hey, here's a crazy idea: why not include a quote from one of the many people whose job it was to investigate and remove the debris, instead of just quoting people in the confusion of the immediate aftermath of the crash?
"that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon..."Misleading. It did more than crash into the side, it went right through. The speaker didn't know that the plane was going 500+ mph.
16:59The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vaporized the entire plane. WHAT? Sorry, that's not the "official" explanation. Indeed. From these pictures, it seems that there is absolutely no trace of a Boeing 757.
You may think I'm making this stuff up. I'm not. This is the picture that goes with statement 190. It's technically true, of course, but could there be other pictures? Nah. Must not be.
But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, No one claims this. Then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 people found at the Pentagon? Because they're dedicated professionals who care about getting things right. The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, which was responsible for the task, was also responsible for identifying the dead in Shanksville. In part. Good thing, too, That was another difficult job, and they were able to positively identify all the flight 93 victims.
Keep that in mind for later. When you'll be making an actual claim that's backed by actual evidence? We'll see.
So what is a Boeing 757 made of? I called Boeing to ask, but... Hmm - oak? Brick? Corn cobs? The operator informed me that Boeing refuses to give out any information regarding the construction of their aircraft. Due to the attacks of September 11th. Yes, it's quite secret stuff, what planes airliners are made of.
17:50
But what we do know, is that the 757 has two Pratt & Whitney engines made of steel and titanium alloy
False. Flight 77 had Rolls-Royce engines.
Which are 9 feet in diameter, 12 feet long and weigh 6 tons each. Titanium has a melting point of 1688 degrees Celsius.Jet fuel, also known as kerosene, is a hydrocarbon, which can retain a constant temperature of 1120 degrees Celsius after 40 minutes, but only if the fuel is maintained.
After 40 minutes? Boy, that burning jet fuel takes a long time to warm up! I guess that's why plane crashes never start fires - oh.
The fuel would have burned off immediately upon impact. No, it takes time to burn off.
There's all that non-fuel not burning without black smoke. The fires are spread over 100 yards. Small plane? 
Therefore, it is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by kerosene. No one claims it was, straw man.
I call the next section
18:30"Gullibler's Travels"
Likewise, the two engines should have been found relatively intact at the Pentagon.
You must be thinking of the old Pentagon, which was made of balsa wood and marshmallows.
What sort of schooling have you received that's led you to believe that an airplane striking a reinforced concrete building at over 500 mph isn't going to break into small pieces?
That's a serious question, by the way.
18:34
Instead, there was a single turbo-jet engine approximately 3 feet in diameter found inside the building. No, that's an engine part, not an engine.
It's part of the compression section. After this photo was published by American Free Press
Readers wrote in to suggest that the turbine was a piece from the Auxiliary Power Unit - APU mounted in the tail section of the 757. Readers should have checked engine parts first.
The AFP, a biweekly anti-Zionist, conspiracy-promoting opinion paper, is one of the MAIN sources for information in "Loose Change." Here's an excerpt from the AFP's mission statement:
Okey dokey.
Well, let's regain our composure and see what "industry experts" "Loose Change's" source contacted about that jet engine part.
You can see the future clearly if America continues her mad race to oblivion. Thanks to the press, the life-denying values-often called "democratic values"-are in vogue. Kids can't pray in school even as the taxpayers offer huge sums to the theocratic state of Israel. The Boy Scouts are scheduled for the guillotine because they don't want perverts to be scoutmasters and want to restrict membership to normal boys. The family is officially defined now as something other than what it has been since humankind appeared on this globe. The ancient Hippocratic Oath for doctors is trashed to accommodate the profitable business of abortion. Cultural communism-which is called political correctness-dominates all media. Art is literal trash and music is cacophony. Morals and speech are sewage, history as fact is viciously attacked by the media, entertainment is ethical syphilis. One must be blind not to see the direction. Where can it end? Jumping from a cliff brings a light-hearted feeling and the descent is most enjoyable until the inevitable sudden stop. Reality is not fitted with a bungee rope.
Whether you wish to choose or not, you will choose. It's the Global Plantation and Death or Liberty and Life. You will have and your children will have either an international communistic society with the very rich at the top, the bureaucrats in the middle and the rest of mankind at the bottom, or a free and sovereign America.
Whether you wish to choose or not, you will choose. It's the Global Plantation and Death or Liberty and Life. You will have and your children will have either an international communistic society with the very rich at the top, the bureaucrats in the middle and the rest of mankind at the bottom, or a free and sovereign America.
Okey dokey.
Well, let's regain our composure and see what "industry experts" "Loose Change's" source contacted about that jet engine part.
Chris Bollyn (of the AFP) contacted Honeywell in Phoenix, Arizona, the manufacturer of a 757's APU. An expert, speaking on the condition of anonymity told him that: "There's no way that's an APU wheel." Phew! At least someone around here knows their arse from their APU.Bollyn then contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce, The two companies that manufacture 757 engines. Pratt & Whitney pointed Bollyn towards Rolls-Royce and John W Brown a spokesman for Rolls-Royce told Bollyn that:
That's right. Want to know why? Because Bollyn had contacted the factory in Indiana which makes engines for small planes like the Cessna Citation and Global Hawk, rather than the plant in Quebec that overhauls the 757 engines or the factory in Derby, England that makes them! (Thanks, Orphia Nay) It says so right there in the article.
I swear i'm not making this up. It's all really in the video! But wait, there's - Karl!
KARL! We've finally got an expert source in the house!
In an article written by Karl Schwartz,
(It's Karl W.B. Schwarz, not Schwartz) 
Karl W,B. Schwarz speaking at a conference of people who haven't been abducted by aliens, but who plan to be.
And what article did he write? Are you referring to this hilarious piece of wingnut paranoia and very, very tall tales (written by Tom Flocco and featuring Schwarz) in which a 12-foot exit hole made by the landing gear on the INSIDE of the Pentagon is described as the ENTRY hole on the OUTSIDE that the ENTIRE PLANE made?
(Hey, Dylan, hey Korey, hey Jason: with friends like these.)
Karl W,B. Schwarz speaking at a conference of people who haven't been abducted by aliens, but who plan to be.
And what article did he write? Are you referring to this hilarious piece of wingnut paranoia and very, very tall tales (written by Tom Flocco and featuring Schwarz) in which a 12-foot exit hole made by the landing gear on the INSIDE of the Pentagon is described as the ENTRY hole on the OUTSIDE that the ENTIRE PLANE made?
(Hey, Dylan, hey Korey, hey Jason: with friends like these.)
President and Chief Executive Officer of Patmos Nanotechnologies LLC and I-nets Security Systems
And sole employee? There appears to be no record that these companies have anything to do with aeronautics or engines. Or actual work. Schwarz is an outspoken 9/11 conspiracy theorist. He recently cancelled plans to run for the Presidency of the U.S. in 2008. He wrote a book about how much he dislikes George W. Bush. He has a website.
Dylan, can we talk? This will take a few minutes. I think it's important.
When you rely on someone as a spokesman for your cause or as an expert in a certain field, you should check their credentials to be sure they're legit. If you mention the businesses they are involved in as evidence of their expertise, you should check those also. I'm not saying that Karl W.B. Schwarz a liar and a con-man. Okay, I am absolutely saying that. But I encourage you to examine the evidence and make up your own mind.
Karl's name comes up a lot on the internet. He seems to spend a lot of time defending his good name against people who accuse him of being...difficult. I can say a few things for sure about Karl W.B. Schwarz, because they're a matter of public record.
1) He claimed to be the CEO of a telecommunications giant, COMMAXXESS:
Note how COMMAXXESS is listed as "(COMMAX)," as if it's a publicly-traded stock. I once made an offer to acquire all of the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Fort Knox. My offer was declined, even though I asserted it several times on free websites like PRWEB that distribute anything you send them as a "press release."
From an email by Schwarz:
2) Schwarz claims to be the President and CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies, formerly of Little Rock, Arkansas, and recently moved to a P.O. box in Georgia. From an email correcting some misconceptions about K.W.B.S.:
Also on the net:
Wow! That's a lot of business. Nearly a billon-dollar telecom deal, a $4-billion carbon nanotube plant. I'm impressed. (And there's a military contracting business that's just as big...we'll see that soon. Not to mention the banks he owns)
But did you notice something odd? The same phone number is listed for both of those huge companies! A reverse directory check turns up that it belongs to a guy named Ronnie in Little Rock, Arkansas. Ronnie says he gets calls about Schwarz and wishes that number wasn't on the internet. And what about that email address: the telecom CEO is using an AT&T account? The CEO of these huge companies gives his PERSONAL phone and email as the company contact in "press releases"? And the business addresses for these companies turn out to be a lawyer's office in a strip mall in Little Rock?
I emailed Karl to ask about Patmos, the supposed nanotube manufacturer.
"Hello. I'm interested in nanotube technology, and was wondering if you have any products on the market, or if you're at the R&D stage only. Thanks."
His reply:
500 PhD's! Karl should get a second phone line. Oh, brother. Well, just for sh..s and giggles, I emailed again.
"Thank you for the information, Mr. Schwarz. My thesis at Penn (assuming it's accepted) will be on medical applications of carbon nanotube tech, so I'm eager to learn of all new developments. Can you point me to any patents or applications you might have? I searched but wasn't sure what terms to use. My thesis proposal is up for approval at the end of the month, and I'm looking to wow those cantankerous curmudgeons!"
And his reply:
Riiiiiight. I wonder when the "show and tell" will be. And note that I never mentioned "telecom" in my emails? At least he didn't ask me for money.
3) We know that Karl W.B. Schwarz has been in court a lot more than most people have.
4) We know that he could count on one hand the times he had sex with his first wife. I won't give a reference for that, but it's out there, in his own words.
5) We know he thinks George W. Bush is killing Americans with anthrax vaccine. From a letter Schwarz sent to Bush with 30 demands:
6) And, he's buddies with 9/11 CTist Jimmy Walter! (More on Jimmy later)
Disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them? If there WAS a problem with those panels, all that would need to be done is to replace the panel connections. The panels were just costume jewelry, not structural members. Well, Schwarz is no engineer, that's clear, if he thinks the 0.10"-thick copper skin and iron framework of a 100-year-old statue is comparable to the aluminum and steel construction of the WTC, but we can forgive him that one.
Except that we can't, since Karl claims to have been an architect in the past.
Anyway, some conspiracy theorists use this ridiculous corrosion idea to say that Larry Silverstein wanted to destroy the buildings. They are morons.
7) Remember E*Capbank, the one with the $1.6 billion in financing for Karl Schwarz's big telecom takeover, the takeover that was scuttled at the instant flight 175 hit WTC 2? I'll give you one guess who the CEO of E*Capbank was, and what its phone number was. You guessed it! See, we're making progress! And the bank's email address? "ecapbank@lycos.com." And their website? A free Lycos page. The full website is long gone, but the text is still here. Any other "banks" that Mr. Schwarz was involved in? Sure! There's eCommerzBank and ESBanc (Look at the ES logo with the passenger jet and fireball! We're on to something now!)
8) We know that Schwarz claims to be the CEO of a very large company, I-nets Security Systems, that manufactures military Unmanned Aerial Vehicals (UAVs) that make Lockheed-Martin's Predator UAV look like a child's toy. From the Tom Flocco piece referenced above:
Those are some known things about your man Karl. There are quite a few things we don't know for sure about Mr. Schwarz from our cursory Googling, such as:
So, have you made a decision about Schwarz's qualifications and honesty?
Remember, this guy gets a lot of press for the "9-11 Truth Movement."
But most importantly, we don't know if he has any expertise in identifying jet engine parts. Are you ready? We're about to find out what your man Karl W. B. Schwarz thinks about that Pentagon engine part.
"Gullibler's Travels" Continues...
...as Gullibler breaks free from the bonds of facts that the Liilliputians have tied him up with.
It's been a while, but you remember that engine part, right? Here's what Karl thinks of it:
Dylan, can we talk? This will take a few minutes. I think it's important.
When you rely on someone as a spokesman for your cause or as an expert in a certain field, you should check their credentials to be sure they're legit. If you mention the businesses they are involved in as evidence of their expertise, you should check those also. I'm not saying that Karl W.B. Schwarz a liar and a con-man. Okay, I am absolutely saying that. But I encourage you to examine the evidence and make up your own mind.
Karl's name comes up a lot on the internet. He seems to spend a lot of time defending his good name against people who accuse him of being...difficult. I can say a few things for sure about Karl W.B. Schwarz, because they're a matter of public record.
1) He claimed to be the CEO of a telecommunications giant, COMMAXXESS:
COMMAXXESS, Inc. Offers to Acquire Global Crossing for $815 Million
Washington, DC (PRWEB) June 10, 2003 -- COMMAXXESS, Inc. (COMMAX) today announced that it has made an offer to acquire all of the assets of Global Crossing LTD., and Global Crossing Holdings LTD, collectively (Global Crossing) for consideration of over $800 million cash plus conversion of creditor claims into Newco equity shares. The COMMAXXESS offer increases the proceeds available to creditors by over $300 million above the current bid by Singapore Technologies Telemedia PTE LTD and over $100 million above the Carl Icahn / XO Communications offer announced late Friday, May 30. The offer is being forwarded today to advisors for the Bondholders and Banks and the Company and notice provided to the U.S. Trustee and Court. CONTACT: Karl W.B. Schwarz Phone: 501-[xxx]-4959.
Washington, DC (PRWEB) June 10, 2003 -- COMMAXXESS, Inc. (COMMAX) today announced that it has made an offer to acquire all of the assets of Global Crossing LTD., and Global Crossing Holdings LTD, collectively (Global Crossing) for consideration of over $800 million cash plus conversion of creditor claims into Newco equity shares. The COMMAXXESS offer increases the proceeds available to creditors by over $300 million above the current bid by Singapore Technologies Telemedia PTE LTD and over $100 million above the Carl Icahn / XO Communications offer announced late Friday, May 30. The offer is being forwarded today to advisors for the Bondholders and Banks and the Company and notice provided to the U.S. Trustee and Court. CONTACT: Karl W.B. Schwarz Phone: 501-[xxx]-4959.
Note how COMMAXXESS is listed as "(COMMAX)," as if it's a publicly-traded stock. I once made an offer to acquire all of the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Fort Knox. My offer was declined, even though I asserted it several times on free websites like PRWEB that distribute anything you send them as a "press release."
From an email by Schwarz:
E*Capbank had raised $1.6 billion to acquire Viatel, Ebone, WCG and GX and that deal died on a conference call between myself, UBS Warburg, and Arab investors from Dubai, Dubai Internet City, Amman, Bahrain and Riyadh. It died when the second plane hit the South Tower of WTC and all parties ended the conf call. GlobalAxxess was the only Global VAR of UUNet, out of the 15 VARs that UUNet had. Not hardly a "shell company" as you suggest - but was OFFSHORE and GLOBAL, if you get that. When WCOM bought the company and the WCOM fraud surfaced, we renamed it to COMMAXXESS to distance ourselves from that fraud, since we have nothing to do with it."
Remember that "E*Capbank." It'll come up later.2) Schwarz claims to be the President and CEO of Patmos Nanotechnologies, formerly of Little Rock, Arkansas, and recently moved to a P.O. box in Georgia. From an email correcting some misconceptions about K.W.B.S.:
"Sorry to burst your BUBBLE, but I am Karl W. B. Schwarz and you are not. Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC is a holding company of over 30 different companies and has no need for a "domain" that you just wasted your money on. Each of those 30 companies is directly involved in nanotechnology that are dependent on highly pure carbon nanotubes, which is a niche heavily dominated by Patmos holdings patents (in other names so don't waste time or money on other domains).
We are installing a $4 billion (product production volume, not costs to build) carbon nanotube manufacturing plant right now and do not advertise even where that is at this time. One of our competitors is CNI of Houston which is in part owned by Kellogg Brown & Root, so figure it out as to not being on the radar. They are having fits trying to figure me out, and if they cannot, neither can you."
Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC Karl WB Schwarz President, Chief Executive Officer 501-xxx-4959 kw.schwarz@worldnet.att.net
We are installing a $4 billion (product production volume, not costs to build) carbon nanotube manufacturing plant right now and do not advertise even where that is at this time. One of our competitors is CNI of Houston which is in part owned by Kellogg Brown & Root, so figure it out as to not being on the radar. They are having fits trying to figure me out, and if they cannot, neither can you."
Patmos Nanotechnologies, LLC Karl WB Schwarz President, Chief Executive Officer 501-xxx-4959 kw.schwarz@worldnet.att.net
Also on the net:
My companies are affilaited [sic] with 2 government labs and we do only what is right. We have many universities lined up to do collaborative IP R&D with us, again, only what is right.
Wow! That's a lot of business. Nearly a billon-dollar telecom deal, a $4-billion carbon nanotube plant. I'm impressed. (And there's a military contracting business that's just as big...we'll see that soon. Not to mention the banks he owns)
But did you notice something odd? The same phone number is listed for both of those huge companies! A reverse directory check turns up that it belongs to a guy named Ronnie in Little Rock, Arkansas. Ronnie says he gets calls about Schwarz and wishes that number wasn't on the internet. And what about that email address: the telecom CEO is using an AT&T account? The CEO of these huge companies gives his PERSONAL phone and email as the company contact in "press releases"? And the business addresses for these companies turn out to be a lawyer's office in a strip mall in Little Rock?
I emailed Karl to ask about Patmos, the supposed nanotube manufacturer.
"Hello. I'm interested in nanotube technology, and was wondering if you have any products on the market, or if you're at the R&D stage only. Thanks."
His reply:
Hello
We are past R&D and working on a major production center for carbonnanotubes.
Those will be used to service customer needs and 12 specificproducts that we will be spinning off over the next two years.We have over 500 PhDs working with us and many other projects in R&D in varying stages.
Karl
We are past R&D and working on a major production center for carbonnanotubes.
Those will be used to service customer needs and 12 specificproducts that we will be spinning off over the next two years.We have over 500 PhDs working with us and many other projects in R&D in varying stages.
Karl
500 PhD's! Karl should get a second phone line. Oh, brother. Well, just for sh..s and giggles, I emailed again.
"Thank you for the information, Mr. Schwarz. My thesis at Penn (assuming it's accepted) will be on medical applications of carbon nanotube tech, so I'm eager to learn of all new developments. Can you point me to any patents or applications you might have? I searched but wasn't sure what terms to use. My thesis proposal is up for approval at the end of the month, and I'm looking to wow those cantankerous curmudgeons!"
And his reply:
Over 90% of our scientists are non-US citizens and we put our R&D and patents under non-US entities and other names. This field is cut-throat, even more than telecom was and is so we do not tip our hand until we introduce commercial applications. We have 12 that will spin off after the plant is capable of providing them the volume, purity and morphology they need in CNTs. We make SWNT, MWNT and CNF, and in final stages of machine design to mass produce C60, C80 and C120 structures.
We can have show and tell later.
Karl
We can have show and tell later.
Karl
Riiiiiight. I wonder when the "show and tell" will be. And note that I never mentioned "telecom" in my emails? At least he didn't ask me for money.
3) We know that Karl W.B. Schwarz has been in court a lot more than most people have.
4) We know that he could count on one hand the times he had sex with his first wife. I won't give a reference for that, but it's out there, in his own words.
5) We know he thinks George W. Bush is killing Americans with anthrax vaccine. From a letter Schwarz sent to Bush with 30 demands:
"28. I demand to know why your administration keeps injecting our troops with an anthrax vaccine known to be deadly and harmful to the health of our soldiers and now apparently wish to inject that into all Americans under Project BioShield and martial law. Is that why you have no concern whatsoever for the 3 million jobs lost, for between your TMAP lunacy and Project BioShield lunacy, well over 3 million Americans could perish if the same statistical rates hit the general population as has hit our military? Can you explain away Holocaust with "brilliant strategy policy" driven by unmitigated greed?"
Deadly AND harmful, huh?6) And, he's buddies with 9/11 CTist Jimmy Walter! (More on Jimmy later)
From: Karl W. B. Schwarz
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 PM
To: Jimmy Walter
"Hello Jimmy
You are going to wind up owing me the $100,000. :-)
The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components -erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed.
""The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as Volta had discovered a century earlier."""
In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.
Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so."
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 PM
To: Jimmy Walter
"Hello Jimmy
You are going to wind up owing me the $100,000. :-)
The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired due to galvanic corrosion in air. Not what most think is possible but in ocean environments, very possible. Normally galvanic corrosion is only a factor in an electrolyte such as sea water and the stern drive on the boat - having steel and aluminum components -erodes, turns brittle and snap - it fails - if electrolytic grounding plates are not installed.
""The galvanic reaction between iron and copper was originally mitigated by insulating copper from the iron framework using an asbestos cloth soaked in shellac. However, the integrity and sealing property of this improvised insulator broke down over the many years of exposure to high levels of humidity normal in a marine environment. The insulating barrier became a sponge that kept the salted water present as a conductive electrolyte, forming a crude electrochemical cell as Volta had discovered a century earlier."""
In 1989 - there were plans to erect scaffolding and disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them. Cost projection was around $5.6 billion. One of the architects shows up to work one day and the MIB's were there - had confiscated all of the plans, specs, details, etc for WTC. They even confiscated their office cubicles and had tape on the floor outlining where they went.
Reason - the exterior cast aluminum WTC panels had been directly connected to the steel superstructure of the building, thus causing galvanic corrosion. In short, the "life cycle" of the WTC was not 200 - 300 years, more like 30 years or so."
Disassemble the WTC towers and rebuild them? If there WAS a problem with those panels, all that would need to be done is to replace the panel connections. The panels were just costume jewelry, not structural members. Well, Schwarz is no engineer, that's clear, if he thinks the 0.10"-thick copper skin and iron framework of a 100-year-old statue is comparable to the aluminum and steel construction of the WTC, but we can forgive him that one.
Except that we can't, since Karl claims to have been an architect in the past.
Anyway, some conspiracy theorists use this ridiculous corrosion idea to say that Larry Silverstein wanted to destroy the buildings. They are morons.
7) Remember E*Capbank, the one with the $1.6 billion in financing for Karl Schwarz's big telecom takeover, the takeover that was scuttled at the instant flight 175 hit WTC 2? I'll give you one guess who the CEO of E*Capbank was, and what its phone number was. You guessed it! See, we're making progress! And the bank's email address? "ecapbank@lycos.com." And their website? A free Lycos page. The full website is long gone, but the text is still here. Any other "banks" that Mr. Schwarz was involved in? Sure! There's eCommerzBank and ESBanc (Look at the ES logo with the passenger jet and fireball! We're on to something now!)
8) We know that Schwarz claims to be the CEO of a very large company, I-nets Security Systems, that manufactures military Unmanned Aerial Vehicals (UAVs) that make Lockheed-Martin's Predator UAV look like a child's toy. From the Tom Flocco piece referenced above:
Schwarz is the CEO of a company which designs remote control UAVs for the U.S. Army and had a $392 million dollar Defense Department order for 32 UAVs canceled "because they would see too much over in Iraq, and because we could put in a fleet of them for what our competition was paying for a couple."
Lockheed-Martin's Missiles and Fire Control Systems UAV used in Iraq is called the Predator, which costs $45 million for each unit, has three sensors and requires a crew of 55 individuals to operate one of them, according to Schwarz.
"Our Project Medusa [see also Project Medusa] has 11 high-powered sensors that can all operate simultaneously, can stay aloft at least 24 hours, has the world's most advanced hyper-spectral system augmented by two technologies to speed up pixel analysis and detect minute anomalies in the field of view (FOV) if the operator is paying attention or not, or if his human eyes cannot even see the detail that the software detects and highlights for the operator to zoom in on," said the UAV corporate CEO.
"A crew of 55 is required to operate 5 Medusa Skypods simultaneously. A single pilot operator flies them from a single laptop or personal computer. In short, 55 operators running 55 high powered sensors with far more processing and pixel engine detection power versus 55 operators running a single Predator and only one sensor capable of running at a time. The five Medusas cost about $65 million each but have far more technology capabilities and at any given time cover a far larger area with more visual assets, " said Schwarz.
"In short, they are not toys. They even have AIM 100 lasing devices and can light up targets up to 30 miles in all directions for air strikes, artillery, mortar, or helicopters to dispose of problems...The combined area of coverage, and the number of troops they could possibly protect if all of the pet [Defense Department] aerostats were airborne at the same time, or not riddled full of machine gun holes, is about the area that a single Medusa Skypod covers...we are at least one to two years ahead of Lockheed in HAA technology...To my group it was an honor to have been asked and we proved we could deliver only to get jerked around by for months by bureaucrats protecting pet projects [like the vastly inferior Lockheed Predator]. (One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas: A Conservative Republican Speaks Out, by Karl W. B. Schwarz, Reichenbach Publishing Company, 2004, p. 379 [821 pages])
Lockheed-Martin's Missiles and Fire Control Systems UAV used in Iraq is called the Predator, which costs $45 million for each unit, has three sensors and requires a crew of 55 individuals to operate one of them, according to Schwarz.
"Our Project Medusa [see also Project Medusa] has 11 high-powered sensors that can all operate simultaneously, can stay aloft at least 24 hours, has the world's most advanced hyper-spectral system augmented by two technologies to speed up pixel analysis and detect minute anomalies in the field of view (FOV) if the operator is paying attention or not, or if his human eyes cannot even see the detail that the software detects and highlights for the operator to zoom in on," said the UAV corporate CEO.
"A crew of 55 is required to operate 5 Medusa Skypods simultaneously. A single pilot operator flies them from a single laptop or personal computer. In short, 55 operators running 55 high powered sensors with far more processing and pixel engine detection power versus 55 operators running a single Predator and only one sensor capable of running at a time. The five Medusas cost about $65 million each but have far more technology capabilities and at any given time cover a far larger area with more visual assets, " said Schwarz.
"In short, they are not toys. They even have AIM 100 lasing devices and can light up targets up to 30 miles in all directions for air strikes, artillery, mortar, or helicopters to dispose of problems...The combined area of coverage, and the number of troops they could possibly protect if all of the pet [Defense Department] aerostats were airborne at the same time, or not riddled full of machine gun holes, is about the area that a single Medusa Skypod covers...we are at least one to two years ahead of Lockheed in HAA technology...To my group it was an honor to have been asked and we proved we could deliver only to get jerked around by for months by bureaucrats protecting pet projects [like the vastly inferior Lockheed Predator]. (One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas: A Conservative Republican Speaks Out, by Karl W. B. Schwarz, Reichenbach Publishing Company, 2004, p. 379 [821 pages])
Those are some known things about your man Karl. There are quite a few things we don't know for sure about Mr. Schwarz from our cursory Googling, such as:
- Why are the only references to I-nets Security Systems on conspiracy-promoting websites? Why does his name not come up in connection with any Unmanned Aerial Vehicle research or manufacturing?
- Why does the leading nanotechnology news and information expert say he's never heard of Schwarz or the enormous new Patmos manufacturing facility?
- Did Schwarz really claim to be a billionaire but twice go bankrupt?
- How many companies has he started that he claimed were multinationals but that in fact had 1 or no employees?
- Did he really attempt to illegally attract investors to these fictitious companies?
- Is there really a $2 million judgment outstanding against him?
- Did the judge really call him a "sociopath before locking him up for failure to pay the weekly $35 child support he owed?
So, have you made a decision about Schwarz's qualifications and honesty?
Remember, this guy gets a lot of press for the "9-11 Truth Movement."
But most importantly, we don't know if he has any expertise in identifying jet engine parts. Are you ready? We're about to find out what your man Karl W. B. Schwarz thinks about that Pentagon engine part.
"Gullibler's Travels" Continues...
...as Gullibler breaks free from the bonds of facts that the Liilliputians have tied him up with.
It's been a while, but you remember that engine part, right? Here's what Karl thinks of it:
19:33
He believes that the piece is a JT8D Turbojet Engine from the US Air Force A3 scottwarrior
(that's A-3 Skywarrior )
"Little Rock, we have a problem!" First, the piece is not an engine. Second, Skywarriors don't use JT8D engines, and never did.
Jet engines have a center shaft which must be balanced as well as bare seals on the front and back. A certain director may be in need of some balancing, and may have a leaky seal or two. The (FEMA) photo shows the front seal and a rotar [sic] hub missing its fan blades. Wrong. These blades are easily removed in a collision such as the one found at the Pentagon.
I thought the engines were supposed to stay "relatively intact."
From Schwarz's website:
Remember, he's talking about the JT8D engine. Which happens to be by far the most commonly used jet engine in history, and is used in the 707, 727, 737, DC-9, MD-83, etc. etc. Hell, it seems like two of the only planes that DON'T use it are the 757 and the A-3.
Look at the photo below Sure looks like that part could be from a 757 engine, and it's clearly not the part that "Loose Change" says it is. It only took a few minutes to get this info, and a few more to put the pictures together and stick letters on them.
Now, do you see why we critical thinkers get frustrated with the CT crowd? And this is just one tiny, tiny issue. We're talking about the trees here, not the forest. I elaborated on it because it shows the absurd things CTists will believe, without doing ANY fact-checking. AND THIS IS LEAVING OUT THE FACT THAT DOZENS OF PEOPLE (click this link to see) SAW THE 757 HIT THE PENTAGON, MUCH OF THE PLANE WAS RECOVERED ON THE SCENE, AND ALL THE PASSENGERS' REMAINS WERE IDENTIFIED BUT ONE.
From the Popular Mechanics 9/11 myth debunking article: (By the way, Ben Chertoff, Editor of Popular Mechanics says that as far as he knows he is not related to Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security, which is a claim CTists have been making to attempt to discredit Popular Mechanics.)
From Schwarz's website:
"It is not a "turbofan" component, it is in fact a "turbojet" component from a U.S. Air Force/Navy vintage-type of jet engine technology that was used on just a limited number of fighters, bombers, and reconnaissance planes."
Remember, he's talking about the JT8D engine. Which happens to be by far the most commonly used jet engine in history, and is used in the 707, 727, 737, DC-9, MD-83, etc. etc. Hell, it seems like two of the only planes that DON'T use it are the 757 and the A-3.
Look at the photo below Sure looks like that part could be from a 757 engine, and it's clearly not the part that "Loose Change" says it is. It only took a few minutes to get this info, and a few more to put the pictures together and stick letters on them.
Now, do you see why we critical thinkers get frustrated with the CT crowd? And this is just one tiny, tiny issue. We're talking about the trees here, not the forest. I elaborated on it because it shows the absurd things CTists will believe, without doing ANY fact-checking. AND THIS IS LEAVING OUT THE FACT THAT DOZENS OF PEOPLE (click this link to see) SAW THE 757 HIT THE PENTAGON, MUCH OF THE PLANE WAS RECOVERED ON THE SCENE, AND ALL THE PASSENGERS' REMAINS WERE IDENTIFIED BUT ONE.
From the Popular Mechanics 9/11 myth debunking article: (By the way, Ben Chertoff, Editor of Popular Mechanics says that as far as he knows he is not related to Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security, which is a claim CTists have been making to attempt to discredit Popular Mechanics.)
"Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C.
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
19:59
The United States Air Force has only a few A3's left in operation, And they're all accounted for. You can check for yourself if you don't believe me. And they're stored in Van Nuys California at Hughes Aircraft,
Anybody missing one of these? Anybody see one at the Pentagon?
Which is now better known as Raytheon.Five Raytheon employees died in the 9/11 attacks. This is a pretty complicated plot to be a "hit" on those five.
So if this piece didn't come from a 757, then where? And where are the engines from Flight 77?Just showed you a large piece of one engine. Stick around and we'll do another. So, to recap (or is that "E*cap"?):
1. You want to identify part of a jet engine that supposedly came from a Boeing 757. You don't want to rely on investigators on the scene to tell you, because you don't believe they can be trusted.
2. You, or your source, contact three manufacturers of aircraft components, none of which make the engine that your part came from. They say they don't make that part. You never contact the plant where the engine is made or any other aviation experts.
3. Frustrated, you decide that your only option is to turn to another conspiracy-monger who knows nothing about aircraft engines and a lot about telling tall tales. You cite his leadership of invisible companies as evidence of his expertise.
4. Your guy Karl gets everything wrong. Rather than checking, you assume he's right.
5. You find some pictures of an engine part that looks nothing like the Pentagon part. You state definitively that they match.
6. You find a nice photo of a ground-attack plane firing a missile, and put it in your video.
And perhaps the saddest part of this story is that you could have contacted a Karl Schwarz who does know something about jet aircraft, and maybe he could have helped you with your homework.
Is any of this sinking in, Mr. Avery? Mr. Rowe?
Do I need to remind you that you dedicated this video to "those we lost on September 11, 2001" and that you claim to be "truth-seekers?"
Then why are you spreading this garbage? Why won't you do the slightest bit of fact-checking? Is this what you consider to be a respectful approach to 9/11?
1. You want to identify part of a jet engine that supposedly came from a Boeing 757. You don't want to rely on investigators on the scene to tell you, because you don't believe they can be trusted.
2. You, or your source, contact three manufacturers of aircraft components, none of which make the engine that your part came from. They say they don't make that part. You never contact the plant where the engine is made or any other aviation experts.
3. Frustrated, you decide that your only option is to turn to another conspiracy-monger who knows nothing about aircraft engines and a lot about telling tall tales. You cite his leadership of invisible companies as evidence of his expertise.
4. Your guy Karl gets everything wrong. Rather than checking, you assume he's right.
5. You find some pictures of an engine part that looks nothing like the Pentagon part. You state definitively that they match.
6. You find a nice photo of a ground-attack plane firing a missile, and put it in your video.
And perhaps the saddest part of this story is that you could have contacted a Karl Schwarz who does know something about jet aircraft, and maybe he could have helped you with your homework.
Is any of this sinking in, Mr. Avery? Mr. Rowe?
Do I need to remind you that you dedicated this video to "those we lost on September 11, 2001" and that you claim to be "truth-seekers?"
Then why are you spreading this garbage? Why won't you do the slightest bit of fact-checking? Is this what you consider to be a respectful approach to 9/11?
20:18
The second identifiable piece of debris was allegedly a piece of the fuselage
The second of how many? Have you talked to a single expert who investigated? I don't see any quoted here at all. Did you talk to a single person who was there, or even read a report or an article by any of the hundreds of people who were there to deal with that mess? Did you?
Skeptics have claimed that this is proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon . This, the hundreds of other parts, the eyewitnesses, the remains, the forensics, the videos... But this piece could have come from any American Airlines plane. Wrong. And look at the background. See debris there? Might be worth looking into. And why is it not singed or scratched after a 530 MPH impact and a subsequent fireball? IT'S TORN TO SHREDS!!!
20:38
The third piece of debris was a diffusor case.
Let's look a little closer at the diffusor case of a 757. Show me yours and I'll show you mine.
Do you see the triangular bezels around the openings?
Yes. Just one question: is this from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4B that flight 77 used, or is it from the Pratt & Whitney engine? It matters.
Those are nowhere to be found on the case found at the Pentagon.Gosh, you're right. I wonder why that is?
See, I told you it matters. You're showing a part from the wrong engine.The case on the left is from the Rolls-Royce 535 engine, the type used by flight 77. The one on the right is the case for the engine that you and Schwarz believe was at the Pentagon. Again, this information took just minutes to locate.
See, I told you it matters. You're showing a part from the wrong engine.The case on the left is from the Rolls-Royce 535 engine, the type used by flight 77. The one on the right is the case for the engine that you and Schwarz believe was at the Pentagon. Again, this information took just minutes to locate.
The remainder of the debris was light enough to have been carried by hand.
By several people, maybe. Doesn't mention additional engine parts, landing gear, wheels, tires that were found., plus large parts outside. The following photos are not from "Loose Change," but they should be.
Roadway for heavy equipment being built. CTists find it "suspicious" that the lawn should have been "immediately covered with sand."
Roadway for heavy equipment being built. CTists find it "suspicious" that the lawn should have been "immediately covered with sand."21:01
And employees at the Pentagon were seen carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue tarp.
Why the mystery?
There is no mystery. It's a tent. Just how hard have you been searching for the "truth?" Note behind the guys with the blue tarp is a guard rail, an ambulance, a lightpole - in other words, a road. They are carrying in an empty tent from the road to the Pentagon's lawn.
There is no mystery. It's a tent. Just how hard have you been searching for the "truth?" Note behind the guys with the blue tarp is a guard rail, an ambulance, a lightpole - in other words, a road. They are carrying in an empty tent from the road to the Pentagon's lawn.
21:04
If Flight 77 was vaporized on impact, it would be the first time in aviation history.
Vaporized on impact! I just showed you pictures of tons of debris. See all the people in the picture above? Did you attempt to talk to any of them?
For example. August 15th, 2005.Helios Airways Flight 522, a Boeing 737, en route to Athens, Greece crashed into a hillside at full speed. 121 passengers, all dead. Fire. Tail sections. Wing sections. Engines. Cockpit. Bodies. Catch my drift? What's this. Got to do. With a plane. Hitting. The Pentagon. At 530. Miles per hour?
21:38
Fifth. Why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757? Assumption. When are you going to present experts? These photos were taken before the roof of the outer ring had collapsed.
The only damage to the outer wall is a single hole, no more than 16 feet in diameter.
A blazingly ignorant statement. Haven't you read a single report by those who were there? Or seen any photos except those you used In your video? The hole was approximately 75 feet wide before collapse. Once again, you don't present photo evidence that backs your claim. The inner hole made by the landing gear in ring C was about 12' [Actually, looking at better photos today, it looks to be about 8 or 9 feet.]
A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long, 44 feet high, has a 124 foot wingspan, and weighs almost 100 tons.
Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole, without leaving any wreckage on the outside? We've already seen photos of the wreckage outside. You're being dishonest.
Why is there no damage from where the wings, or the vertical stabilizer,
Who says there isn't? Are you expecting us to make that judgment based on these images? (See photos below)
Or the engines would have slammed into the building? There is a 75-foot hole there. Remember how big the engines were? If 6 tons of steel and titanium slammed into the Pentagon at 530 MPH, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints.Speculation. One wing hit the ground first. There is visible wing damage on the building. See below. You want a cookie-cutter shape in a reinforced concrete building? Sorry. Link
And yet, the only damage on the outside of the Pentagon is this single hole, Again, smoke obscures most of the scene. The hole was approx. 75' wide, and includes the portion behind the cable spools, where the right wing hit. Again, this does not represent the angle at which the plane hit.
With no damage from where the engines would have hit.The "hole" extends all the way to the right edge of this photo, where the right wing struck.
22:55Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact? They are meant to be bomb-resistant. Remember, you mentioned the construction work? Why are the cable spools directly in front of the hole completely untouched?
Where were they before the crash? You'd need to know that to say that they're untouched afterwards. Look at the spools on the left and the right. Do they look untouched?
And as for the inside of the Pentagon, there's another hole approximately 16 feet in diameter It's about 12 feet. It was expanded for safety and to help with debris removal. Found on the other side of the C ring, three rings from the impact. For that hole to have been caused by Flight 77, the Boeing would have had to smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete.
Completely wrong. There are two false assumptions here:
1) That the plane entered and exited the three rings. In fact, the rings are formed by light wells that don't start until the second floor. The ground floor is an "open" floor plan, with no extra reinforced walls to penetrate. Most of the plane entered at ground level and nothing exited the building until the hole in to the A-E drive
2) That each of the ring walls was specially reinforced like the exterior wall was as part of the renovation. Only the exterior wall received blast proofing. (Thanks Mark)
(Not from LC)
1) That the plane entered and exited the three rings. In fact, the rings are formed by light wells that don't start until the second floor. The ground floor is an "open" floor plan, with no extra reinforced walls to penetrate. Most of the plane entered at ground level and nothing exited the building until the hole in to the A-E drive
2) That each of the ring walls was specially reinforced like the exterior wall was as part of the renovation. Only the exterior wall received blast proofing. (Thanks Mark)
...the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft.The debris that traveled the farthest traveled approximately twice the length of the aircraft after entering the building. To come to rest at a point 310 ft from the area of impact at a speed of 780 ft/s, that debris experienced an average deceleration of approximately 30g. Source: NIST
(Not from LC)
23:23
The nose of a commercial airliner is composed of light-weight carbon. This is what usually happens to the nose of a commercial airliner in a plane crash. If the nose caused this hole, where's the rest of the debris from the plane?
You're the only one talking about the nose. The official report is that the landing gear, the strongest part of the plane, made that hole.
So what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer ring of the Pentagon,Another demerit for the 16-foot hole comment. Here Mr. Avery shows footage of a shoulder-mounted anti-tank missile being launched. I guess he just likes things that go boom.
Smash through 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete and leave another 16 foot hole? Speculation. Only part of it would need to do that. And got that "9 feet" wrong again. A cruise missile.Wow! Can't wait to see your evidence that it was a cruise missile and not AA flight 77.
This is what Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade looked like after a Tomahawk cruise missile had hit it. See any similarities?See any differences? Heard of any? Like the huge amount of 757 debris and the remains of the passengers, all but one of whom were identified? But you're not concerned with victims, are you?
24:04Sixth, the eyewitnesses. Some saw a huge 100 ton commercial airliner. Yes. How many didn't say that?. Do a tally. " And I looked off, I was, you know looked out my window I saw this plane, jet, American Airlines jet coming."
Some saw a small, 8 to 20 passenger commuter plane.
" ...maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the sides... " That makes 1. The others? And some saw a United States Military helicopter. And? "...when it occured, he said that he saw a helicopter circle the building." Who? "He said that it appeared to be a US Military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is. And that he then saw a fireball going to the sky. "
When, and where? What's this got to do with a helicopter? Did you think of looking into what a helicopter might have been doing there?
So who's telling the truth? Take this into consideration.Take this into consideration: eyewitness accounts, 30 of which specifically mention an AA airliner. Not to mention the report of the C-130 crew that followed and identified the 757.
24:53April Gallop was working in the Pentagon's west side when it was hit. And did not see the plane hit, unlike all of the witnesses in the link above.
In Jim Marrs' book Inside Job, April claims... Marrs is a professional conspiracy theory author. "While in the hospital, men in suits visited her more than once."
How many men? How many times is more than once? Did any men not in suits visit her?
How many men in suits visited her while she was working at the Pentagon?
This isn't a shot at Gallop, but at the typical way Marrs tells stories.
I don't know how badly she was injured, but does it seem plausible that she wouldn't ask or that someone wouldn't have identified themselves? Again, Marrs likes to keep things murky.
"They didn't tell her what to say, just made suggestions. For example, to take the compensation money and shut up. " Is "shut up" a quote, or is Marrs paraphrasing? "They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building. They repeated this over and over."That WOULD be an odd thing for men in suits to say, if a plane hadn't hit the building.
" But I was there, and I never saw a plane, or even debris from a plane."Okay, now he gets to a direct quote from her. Or is it? In no interview I've read, and there are several out there, has she repeated this story or anything like it.
"I figure this story is to brainwash people."In fact, here's a telling comment she made to the Washington Post:
The makers of Loose Change make a fairly big issue of her story. Did they make an effort to contact her?
"When Elisha cries these days the same way he did when he was trapped under the debris, it all comes back. If she drives past an airport and smells jet fuel, it all comes back." Source
The makers of Loose Change make a fairly big issue of her story. Did they make an effort to contact her?
25:25
So if a Boeing 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, then what did? Assumption. Eyewitnesses inside and outside the building were thrown to the ground by what they described as a shockwave. And how is this is inconsistent with a 757 traveling at 530 mph?
Even the Sheraton Hotel, 1.6 Miles away, was rocked by the blast. Of course it was. A number of military personnel at the Pentagon specifically mentioned smelling cordite.
How many is "a number"? One?
[On screen is a quote by Don Perkal about smelling cordite. Perkal is a lawyer. We don't know if he has any experience with cordite.]
Cordite and jet fuel have two very distinct smells. Cordite is a compound used in ammunition, which is comprised of nitroguanidine, nitrocellulose, and nitroglycerin. It is cool-burning, produces little smoke and no flash, but produces a strong detonation wave. "No flash" is incorrect. As for the rest, that is why cordite is used as a naval gun propellant, not as a payload explosive. (Thanks Mark) And, eyewitnesses described a bright, silvery flash.
I counted one who did, from Eric Bart's Pentagon witness list. Most others described the fast-moving silver plane, which isn't hard to imagine looking like a flash when it hit the building at 777 feet per second (237 mps) on that bright morning.
The explosion certainly wasn't a "bright silvery flash. Video still from LC.
The explosion certainly wasn't a "bright silvery flash. Video still from LC.
Jet fuel combustion, i.e. the planes that struck the Twin Towers, is bright yellow at best.
Watch this. [Another video of test airliner crash]
A massive smouldering fireball, no silvery flash, [Just like at the Pentagon] no shockwave. No shockwave? How does he know that? It's a VIDEO of a test crash. And at the Pentagon, a tiny bright silvery flash, which shakes nearby buildings.
Nope. A giant orange fireball. With tons of black smoke. And jet fuel burning over a 100-meter area. Photo was taken before emergency crews arrived.
This photo split into two parts. (Not from LC) This is the left...
And this is the right. Jet fuel is burning over a wide area.
(Not from LC)
This photo split into two parts. (Not from LC) This is the left...
And this is the right. Jet fuel is burning over a wide area.
(Not from LC)
27:01
Whatever it was, it might have been related to the two planes that were in the air after the crash. Speculation. You have no evidence whatsoever that this might have been so. The first one was uniformly identified as a C-130.
The anonymous quote on the screen says it resembled a C-130. Another anonymous quote says it looked like an electronic warfare plane.
The 9/11 Commission report said:
Might not have been a bad idea to read that report, eh, guys?
The 9/11 Commission report said:
Reagan National controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir."
Might not have been a bad idea to read that report, eh, guys?
The second plane was an unmarked white plane flying over Washington DC. Did you ask anyone who would know, about that plane? How do you know it was unmarked?
"Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park directly across from the White House, perhaps about 200 yards from the White House residence itself. About 10 minutes ago there was a white jet circling overhead. "
"Now you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House, that is restricted airspace. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we can tell.
28:01
At 9:25, Jane Garvey, the head of the FAA, initiated a national ground stop, which prevents further takeoffs and requires all planes in the air to land.
The 9:25 order halted all takeoffs. See below for landings.
The order, which hasn't been implemented since 1903, applied to almost every single kind of a plane:He means "ever." The first aircraft radio was installed in 1912, and radios in planes didn't become common until the 1920s. Source
Civilian, military, or law enforcement. Certain military flights were allowed to fly during this time, but the FAA isn't talking.Whom are they not talking to? Why should the FAA talk to you about military flights?
Why were these two planes allowed in the air when everyone else had to land?The order for all planes to land ASAP came at 9:45, seven minutes after the Pentagon had been hit. Source (Thanks Mike)
Could it be that they were there to help protect against attack?
Could it be that they were in a holding pattern because traffic was stacked up?
How do you know they weren't ordered to land? Did you try to find out?
Could it be that they were there to help protect against attack?
Air Force General Richard B. Myers, from the 9/11 Commission Report:
When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked.
When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked.
Could it be that they were in a holding pattern because traffic was stacked up?
How do you know they weren't ordered to land? Did you try to find out?
28:29
And finally, why did people keep reporting a second explosion at the Pentagon?
Because there was one. Is there some reason not to expect secondary explosions when an airliner hits a building and starts a huge fire?
" Well, I can't tell you about that, but I was just here in front of the capital, which by the way has been evacuated, and back toward the Supreme Court area we just heard a low muffled thud. It sounded like a small explosion. There have been unconfirmed reports of second explosions here at the Pentagon, we have not confirmed that, but again ..." Well, this one said unconfirmed.Where did this fireball come from?
Video shows small fireball. When was that video taken? And why shouldn't we expect additional explosions, as in the World Trade Center.
Seventh, surveillance cameras from a gas station, Sheraton Hotel, and the Virginia Department of Transportation captured the entire thing. However, the FBI was there within minutes to confiscate the tapes,Yes, that's what investigators do. You wouldn't have taken the tapes as evidence?
Including a warning for the employees not to discuss what they had seen. If the government wishes to prove once and for all that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon,The government doesn't need to "prove" that. The wreckage and remains were recovered.
All they would have to do is release one of those tapes.Some were played for victims at the Moussaoui trial. Has the government released all other recordings of all plane crashes to the public? No. If they are not classified such recordings may be available through FOIA requests. Writes contributor kookbreaker:
"... the government cannot just release confiscated tapes to the public. It may show them at trials, but they are still the property of the company whose camera took them. Look at the settlements with regards to the Zapruder film as a demonstration of why they do not release things."
Good point. 00:29:26,800Instead, they released 5 frames from a camera across the heliport, even though none of them show a 757. Because of the slow frame rate of the camera.
And finally, why do satellite photos taken 4 days before 9/11 show a white marking on the front lawn, marking almost the exact trajectory of whatever hit the Pentagon 4 days later?
Uh-oh. Better call the crop circle experts. A "white marking?" Looks like a tan path in the grass to me. Perhaps it's a remnant of digging done to access electrical, sewage, etc. Remember the construction? The big cable spools? Most of all, why in the world would anyone need to vaguely "mark" the grass when there's a giant H on the helipad right next to it?
Here's the animation for statement 333.
Anyway, why would a path be necessary if it was a Tomahawk cruise missile that did the damage?
Or was it an anti-tank missile?
Or an A-3 Skywarrior?
Or an 8-to-20-passenger plane?
Or a military helicopter?
Or two mysterious planes overhead?
Or a cordite bomb?
29:55
And is it merely a coincidence that the Pentagon was hit in the only section that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack,
[Screen quote indicates blast-resistant windows]
Renovated to withstand an airliner strike at 530 mph? That would be something.(Not from LC) Right Side of Hole. Hole stretches all the way to the right of the photo.
Photo Daryl Donley, annotations by 911.research.wtc7.net
(Not from LC) Left side of hole. Note wing damage at the border of the 1st & 2nd floor.
Photo: Will Morris annotations by 911.research.wtc7.net
Photo Daryl Donley, annotations by 911.research.wtc7.net
(Not from LC) Left side of hole. Note wing damage at the border of the 1st & 2nd floor.
Photo: Will Morris annotations by 911.research.wtc7.net
30:03
And that Donald Rumsfeld was safe in his office on the opposite end of the building?
That's where he works. Should he have been in the area under construction?
If the government has nothing to hide, why are they so afraid to answer a few questions, or release a few videos?I'll let that statement speak for itself.
Section III: The World Trade Center
Much of the case for "controlled demolition" of the WTC Twin Towers (although, curiously, not of WTC 7) rests on the fact that many witnesses reported hearing and seeing secondary explosions after the planes hit. I've never been surprised in the least by these reports. Why wouldn't there be secondary explosions, and things that sound like explosions or bombs, in a disaster of that type and magnitude in buildings of that type and magnitude? I have yet to hear from a CTist why that's surprising.
One thing we often don't know is exactly when and where those explosions were heard, and this video certainly makes no effort to clarify that. For instance, how many people, in both towers, heard (but didn't see) flight 175 hit the south tower and reported that as a big secondary explosion? How many people were reporting the same event, but when those reports are listed, it looks like many events? We don't know.
And how many of these explosions were electrical systems shorting, transformers and switchgear blowing, generators failing, steam pipes bursting, flaming debris and steel beams falling down elevator shafts, etc. Several reports call the sound of the actual collapse of tower 2 a "huge explosion."
Electrical explosions do happen in skyscrapers:
What the various explosions reported would have to do with CD, I don't know. When you demolish a building with explosives, you set the charges to go off in a precise order at demolition time, not in a random fashion for nearly an hour. Some CTists have suggested that bombs were placed at different locations within the building. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why that would be. Large bombs would really mess up your carefully-prepared controlled demolition. What's more, no one I know of has come up with any plausible explanation of how this massive amount of CD work could have been accomplished.
So, before we get back to the video, I'd like to propose a little thought experiment to the conspiracy believers. I've asked this before but no one has ever answered. Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse?
And when a billion-pound building does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels?
Because in order to be surprised by what did happen, you must have some expectation of what SHOULD have happened. So I'd like you to stop and think about that. More than that, I'd like to HEAR what you have to say on the matter.
And if you can't come up with an answer, then please talk to the experts: structural engineers, fire safety engineers, and failure analysts. Does it bother you that none of them agree with you?
Once I was driving on the highway and an 18-wheeler blew a tire as it pulled alongside me on the left. The tire was just a few feet from my window. I described it as "like a cannon going off in my ear." But no cannon went off in my ear. I was using a common simile to describe a dramatic event. Please keep that in mind throughout this section.
Please keep in mind that I'm not disputing what witnesses say they saw and heard. I'm just suggesting that there are many plausible explanations for those phenomena that don't involve implausible bombs.
One thing we often don't know is exactly when and where those explosions were heard, and this video certainly makes no effort to clarify that. For instance, how many people, in both towers, heard (but didn't see) flight 175 hit the south tower and reported that as a big secondary explosion? How many people were reporting the same event, but when those reports are listed, it looks like many events? We don't know.
And how many of these explosions were electrical systems shorting, transformers and switchgear blowing, generators failing, steam pipes bursting, flaming debris and steel beams falling down elevator shafts, etc. Several reports call the sound of the actual collapse of tower 2 a "huge explosion."
Electrical explosions do happen in skyscrapers:
Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said. The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes. NEW YORK TIMES July 24, 1992
Remarks on the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing by Fire Chief Donald J. Burns
"Usually, a report of an explosion in a high-rise indicates an electrical problem such as a large short or a transformer explosion. "
Video of a transformer explosion.
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said. The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes. NEW YORK TIMES July 24, 1992
Remarks on the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing by Fire Chief Donald J. Burns
"Usually, a report of an explosion in a high-rise indicates an electrical problem such as a large short or a transformer explosion. "
Video of a transformer explosion.
What the various explosions reported would have to do with CD, I don't know. When you demolish a building with explosives, you set the charges to go off in a precise order at demolition time, not in a random fashion for nearly an hour. Some CTists have suggested that bombs were placed at different locations within the building. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why that would be. Large bombs would really mess up your carefully-prepared controlled demolition. What's more, no one I know of has come up with any plausible explanation of how this massive amount of CD work could have been accomplished.
So, before we get back to the video, I'd like to propose a little thought experiment to the conspiracy believers. I've asked this before but no one has ever answered. Please describe, in as much detail as possible, what you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse?
And when a billion-pound building does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels?
Because in order to be surprised by what did happen, you must have some expectation of what SHOULD have happened. So I'd like you to stop and think about that. More than that, I'd like to HEAR what you have to say on the matter.
And if you can't come up with an answer, then please talk to the experts: structural engineers, fire safety engineers, and failure analysts. Does it bother you that none of them agree with you?
Once I was driving on the highway and an 18-wheeler blew a tire as it pulled alongside me on the left. The tire was just a few feet from my window. I described it as "like a cannon going off in my ear." But no cannon went off in my ear. I was using a common simile to describe a dramatic event. Please keep that in mind throughout this section.
Please keep in mind that I'm not disputing what witnesses say they saw and heard. I'm just suggesting that there are many plausible explanations for those phenomena that don't involve implausible bombs.
30:42
9:59. New York City, New York. The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses to the ground in approximately 10 seconds.
How approximate is that measurement?
29 minutes later the North Tower follows suit, collapsing in approximately 10 seconds.How approximate is that measurement?
Later that evening at 5:20, WTC 7, a 47 story office building 300 feet away from the North Tower, suddenly collapses.Misleading. The fire department believed it was too damaged to stand and cleared the area around it long before it collapsed. The collapse of the south tower was a surprise. The collapse of WTC 7 was expected. That's why there were no casualties.
The building's tenants included the CIA, Department of Defense, IRS, Secret Service and Rudy Giuliani's emergency bunker.Bad place to put tanks that can hold 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel. WTC 7 also included a Consolidated Edison electrical substation (mostly outside its footprint) and a 4 inch gas line. The NIST report on WTC 7 is due out sometime soon after this document is released (April 22, 2006). The tenants listed here are some of the smaller ones at WTC 7. The big tenant was Salomon Smith Barney.
And the S.E.C. was using it to store 3 to 4 thousand files related to numerous Wall Street investigations.Because that's where their offices were. it's good that they keep files on things.
Although every single building surrounding Building 7 stood intact, it fell straight down,No, they were all heavily damaged. But they didn't have raging fires in them. And the building fell leaning slightly to the south.
Into a convenient little pile, in 6 seconds.Convenient? What a bizarre assumption that is. If you say it's convenient, you must know whom it's convenient FOR. Please inform me. Little pile? I often see CT claims that the pile was "2 or 3 stories" high. The pile was 12 stories from basement to top, and spread out over 150 meters.
Left: WTC 7 debris pile after Vesey street cleared for access. Right: Damage done by WTC 7 to 30 W. Broadway.
The visible collapse of WTC 7 was fairly quick. But seismic readings time the rumblings of the building (culminating in collapse that measured 0.6 on the Richter scale) to 30 seconds before the mechanical penthouses on top start to cave in.
Left: WTC 7 debris pile after Vesey street cleared for access. Right: Damage done by WTC 7 to 30 W. Broadway.
The visible collapse of WTC 7 was fairly quick. But seismic readings time the rumblings of the building (culminating in collapse that measured 0.6 on the Richter scale) to 30 seconds before the mechanical penthouses on top start to cave in.
Official explanation? Falling debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire, The NIST report on WTC 7 isn't out yet. Real investigations take time. Which ignited several fuel tanks inside the building. Why not show the building when smoke was pouring from nearly every floor? If this is true, then it would be the third building in history to collapse because of a fire.
Uh, no. You only got that wrong by a few million buildings.
Anyway, all three of these steel frame buildings sustained heavy damage in addition to massive fires.
31:56
On July 28th, 1945, a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Narrator says B-52, which is an 8-engine jet. 14 people dead, 1 million dollars in damage. But, the building stands intact to this day.
The fire took only 40 minutes to extinguish.
B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit ESB at approx 150 mph.
The 767s that hit the WTC weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the ESB.
B-25 Compared to 767-200ER, superimposed over footprint of WTC tower
(Blue indicates floor plan of a "typical" skyscraper) Source: FEMA
Look at the size of the 767 compared to the floor plan of the tower, and keep in mind that every bit of both 767s entered the towers at around 500 mph.
B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit ESB at approx 150 mph.
The 767s that hit the WTC weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the ESB.
B-25 Compared to 767-200ER, superimposed over footprint of WTC tower
(Blue indicates floor plan of a "typical" skyscraper) Source: FEMA
Look at the size of the 767 compared to the floor plan of the tower, and keep in mind that every bit of both 767s entered the towers at around 500 mph.
On February 14th, 1975, a three alarm fire broke out between in the 9th and 14th floors in the North Tower.
Only the 11th floor had significant fire damage. Firefighters had full access to the fire. The fire never left the concrete-enclosed cable shaft on the other floors. It was a 3-alarm fire, not a 12-alarm. The building was not hit by an airliner at 500 mph with resulting structural damage to load-bearing columns and beams. Fire was not fueled by accelerant. Fire insulation was not blown off the steel.
According to the New York Times, "The fire leads to intense scrutiny of the towers, and eventually to a decision to install sprinklers."On May 4th, 1988, a 62 storey skyscraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 4 floors.
It did not collapse. Because firefighters fought the fire the whole time and put it out. On February 23rd, 1991, a 38 storey skyscraper in Philadelphia, built in 1973, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It did not collapse.
Fire was contained by fire dept. and sprinklers from floor 30 and up. Bldg was not damaged prior to fire. Fire protection coating was not blown off. Contributor kookbreaker writes,
And that's damage caused by fire alone. Suppose it had also been hit by a 767 fully-loaded with fuel and flying at top speed?
"The Philadelphia fire LC mentions was the Meridian Building. The firefighting efforts were abandoned after 11 hours because the fire department feared (ta-dah) pancake collapse! The building was effectively destroyed in any case. It had a large net over it and had to be reinforced before it could be brought down!"
And that's damage caused by fire alone. Suppose it had also been hit by a 767 fully-loaded with fuel and flying at top speed?
On October 17th, 2004, a 56 storey skyscraper in Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof. Guess what? It did not collapse. Fire was put out by military helicopters. No airliners hit, etc.
33:07
On February 12th, 2005, the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32 storey tower framed in steel reinforced concrete, burned for almost 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10 stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors of the building fell, the building itself did not collapse.
Building was concrete core, curtain wall construction. Building was not hit by an airliner. Steel beams failed due to heat but the concrete core did not. Here's what ARUP, a major fire-safety engineering firm, had to say about that fire:
The fire led to the collapse of virtually all the slab edge bay above 17th floor as well as one internal bay on the north side. The transition floor resisted the impact of the partial collapses. Below this level there was substantial structural damage and deformation, but no significant collapse.
The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.
The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.
The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.
The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.
And yet on September 11th, 2001, two 110 storey skyscrapers, completed in 1973, burned for 56 minutes and 103 minutes respectively, over 4 floors, Evidence that they burned on 4 floors only? And did you notice that airliners hit them? Before collapsing completely to the ground. One might argue, that this was due to the construction of the World Trade Center. Or, one might make a much better argument that the buildings stood as long as they did because they were so well built. Let's look at, what was inside those buildings.
33:52
The Twin Towers were composed of 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards of concrete, elevators, 43,600 windows, 60,000 tons of cooling equipment, and a 360-foot television antenna. The core of each tower was 87 by 133 feet, comprised of 47 [Steel] box columns 36 by 16 inches thick. Those are the outer dimensions. The columns were hollow.The North Tower was completed in 1970 standing at 1368 feet tall and the South Tower was completed in 1973 clocking in at 1362 feet tall, making them the tallest buildings in the world until the Sears Tower was completed in 1974. And to think... the government want have us believe that these massive structures were destroyed by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Nope, the government didn't say that. You did, straw man.
However, eyewitnesses, video footage and a little common sense quickly refutes that claim. I look forward to seeing your evidence. 34:57
The second plane hits the South Tower between the 78th and 82nd floors at 9:03 AM, barely hitting the southeast corner, the majority of the jet fuel exploding outside in a massive fireball.
Barely hitting the corner? The entire plane went into the building AT 550+ MPH! Here is the footage from the video that goes with statement 383. Now, Mr. Avery, tell the people in the south tower that the plane "barely hit." What kind of person are you?
By the way, there are conspiracy theorists who claim that NO planes hit the World Trade Center.
By the way, there are conspiracy theorists who claim that NO planes hit the World Trade Center.
Yet, this Tower collapses first, even though the North Tower was hit straight on,
35:26
And had already been burning for 18 minutes longer.
Several factors are involved here.1) Because the south tower was struck closer to a corner, the forces on the damaged area may have been more uneven than in the north tower, which was struck head-on and fairly centered. We've seen how the top of the south tower tilted sharply towards its damaged side as it fell.
2) Flight 175 was traveling at approximately 550 mph when it struck the south tower,, far faster than flight 11 when it hit the north tower the additional kinetic energy it carried may have done more damage to structural members and fire protection.
3) The south tower was hit at a point much lower than the north, and had far more weight bearing on the damaged areas: in terms of square footage, the equivalent of the entire Chicago Citigroup Center (right) on top of a weakened, off-center base.
4) The fire protection on the south tower steel was only half as thick (3.4" or 2 cm) as the insulation in the north tower. Source (interesting side note to CTists; if skyscrapers can't be brought down by fire alone, why do they fireproof them?)
35:30
Galileio's Law of Falling Bodies calculates the time in which an object will travel a certain distance in complete freefall. Here goes the free-fall argument again. Distance (D) = 16.08 times Time in seconds squared.
The South Tower was 1362 feet (415 m) tall.
1362 = 16.08 times 84.70. Or, 9.2 seconds.
At this point "Loose Change puts a timer on the collapse of the south tower. But look at the angle they choose: the top 30 stories are completely obscured by smoke. We know that the top of the building tilted sharply to the south (towards the camera and to the right) as it began to fall.
It appears in the still at 00:00 that the top of the south tower has begun to lean. Remember, there are 30 floors above the impact point, the equivalent of an entire very large office building. But this scene in LC starts at this exact instant: the tower is in motion at 00:01 (1/100th of a second into the scene). I wondered if the original video might show more of this scene prior to what "Loose Change" shows as 00:00.
Surprise! It does. Someone has edited the original video to make it appear that the collapse starts at their 00:00 timing. IN FACT, THE "LOOSE CHANGE" SCENE STARTS ABOUT 2 SECONDS AFTER THE COLLAPSE VISIBLY BEGINS IN THE ORIGINAL. That's dishonest.
Note helicopter hovering, text scrolling. Picture 4 corresponds to "00:00" in the "Loose Change" video. Tower has clearly begun to collapse by picture 2. This isn't so easy to see in these stills, but it's obvious in the original video. This sequence covers about 5.5 seconds.
It appears in the still at 00:00 that the top of the south tower has begun to lean. Remember, there are 30 floors above the impact point, the equivalent of an entire very large office building. But this scene in LC starts at this exact instant: the tower is in motion at 00:01 (1/100th of a second into the scene). I wondered if the original video might show more of this scene prior to what "Loose Change" shows as 00:00.
Surprise! It does. Someone has edited the original video to make it appear that the collapse starts at their 00:00 timing. IN FACT, THE "LOOSE CHANGE" SCENE STARTS ABOUT 2 SECONDS AFTER THE COLLAPSE VISIBLY BEGINS IN THE ORIGINAL. That's dishonest.
Note helicopter hovering, text scrolling. Picture 4 corresponds to "00:00" in the "Loose Change" video. Tower has clearly begun to collapse by picture 2. This isn't so easy to see in these stills, but it's obvious in the original video. This sequence covers about 5.5 seconds.
36:05
The Twin Towers came down in nearly freefall speed.
No, they didn't. CTists trot this argument out all the time. It is patently absurd. You don't have to know any physics to disprove this idea. Just look at how much faster the falling debris outside the building travels than the floors are falling. Debris hits the ground hundreds of feet before the bulk of the building does. (photos not from LC)
200,000 tons of steel shatters into sections no longer than a couple feet long.
Ridiculous
Sometimes it's hard to get a sense of scale when dealing with the WTC. Fritz Koenig's sculpture "Sphere" is 15 feet in diameter and weighs 22.5 tons. Of all the monumental-sized artwork at the WTC, it was the only piece to survive at all. A hole was smashed in its top, and inside the recovery workers found human remains, an airline seat, a Bible, and papers from the top of WTC 1. The photo at right shows it in Battery Park in 2005. It will be moved back to the WTC when the memorial is complete.
Sometimes it's hard to get a sense of scale when dealing with the WTC. Fritz Koenig's sculpture "Sphere" is 15 feet in diameter and weighs 22.5 tons. Of all the monumental-sized artwork at the WTC, it was the only piece to survive at all. A hole was smashed in its top, and inside the recovery workers found human remains, an airline seat, a Bible, and papers from the top of WTC 1. The photo at right shows it in Battery Park in 2005. It will be moved back to the WTC when the memorial is complete.
425,000 cubic yards of concrete is pulverized into dust.
Assumption. I've seen lots of that concrete that wasn't dust. And keep in mind the acres of gypsum sheet rock, insulation, ceiling tiles, etc., all of which would turn to dust much easier than concrete.
Thousands of lives are extinguished instantly.Ah, he finally mentions the lives lost. 2,749, to be exact, and many of those people did not die "instantly."
36:22So what brought down the World Trade Center? Gravity. Let's ask the experts. Please. It's about time, isn't it? Van Romero. Vice President for Research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
Oh, I thought you'd be asking structural engineers, the people who design and test the systems that hold buildings up. Romero is not a structural engineer or an expert on fire safety engineering, nor was he involved in the investigation in any way. We'll see what he uses to form his opinion, on the day of the attacks.
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center, there were some explosive devices inside that caused the towers to collapse. The collapses were too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures."Ten days later. "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."
36:48
Why would Romero change his mind so suddenly?
Why didn't you ask him? Better yet, why not show us the Albuquerque Journal article in which he states his reason for the retraction. Okay, I can guess why. It turns out that Van Romero, unlike CTists, is a stand-up guy. He talked to the experts.
Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
By John Fleck, Journal Staff Writer
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.
Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.
But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.
Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.
Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.
"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." (C) 2001, Albuquerque Journal
By John Fleck, Journal Staff Writer
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.
Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.
But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.
Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.
Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.
"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." (C) 2001, Albuquerque Journal
36:52
Hyman Brown. Civil Engineering Professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager.
" It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it... although the buildings were designed to withstand "a 150-year storm" and the impact of a Boeing 707,"
Yes, a 707 lost in the fog, traveling at approach speed after dumping fuel. Anyway, the buildings did withstand the impact, despite heavy damage. What impresses most engineers is how long the buildings stood up.
"jet fuel burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit weakened the steel."Kevin Ryan. Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel that was used in the World Trade Center,
Got that wrong. U.L. Didn't certify any WTC steel, and Ryan didn't work for a division that had anything to do with testing steel or any other construction material. He tested water.
Statement from U.L.:
Statement from U.L.:
"U.L.'s Fire Protection Division has assisted NIST in its investigations regarding the collapse of the WTC towers. However, Mr. Ryan was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with U.L.'s Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request. Rather, Mr. Ryan was employed in U.L.'s water testing business, Environmental Health Laboratory, in South Bend, Indiana.
"...Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without UL's knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL's behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc..."
"...Mr. Ryan wrote the letter without UL's knowledge or authorization. Mr. Ryan was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL's behalf regarding this issue. The opinions he expressed in the letter are his own and do not reflect those of Underwriters Laboratories Inc..."
In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology: "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119." This standard is for certifying entire building assemblies. Source (Thanks Mark)"The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications." Who are "we?""Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F."
Straw man. Who said the steel melted? This shows just how unqualified Ryan is. A structural engineer or fire safety engineer would know better. The official explanation is that the steel in the floor trusses expanded and twisted, overstressing the connections between the joists and the columns. By the way, steel is white at melting point Red-hot is actually fairly cool as steel goes. Note on the graphic below that steel at less than half its melting point is down to less than one-fourth its strength.
Source: Eurocode
Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. He didn't. You're making that up. Another example of dishonesty. "This story just does not add up." Why isn't there a single structural engineer who agrees with you? "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."
I'm sure we can all agree? Assumption. How about all the fires ignited by the jet fuel? How about the massive structural damage, Mr. Ryan? Are you taking those into account?
Ryan's statements directly contradict statements from so-called "experts", Ad hominem. Those experts are "so-called" because they're experts. Ryan isn't. which claim that 2000 degree heat inside the WTC caused the towers to collapse.Days after writing this letter, Kevin Ryan was fired from his position. In the water testing department.
38:20
Not even the experts agree with each other.
That's flat wrong. The experts do agree with each other. It's the non-experts like Ryan who disagree. As far as I know, as of April, 2006, not a single structural engineer in the world has expressed support for any WTC conspiracy theory, and certainly no one who worked on the investigation has. Zero.
So what else could have caused the Twin Towers and Building 7 to collapse? "Occam's Razor" is about to get very dull. [Newsman Peter Jennings voiceover] "10 o'clock eastern time this morning just collapsing on itself. The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed. We have no idea what caused this. Almost looks like one of those planned implosions." Almost like."As if a demolition team set off, when you see the whole demolitions of whole buildings. It folded down on itself and it was not there anymore. If you wish to bring anybody who's ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows , that if you're going to do this, you have to get at the""if you're going to do this?" I'm pretty sure Peter Jennings has never reported on an airliner crashing into a skyscraper.
"at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down." Expert opinion? "We heard another explosion and I'm assuming that's the one that came from the lower level." Unidentified speaker. "Since there were two..." " Right, cause it was like 18 minutes apart. " "Well... This is, no the first, the first explosion and there was the second explosion in the same building.""There were 2 explosions."
"Federal Agencies that were down there do believe that there was some sort of explosive device," Unidentified speaker. Who, in which agencies? "somewhere else besides the planes hitting."
Yes, there was lots of confusion, and an explosion on the lower level. Why shouldn't there have been? Officials later concluded that there was not an explosive device.
"NBC's Pat Dawson is close to the scene of that attack, Pat?""Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, "
39:35
"Albert Turi, he received word of the possibility of the secondary device" Possibility of "a" secondary device is what he actually said. "that is another bomb going off, he tried to get his men out as quickly as he could," Assumption. Most explosions in the world are not due to bombs. "but he said that there was another explosion which took place and then, an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the Towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building," Speculation "The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building." Speculation "There were two or three similar huge explosions and the building" Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "literally shook, it literally shook at the base of this building. First one and then the other, some say after secondary explosions. "
" ...big explosion happened, all of a sudden the elevator blew up, smoke, I dragged the guy out, his skin was hanging off," Unidentified speaker. Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "and I dragged him out and I helped him to the ambulance. We started coming down the stairs from the eighth floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "Just came out of the tunnel, and it blew." "The subway tunnel?" "Yeah. "
"So, tell us what's happening out there."
"We just witnessed some kind of secondary, follow up explosion on the World Trade Center number 2." "Secondary." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "We understand now there has been a secondary explosion on Tower 2." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?
40:58
"There was another major explosion. The building itself, literally the top of it came down sending smoke and debris everywhere." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb?
What would you expect to hear when 200 million pounds falls onto 800 million pounds?
(Keep in mind, again, that my comments are directed to the CTists, not to the witnesses.)
"To me it sounded like, to me it sounded like an explosion..." Yes. I'm sure it did sound that way. Is there evidence of a bomb? "We heard a big explosion coming down." Yes. It did come down. Is there evidence of a bomb? "Everything it went black. Everything came down, glass started popping, people got hurt, stuff went on top of them," Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb? "and there was a big explosion, and everything got dark. Real dark like smoke." Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb?"The FBI is here as you can see, they had roped this area off, they were taking photographs and securing this area. Just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt." Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "Get out of the area. The second Tower is coming down."
"Did they tell you the second Tower is coming down?" "Yes, it's about to collapse." A reasonable assumption, considering what happened to WTC 2. "At 10:30 I tried to leave the building. As soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion." Yes. The building collapsed. Is there evidence of a bomb?"And another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust. I ran inside the building, the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another 5 minutes we were covered again with more silt and more dust. And then a Fire Marshall came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."
"We just saw that as well, the second Tower, the only one that was standing, Tower number one just ah we saw some kind of explosion a lot of smoke come out of the top " Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? "of the Tower, and then it collapsed down onto the streets below."
"David Lee, what can you tell us?"
"John, just seconds ago there was a huge explosion and it appears right now the second World Trade Tower has just collapsed." Yes. It made a lot of noise. Is there evidence of a bomb? One eyewitness was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, two and a half blocks from the South Tower, when he saw a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.
Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? What would you expect to see when a building like this collapses: electrical cables severed, transformers blowing, etc.
42:54He saw about six of these flashes, accompanied by a crackling sound before the Tower collapsed.
Yes. Is there evidence of a bomb? What would you expect to see when a building like this collapses: electrical cables severed, transformers blowing, etc.
Ginny Carr was attending a business meeting on the 36th floor of One Liberty Plaza, across the street from the WTC, and caught the entire first attack on tape.A second explosion can be heard nine seconds after the crash. An explosion, or what sounded like an explosion. Is this surprising? "...sounded like some crash..." Again, how many of these people are reporting the same event(s)? we don't know.
43:31
So, what happened in the North Tower? Ask Willy Rodriguez.
Willy, a janitor who worked in the World Trade Center for 20 years was in sub level 1 when the North Tower was hit.
"And all of a sudden we heard boom! And I thought it was a generator that blew up in the basement. And I said to myself: Oh my God, I think that's the generator."
Was it? Or was it a shock wave traveling down the elevator shafts, or something else?
"And I was going to verbalize it, and when I finished saying that in my mind, I hear boom!" Sound takes time to travel. "Right on the top. Pretty far away. So, it was a difference between coming from the basement and coming from the top. And thats..., everybody started screaming. And a person comes running into the office saying: Explosion, explosion, explosion! He had his hands extended. And all the skin was falling from under his arm. All the way to the top of the fingertips. And it was hanging from both arms. Hanging and hanging. And then I looked at his face and he was missing parts of his face. And I said: What happened? What happened? And he said: The elevators, the elevators. And then..." Makes sense, an explosion traveling down the elevator shafts. "When I..., there were many explosions, and when I actually talked about those explosions, they said that:" Who are "they?""Well, there were so many kitchens in the building. They have probably those gas canisters. And I say: I don't believe that, because the building was a class A building. They have very strict guidelines of what you can put in a kitchen. And I really doubt it was gas. So, there was a lot of misconceptions of what happened on that day in terms of the explosions. Up to today, I haven't received an actual explanation about the different explosions that I heard on the upper floors. And on the way to the top."From whom is he expecting an explanation? He was in the basement, so why is he being used as a judge of what happened 1,000 feet above?
Here's how Rodriguez initially described the first sounds:
He doesn't say anything about an explosion. If the sound in the basement level was a bomb, what was it for? It certainly had no effect on the columns.
Here's how Rodriguez initially described the first sounds:
"We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said. "and then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off."
He doesn't say anything about an explosion. If the sound in the basement level was a bomb, what was it for? It certainly had no effect on the columns.
45:14
The windows in the lobby of the North Tower were blown out, and marble panels were blown off of the walls. Not surprising. Marble and glass aren't very flexible. This was brushed off as damage from a raging fireball that went barreling down the elevator shafts. Brushed off? How is describing an explosion, which many people described, brushing something off? However, the World Trade Center's core and elevator shafts were hermetically sealed, AKA, air-tight. Ridiculous. Geez, I wonder how people got in and out of the elevators? The fire could not possibly have had enough oxygen to travel 1,300 feet down, retaining enough energy to destroy the bottom 8 floors of the building.
Evidence? Speculation. The "fire" would not have had to travel down the shaft. If jet fuel traveled down the shaft, it could cause a major vapor explosion in that enclosed space.
45:48On 9-11, New York City lost 343 firefighters at the World Trade Center. Since they were the ones inside the Towers before and as they collapsed, I'd say they've got a pretty good grasp on what happened. Speculation. How many surveyed the damage at the point of collapse? So, what does the FDNY think? First, we have this interview from the Naudet brothers' documentary.
"...what do we do? We made it outside, we made it about a block?" "We made it at least 2 blocks and we started running... Boom-boom-boom-boom. Floor by floor it started popping out. It was like, as if they had detonated?" "Yeah, detonated." "Take out the building. Boom-boom-boom-boom." Simile: "like" or "as if" they had detonated. "...all the way down, I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down. Could not..."
In these interviews, numerous members of Engine 7 describe explosions preceeding the collapses. How many? Not to mention the damage to the lobby of the North Tower. And?
"I heard a loud boom. And my first... I was, I was right at the desk there on the lefthand side when you come into Tower 1. And I walked out, you know I didn't go out I walked to where all the doorway, where the glass was broken, and I looked out and i've seen in the building across the street. I seen the shadow coming like the, I seen the shadow on a building across the street coming down. I wasn't expecting to see the damage that I saw in the lobby. And, and the people, the bodies, the burned people, the injured people, I really wasn't prepared for that. The lobby was about 6 storeys high and the lobby looked as though a bomb had exploded there." Simile."It's a... all the glass was taken out, there were 10 foot by 10 foot, a marble panels that were once walls that were loose from the wall of the Trade Center. I went around by the freight elevator and I could see it was just blown."
47:42 "30th floor. We hear another...explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"And at that time we heard a huge explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
Firefighter Louie Cacchioli told People Weekly: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.
Caccioli was upset at People Weekly for misquoting him. He never said there was a bomb. What he may have heard is the collapse of the south tower.
For more than a year, the Port Authority blocked the release of a tape of firefighters' transmissions from the World Trade Center on 9-11.Another accusation of obstruction of the investigation. Evidence that such obstruction occurred? None. The tapes were used IN the investigation.
In November 2002, the tape was released to the New York Times and other "news outlets."Why the parentheses around "news outlets"? Is the "American Free Press" more accurate than the New York Times?
Why did it take so long to get the tape released?Because an investigation was under way. Note that no indication is given of when the following quotes were said. Remember that my comments are directed toward the makers of this video, not to the eyewitnesses.
"I got, uh, an eyewitness who said there was an explosion on floors 7 and 8, 7, 8." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?"Battalion 3 to Dispatch, we've just had another explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"...Warren Street, because of the secondary explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"We've got numerous people covered with dust from the secondary explosion." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"We got another explosion on the Tower, 10-13, 10-13." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
"Tower 2 has had a major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse surrounding the entire area." Yes. The building did collapse.
"I was involved in the secondary, uh, explosion at Tower 1, Kay..." Yes. Is that evidence of a bomb?
48:59
Chief Palmer had reached the fire on the 78th floor of the South Tower and devised a plan to put it out.
9:52 a.m., 13 minutes before collapse. "... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." That code means fatalities.
If the 78th floor was a raging inferno like the government would have us believe, then Palmer wouldn've got as far as he did
Sorry, the fire was raging on the floors above. Who in the government are you speaking of? Why are you never able to be specific when making these accusations? And why was stairway A accessible? Elevator machinery protects WTC 2 Stairway A, saves lives.
And certainly wouldn't be able to put it out. Speculation. What about the huge fires above?On August 12th, 2005 an additional 15 hours of radio transmissions and transcripts of interviews with firefighters Was finally released to the public.
49:40
Firefighters describe 2 events consistent with the controlled demolition:
The "controlled demolition"? No experts agree with you. There are many things these events could be consistent with. How many of these reports are NOT consistent with CD? Almost all of them, because they describe events well before the buildings collapsed. Does it make sense to start with the least likely explanation for the phenomena these people encountered? The sound I heard from the 18-wheeler's tire blowing out was consistent with a cannon firing, but did I go looking for cannons?
Video now shows a controlled demolition of a brick building. It looks NOTHING like the towers as they came own, except for the dust at the end.
Interesting that all these eyewitness reports are included when it seems that might help the conspiracy story, but hardly any corroborating eyewitness reports were included from the Pentagon and flight 93 crashes.
Reader "Charlie" forwards this info about executing the controlled demolition of a large building:
Of course, the Twin Towers destroyed everything around them. I suppose the CD advocates would say that this is because it didn't matter how the towers fell.
What none of them has been able to explain is how the work could have been accomplished, how it could have remained unseen, and how it could have withstood the damaged caused by the airplane crashes, explosions and fires.
Video now shows a controlled demolition of a brick building. It looks NOTHING like the towers as they came own, except for the dust at the end.
Interesting that all these eyewitness reports are included when it seems that might help the conspiracy story, but hardly any corroborating eyewitness reports were included from the Pentagon and flight 93 crashes.
Reader "Charlie" forwards this info about executing the controlled demolition of a large building:
People do not understand the work involved in a controlled demolition. I have copied the information below from Controlled Demolition Inc's website. It shows the work involved in their world record (in terms of building height - 439 feet, or 134 meters), demolition of the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit:
Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson's internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns
weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty-four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson's internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns
weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty-four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Of course, the Twin Towers destroyed everything around them. I suppose the CD advocates would say that this is because it didn't matter how the towers fell.
What none of them has been able to explain is how the work could have been accomplished, how it could have remained unseen, and how it could have withstood the damaged caused by the airplane crashes, explosions and fires.
Bright flashes from inside the building Could have been caused by electrical cables & boxes going. And a number of crackling sounds before the buildings collapsed.
Could have been caused by electrical cables & boxes going.
Video shows other controlled demolitions. Again, they look nothing like the WTC collapses.
Hey, it's another article by Chris Bollyn of "American Free Press"! Remember how well he did with the Pentagon jet engine story? This oughta be good.
50:27
The collapse of the World Trade Center was picked up by Columbia University's observatory in Palisades, New York. The South Tower registers at 2.1 earthquake. The North Tower registers at 2.3 earthquake. Won-Young Kim told Chris Bollyn that their seismographs pick up underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away. That's nice. These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Mag. 1 and 2.
And? What else could cause such readings? Is the writer suggesting that 80,000 lbs of ammonium nitrate were in each of the 2 towers?
The 1993 bombing of the WTC did not even register, because it was not coupled to the ground. False. It did register. During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the Towers and the neighboring structuresNow check Chris Bollyn's conclusion in the American Free Press article:
I can tell you one thing: my laughter is producing about that much energy right now.
I can tell you one thing: my laughter is producing about that much energy right now.
Converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage but not causing significant ground shaking.
In comparison to an earthquake. A 2.1 or 2.3 earthquake would be very small.
Sorry, Chris Bollyn. Better luck next time. I hear there are openings at "Weekly World News"
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
- Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty seismic center, Palisades, New York.
- Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty seismic center, Palisades, New York.
Sorry, Chris Bollyn. Better luck next time. I hear there are openings at "Weekly World News"
51:11
Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Told the American Free Press that in the basements of the WTC, (Uh oh, another AFP article. Let's see if they get it right.) Where 47 central support columns connected to the bedrock, Hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after September 11th.
Loizeaux never said he saw molten steel. This was reported to him by contractors on the scene. The metal was never tested. It could very well have been aluminum, which melts at less than half the temperature of steel.
These incredibly hot areas were found at the bottoms of the elevator shafts down 7 basement levels. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed." Speculation that it's steel. And how in the world would molten metal in basements advance the CD theory? He said that molten steel was also found at World Trade Center 7. Speculation that it's steel.51:42
The highest temperature was in the east corner of the South Tower, where a temperature of 1377F was recorded. Hot enough to melt aluminum. The molten steel in the basement was more than double that temperature. Speculation that it's steel. Who measured that it was double the temperature? No one. Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center?
Straw man. I didn't think it did before. What about the damage and other inflammables?
NOW they include a shot with the helicopter, but again, this scene starts when the tower is already in motion.
In all the videos of the collapses explosions can be seen bursting from the buildings 20 to 30 storeys below the demolition wave.
Remember the squibs?
Really strange "squib" music playing now.
Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. And here.
Here, now! What do you expect to happen to the compressed air caused by several hundred million pounds of building coming down? That windows won't be blown out and debris ejected?
And what in the world would be the point of exploding a few random charges on random floors? That's not how demolitions are done.
Indeed. How do yo know that someone in the room didn't shake it? Anyway, of course the building is going to shake before it comes down. What do you expect? That's a serious question. What do you expect?
And something is knocked off the right hand side of the building.And? Are you suggesting that explosive charges went off, and that 12 seconds later the building started to fall? That would certainly be an extraordinary demolition. The seismic data clearly show vibrations from the buildings getting stronger and stronger, leading up to the collapse. This is even more prominent with WTC 7, which was rumbling for 30 seconds prior to collapse.
53:33You're probably asking, if there were bombs in the building, how would they get in there without anyone noticing?
Speculation. I wasn't "prolly asking" that at all, because you've presented no evidence to lead me to believe that bombs were there.
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9-11,Look at the other hilarious stories that appear on the screen...probably another AFP piece.
There were a number of unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both the Twin Towers and building 7 were evacuated for 'security reasons'.
So you're saying that during those brief evacuations, teams of demolitions experts swarmed over the buildings with thousands of pounds of explosives, dismantled the area around the core to access the columns and planted their charges, and repaired everything and cleaned up? If that's what you're suggesting, you are completely insane.
There were phone threats. That's why the bomb-sniffing dogs were doing extra duty. Seems like if there were thousands of pounds of explosives in the buildings, those dogs might have detected them.
54:07
So who authorized all this?
The head of security and recent FBI counterterrorism chief, Paul O'Neill. He had been on the job at the WTC for only a few weeks after retiring from the FBI. He died in the south tower after reentering it to help with rescue efforts. I would think that the FBI's head of counterterrorism might know of a massive conspiracy to take down the WTC, and would choose not to be in the buildings when the attack took place.
President Bush's brother, Marvin, was Board of Directors at Securacom from 1993 until fiscal year 2000.I assume this means on the Board. This job ended in June, 2000.
Securacom, now known as Stratesec, is an electronic security company backed by Kuwait-American corporation, which provided security for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport, and from the early 1990s up to the day of 9-11, the World Trade Center...
The UA contract was in the 1990s. The company only provided some of the security at the WTC. Marvin Bush has been on the board of many companies.
Marvin is also the former director at HCC Insurance Holdings, which insured parts of the World Trade Center on 9-11.HCC was the smallest of the WTC's 19 insurers, underwriting $2.4 million, or 0.068% of the $3.55 billion total. The largest insurers were SR International/Swisss RE and Lloyd's Syndicate. Anyway, why would someone who insures a building want to destroy it?
More information on this was supposed to be disclosed and never was. According to whom? To date the SEC has not revealed what they have learned. What are they supposed to be revealing? Man, the demerits are really piling up. If only we could examine the debris from the World Trade Center and figure out what happened.Experts did examine the debris. Extensively. The last steel wasn't removed from the WTC site until May 29, 2002.
Unfortunately, Mayor Giuliani began shipping the remains off to recycling yards overseas before investigators could even examine it. False.54:58
Not even FEMA was allowed into Ground Zero.
False.
"At the beginning of October, the team visited the collapsed and damaged buildings at Ground Zero and over a period of six days collected a significant amount of data on building performance under extreme conditions." Source
"Team members toured what was left of the 16-acre World Trade Center plaza, interviewed officials and eyewitnesses, and examined remnants of fallen structures at the Staten Island landfill and at salvage yards. Steel samples were cut and catalogued for further study, and some were taken back to WPI for analysis (see the "deep mystery" of melted steel)"."The investigation consisted of visiting Ground Zero, a survey of the WTC site, land-fill and steel recycling centers, review of videotape records, eyewitness accounts, interviews with building design teams, and analysis using computer models." .Source
"Team members toured what was left of the 16-acre World Trade Center plaza, interviewed officials and eyewitnesses, and examined remnants of fallen structures at the Staten Island landfill and at salvage yards. Steel samples were cut and catalogued for further study, and some were taken back to WPI for analysis (see the "deep mystery" of melted steel)"."The investigation consisted of visiting Ground Zero, a survey of the WTC site, land-fill and steel recycling centers, review of videotape records, eyewitness accounts, interviews with building design teams, and analysis using computer models." .Source
Essentially, they blocked off a crime scene and destroyed all the evidence.
False.
Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the building performance assessment team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:
Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the building performance assessment team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:
"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures". Source
Guess who was allowed into the site? Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.
"Allowed into the site?" They were the major cleanup contractor. They are acknowledged as the best in the world. Why mention the OK City bombing? What's that got to do with the WTC? Do you just like things that go boom?
It gets better than that. On July 15th, 2001.What do you mean, "Better than that?" Better than what? Are you going to be specific at some point?
Controlled Demolition destroyed two 400 ft tall fuel reserve tanks from the World War II era. 1927 and 1949, to be specific, which wasn't the WW II era.The demolition was conducted for no apparent reason, and drew numerous complains from the neighborhood. You're killing me here! Killing me! The site remains vacant to this day and a reason for the demolition has never been disclosed.
The demolition work was contracted by Keyspan Energy, which owned the tanks. They were no surprise. Public hearings were held about them. Some neighbors were concerned about possible damage to their properties. Source
We're almost an hour in. Are you going to check a single fact at some point? Even one?
Plus, bombs were strewn all over the building. That's your "simple" explanation? Do you have any idea how huge and complex a job that would be, even if the buildings were unoccupied and the workers and work did not have to go unseen? Why not ask a demolitions expert? Nah, that would ruin your fun.
It was a psychological attack on the American People, and it was pulled off with military precision. Okay, that convinced me. Let's move on.Section IV: United Flight 93
56:0710:06 AM. Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Flight 93 was en route from New Jersey to California with 45 passengers,
37 passengers including the hijackers plus 7 crew = 44 people. You can't even get that right, but you're going to tell us what "really" happened to flight 93? This should be rich.
When it went off course at 8:56 over Cleveland, Ohio. According to the official story, Flight 93 was headed for the White HouseActually, that's Moussaoui's story. Remember him? The terrorist who admits to being involved?
When it was overpowered by a group of passengers and crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. No, the official story doesn't say it was overpowered. Out of all the events of 9-11, the one that has caused the most confusion is Flight 93. Confusion amongst whom? People who habitually ignore mountains of evidence? It was shot down, it wasn't shot down. Speculation. However, evidence suggests that perhaps Flight 93 was nowhere near Shanksville.No evidence suggests that. 95% of the plane was recovered near Shanksville. Positive ID was made of all passengers. Personal effects of nearly all were recovered. Large parts of the plane were recovered, including most of one engine.
56:44"I wanna get quickly to Chris Chaniki he's a photographer with the Pittsburgh affiliate a Fox affiliate. He was back there just a couple minutes ago and Chris, I've seen the pictures, it looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground." Simile: "looks like". "Basically that's right, the only thing you can see from; where we were was a big gouge in the earth" "From where we were." he was not an investigator. "and some broken trees." Right. Because aircraft parts hit them. "You could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we can see there wasn't much left." That's right, from where they could see.
"Any large pieces of debris at all?"
"No, there was nothing. Nothing, that you can distinguish that a plane had crashed there. "
"Nothing you can distinguish?" There were pieces scattered all over the crash site. Nearly an entire engine was nearby.
"Smoke, fire?" "Nothing, it was absolutely quiet, it was actually very quiet."When was he there? Photos show a mushroom cloud when the plane hit. Eyewitnesses confirmed. Photos show smoke in the crater and in the woods nearby.
"Nothing going on down there, no smoke, no fire, just a couple of people walking around "When was he there?
Meanwhile, several video shots in "Loose Change" show smoke coming from the widespread wreckage, and the caption says "United confirms Fl 93 crashed near Pittsburgh."
A better question, which would take time to answer, is how deep was the hole? It was 35 feet deep. The ground was very soft there: it was landfill over a defunct coal mine.
"From my estimates, I would guess it was probably around 20 to 15 feet long, and probably about 10 feet wide." How close was he? Clearly not close. "What could you see on the ground, if anything, other than dirt and ash and...?""You couldn't see anything. You just see dirt, ash and people walking around, broken trees." Broken trees? Might be a clue...
Wally Miller, a Somerset County coroner, told the Houston Chronicle "It looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky." Simile. And it certainly contradicts the photographer's report. The coroner got close.
In the Washington Post...
"It looked like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped trash into it." Simile And as for the passengers...
58:05
"I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes, because there were no bodies there."
Totally misleading. About 1500 human remains were recovered.
In the Pittsburg Review... It's the "Pittsburgh Tribune-Review." "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."But around 1500 human remains were recovered, and all passengers and crew were identified.
It would seem that, on one day, for the second time in history, an entire plane, along with its passengers, disappeared upon impact. False. 95% of the plane was found."...No signs of any survivors at the site of the Nigerian plane crash" Nigeria? Is that where flight 93 is? "that is the word from the Red Cross, which has a representative on site. The first pictures of the crash scene show a large crater where the Boeing 737 broke into the small pieces. The plane crashed shortly after taking off from Lagos in a heavy storm. The flight was going to the Nigerian capital of Abuja and was believed to be carrying some senior Nigerian officials."
Wow, thanks for that Nigerian plane crash info. And how does this apply to flight 93? You might have talked to a single person who was involved in the investigation, beyond taking a statement by Wally Miller completely out of context. That wouldn't have killed you, would it?
So if Flight 93 didn't go down in Shanksville, then where?Ugh. Not this again. You may think we "jumped the shark" long ago. Nope.
58:53You ready for this? Cleveland.
This is my favorite highlight of "Loose Change." I'm glad you warned me to be ready, because I might have fallen down laughing and hurt myself. What I'd really like to know, though, is why the first version of "Loose Change" has the plane crashing in PA and includes several eyewitness reports to that effect? Dylan Avery even ends that version with the words "Let's Roll." Still writing fiction, huh, Dylan?
At 11:43 on September 11th, WCPO, a local TV station in Cincinatti, Ohio, reported that two planes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to a bomb threat. United Airlines identified one of the planes as Flight 93.
And immediately corrected the error. AP had reported this, then within minutes pulled the link to the story, but failed to pull the story itself right away. That's how conspiracy-mongers picked up on it. And here we are in 2006, with fools still clinging to their fantasies. Source.
And from the 9-11 Commission Report:
And from the 9-11 Commission Report:
Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all. After the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport. Remembering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989.The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second.
NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its transponder. NEADS soon learned that the aircraft was not hijacked, and tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed in Cleveland.156 But another aircraft was heading toward Washington, an aircraft about which NORAD had heard nothing: United 93.
NEADS never lost track of Delta 1989, and even ordered fighter aircraft from Ohio and Michigan to intercept it. The flight never turned off its transponder. NEADS soon learned that the aircraft was not hijacked, and tracked Delta 1989 as it reversed course over Toledo, headed east, and landed in Cleveland.156 But another aircraft was heading toward Washington, an aircraft about which NORAD had heard nothing: United 93.
Are you confused? No. Well, it gets better. It could hardly get worse. Check it out. I did. At approximately 10 AM, Cleveland Hopkins Airport was evacuated, amidst rumors that a hijacked plane was going to land. That was flight 1989. Passengers had to leave, but couldn't drive. They had to walk or hitchhike.
Buses weren't allowed to leave. People were sent home. According to Associated Press and local Ohio papers, one plane landed at approximately 10:45.
But Delta Airlines confirmed that their plane, Delta 1989, landed in Cleveland at 10:10.
Air traffic controllers believed they had a hijacked plane in the air over Ohio on Sept. 11. They just didn't know which plane. During tense moments that morning at Cleveland Air Route Traffic Control Center, the first guess was that Delta flight 1989 was hijacked, not United Airlines flight 93. "We knew right away we had a problem. The first thought was, 'is that Delta 1989?'" said Rick Kettell, manager of the Federal Aviation Administration's busiest regional center.Source
59:52Therefore, Flight 93 landed at Cleveland at approximately 10:45.
Wrong. It crashed near Shanksville, PA at 10:03. Both "black boxes" were recovered. The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' assault and the passenger counterattack.
Authorities searched Delta 1989 for over two hours, and passengers were questioned individually.A passenger on Delta 1989 reports on her ordeal.
The Plain Dealer reported that the plane was evacuated at 12:30. But the Akron Beacon reports that a plane was evacuated at 11:15. Which would make that Flight 93. No, that would make you an idiot. Mayor White reported that the plane had 200 passengers.More Pulitzer-quality reporting here. Look at the screenshot. This information is hearsay gleaned from an internet chat room on 9/11! The person who posted it at least had the sense to say, "Very early to tell exactly what is going on." But to Dylan Avery? It's the final word.
But a passenger from Delta 1989 describes "60 or so" passengers.
How many were there? Did you check? No, of course you didn't. I did. There were 78 people on board, 69 passengers and 9 crew.
So at 11:15, 200 or so passengers were released from Flight 93. That's odd, because flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania over an hour earlier. The passenger from Delta 1989 states that she was taken into FAA headquarters. But other reports say that passengers were brought into the NASA Glenn Research Center What reports? Every report I've seen from people who were there says it was FAA. Located near the west end of the airport, which had already been evacuated.So, to sum up.
Delta 1989 landed at 10:10, was evacuated at 12:30, almost two and a half hours later, and 69 passengers were taken to FAA Headquarters. Flight 93 landed at 10:45 and evacuated within a half hour,
Jeez, I wonder why the air traffic controllers in the tower didn't notice that. None of them claim that flight 93 landed at their airport.
200 or so passengers quickly taken to an empty NASA Research Center. And then what? Mission to Mars, perhaps? Why did it take 140 minutes to evacuate 69 passengers, when 200 were evacuated in a half hour?Have you forgotten that I'm keeping a running total of your screw-up, by category?
We can assume that the passengers from Delta 1989 are safe somewhere.01:01:16
The question remains, what happened to the 200 or so passengers from Flight 93? All 44 people on flight 93 died. It's interesting to note that the combined total of all the passengers from all four flights is 198. Okay... Or 243. Depending on who you ask. I asked the guy at the newsstand, and he said it was 674. Whom did you ask? We may never know what really happened to Flight 93.
Section V: Flight Recorders, Cell Phone Calls, Miscellany
01:01:35But we do know what didn't happen.
Got that, folks? The makers of "Loose Change" believe that we can't trust any of the experts, public or private, who were involved in the 9/11 investigation, but they take OSAMA BIN LADEN'S word as gospel. Way to support the terrorists, truthseekers. And note the implication that bin Laden WOULD "exercise such operation" If the "current leader" allowed it. Sound credible? And what information does he have about the motives of the "real" culprits, that the attacks were for "personal reasons." And if he didn't plan the attacks, did he help fund them? Does he know who did plan them?
Whenever this evidence is presented to people, you'll usually get one of many different questions. Evidence? I'm sorry, did I miss something? The first one being, if different planes were used, what happened to the original ones? That's not the first question I thought of when I heard this tale. Unfortunately, we may never know what really happened. Funny, you seemed to know in the first version of "LC." But if we could examine the black boxes from the planes that were used, Black boxes were recovered from 77 and 93. We could prove that they weren't the original flights.
Wrong. There's no need to examine the boxes to prove what planes were involved.
A commercial plane carries two different black boxes. Each black box carries one of two different recorders, a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder. The cockpit voice recorder records sounds from inside the cockpit, including engine noise, stall warnings, and other sounds of interest. Communications between Air Traffic Control, weather briefings and conversations between pilots and crew are also recorded. The flight data recorder records at least 28 different parameters such as time, altitude, speed and heading. Some also record more than 300 other in flight characteristics, anything from auto-pilot to smoke alarms. The recorders themselves are made from the most impervious metals known to man,Okay, I'll bite: what are "the most impervious metals known to man?" Damn, and you had just made six consecutive statements without a screw-up.
I included this screen shot from "Loose Change" in case you were wondering when we would see an undersea salvage robot.
And the information is recorded along with date and time, and spooled into a continuous roll. Any damage that is done to the roll is done to the outside, as opposed to the inside where the data is. You're saying that the recordings can't be destroyed? That's incorrect.01:03:26
The 9-11 Commission says "The cvrs and fdrs from American 11 and United 175 were not found..." Yet, the FBI claims to have found the passport of Satam al-Suqami, which managed to fly out of his pocket, through the explosion and onto the streets of Manhattan below.
That's right. And many other fragile things were found on the streets, including many body parts. And in March and April of 2006, over 500 bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building. Some things went straight through the buildings, others were blown out to the sides, others stayed inside. "Loose Change" shows lots of paper floating from the buildings. What's strange about that?
Debris being ejected from 3 sides of WTC 2, after flight 175 "barely hit the corner."
So, four different black boxes, made from the most resiliant materials known to man, were destroyed. Speculation. We don't know what happened to them. Yet, a passport, made from a fragile material known as paper, managed to survive?
Yes. Just as similar things survived the other three crashes: human remains, mail, seat cushions, personal effects.
Who writes this stuff? You do. Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, told CBS News that "It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders."
It's also extremely rare for airliners to crash at full speed into skyscrapers, which collapse into 2 billion pounds of wreckage that burns for 99 days.
01:04:13Turns out Ted's right. Nicholas Demasi, a firefighter who helped the recovery efforts claims in the book Behind the Scenes: Ground Zero, "At one point I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site. From what agency? Doesn't he know? And who assigned him? To search for the black boxes from the planes. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three."
Somehow, while driving around the site, amongst the 2 billion pounds of rubble, they turn up three black boxes from two aircraft, which must have been on top of the rubble, yet remained unseen by the hundreds of other workers there (the boxes are orange, not black). Then, this huge news doesn't get reported at the time and Demasi doesn't tell the 9/11 Commission? Instead he tells the story in a self-published book? Any red flags going up?
Apparently Demasi has not confirmed this story since the book was published in 2003. And what about his friend "honorary" firefighter Mike Bellone, who claims to have seen the boxes? The only article referencing his story that I've been able to find is in the American Free Press, and we've seen how accurate they've been so far. In the undated article, which states that the recorders were found "before January, 2002," Bellone says of the FBI agents on the scene,
If that is so, what has Mr. Bellone done to get the word out? Has he filed lawsuits or even FOIA requests? He mentions that only one other newspaper has interviewed him. Has he taken his story to them? How about a website?
The only "corroboration" I've been able to find for DeMasi and Bellone's story is this anonymous-source piece at Counterpunch:
So, what to make of all that? Why would anything on those boxes need to be protected? It all smells way too fishy to me.
Apparently Demasi has not confirmed this story since the book was published in 2003. And what about his friend "honorary" firefighter Mike Bellone, who claims to have seen the boxes? The only article referencing his story that I've been able to find is in the American Free Press, and we've seen how accurate they've been so far. In the undated article, which states that the recorders were found "before January, 2002," Bellone says of the FBI agents on the scene,
"They confronted me and told me to not to say anything," recalled Bellone, referring to one of three reddish-orange boxes with two white stripes he saw in the back of DeMasi's ATV. "I said, 'Give me a good reason.' When they couldn't, I told them I wouldn't shut up about it.
"Why should I? I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain. It's the truth, and Nick and I are sticking to our story as we always have." "Source"
"Why should I? I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain. It's the truth, and Nick and I are sticking to our story as we always have." "Source"
If that is so, what has Mr. Bellone done to get the word out? Has he filed lawsuits or even FOIA requests? He mentions that only one other newspaper has interviewed him. Has he taken his story to them? How about a website?
The only "corroboration" I've been able to find for DeMasi and Bellone's story is this anonymous-source piece at Counterpunch:
Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.
"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."
The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. "No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center," says the NTSB's Lopatkiewicz. "At least none were delivered to us by the FBI." He adds that the agency has "always had a good relationship' with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis. Source
"Off the record, we had the boxes," the source says. "You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."
The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. "No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center," says the NTSB's Lopatkiewicz. "At least none were delivered to us by the FBI." He adds that the agency has "always had a good relationship' with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis. Source
So, what to make of all that? Why would anything on those boxes need to be protected? It all smells way too fishy to me.
I guess it all comes down to who you'd rather believe. I believe evidence. No evidence has been presented that the boxes were recovered. FBI Director Robert Mueller said Flight 77's data recorder provided altitude, speed, headings and other information, but the voice recorder contained nothing useful. And Donald Rumsfeld said the data on the cockpit voice recorder was unrecoverable. As for Flight 93, it was the only flight where the cockpit voice recorder was recovered. Hey, how'd that happen? And didn't you just say that the CVR of flight 77 was found? It was played for the families in April, 2002, but not before they signed an agreement saying that they wouldn't talk about it.
They couldn't even take notes. But the transcript has been released.
01:05:01
And for some reason, the last three minutes of the tape was unaccounted for.
This claim apparently arose from a misinterpretation of seismic data that placed the crash time at 10:06. According to the 9/11 Commission, a very large and verifiable set of data confirm the time of 10:03, which is the time the black boxes stopped recording. At least one of the seismographers agrees with the Commission's findings.
We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was "10:06:05±5 (EDT)." Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum, "Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack," spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets. These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community.
Furthermore, one of the study's principal authors now concedes that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93." Email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission,"Re: UA Flight 93," July 7, 2004; see also Won-Young Kim,"Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001," July 5, 2004 Source
Furthermore, one of the study's principal authors now concedes that "seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93." Email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission,"Re: UA Flight 93," July 7, 2004; see also Won-Young Kim,"Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001," July 5, 2004 Source
The FBI had no explanation for the discrepancy. Why would the 9-11 Commission tell us Flight 11 and 175's recorders weren't found?
Because they had no evidence that they were? Remember, DeMasi didn't tell them.
Why would Robert Mueller tell us that there's nothing interesting on Flight 77s?Because there was nothing interesting? Your own video shows the report that 77's CVR was badly damaged by the fire and the information on it was not recoverable.
What's on the last three minutes of Flight 93's CVR? See above. These are vital questions that need to be answered. Why are they vital questions? We know why the planes crashed.It's an interesting postscript that Flight 93 was spotted on April 10th, 2003 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport,
I think you mean the plane, right? It was destroyed in Pennsylvania.
By David Friedman, a United Airlines employee who records all of his flights. The tail number, N591UA was spotted on Flight 1111, a United Airlines 757.Right, but no one who owns that plane, works on that plane, flies that plane and has to fill out maintenance reports for that plane have noticed that the tail number is the same as the crashed plane. Silly goose, the FAA records the tail numbers of every plane on every commercial flight. The tail number for flight 1111 is N594UA. The sighting was either a mistake, or someone is pulling your chain. Judging from the length of your chain, I'd guess the latter. You're wallowing in deep doo-doo if you think there's another plane flying around with tail number N591UA. Some day there may be (see below), but I highly doubt it.
And according the FAA, both N591UA and N612UA, Flights 93 and 175, are still valid.That's right. The numbers are kept in the reserved "N" number database by the airlines for possible future use. They do not indicate active aircraft.
But Flights 11 and 77 are listed as destroyed.Yes. And the "N" numbers are available for AA to use. Why the "but"?
Not to mention that they were not even scheduled to fly on September 11th. Can you think of a non-sinister reason that they did fly?01:06:08
Next. What about the cell phone calls?
Warning! The creators of "Loose Change" show their true colors in this section. Even if you are slow to anger, you may feel the desire to put your fist through the computer monitor.
If, however, you're a fan of sneering, dripping sarcasm directed by a moron towards murder victims, then you've come to the right place.
Most of them are only a couple sentences long, before the callers end the conversation, only to call back later. Huh. That's terrible phone etiquette.
01:06:22
Flight Attendant Betty Ong allegedly placed a call from Flight 11. Allegedly, huh?
According to the 9-11 Commission, although the conversation lasted 23 minutes, only 4 and a half minutes was recorded.
The 911 Commission said that only the first 4 minutes of the phone call between Ong and the reservations center (Miner, Sadler and Gonzalez) was recorded because of the time limit on the recently installed system (footnote #29 to Chapter 1).
"What is your name?" "Ok, my name is Betty Ong. I'm number 3 on Flight 11." "Okay.""And the cockpit is not answering their phone. And there's somebody stabbed in business class. And there's... We can't breathe in business class. Somebody's got mace or something. Okay. Our number 1 got stabbed. Our purser is stabbed. Nobody knows who is stabbed who, and we can't even get up to business class right now cause nobody can breathe. Our number 1 is stabbed right now. And who else is... Okay, and do we... and our number 5 -our first class passengers are - galley flight attendant and our purser has been stabbed. And we can't get into the cockpit, the door won't open." Does Ms. Ong sound like a woman on a hijacked plane who just saw three people murdered?
Who says she did? She first says that the purser was stabbed, but not that she saw this happen, or that the purser was dead. Then she mentions the galley flight attendant being stabbed, without saying she witnessed it herself, or that the attendant was dead.
The Staff Monograph on the Four Flights and Civil Aviation Security says that Ong was in position 3, "assigned to the right aft jumpseat at the back of the aircraft behind the coach section", and the Commission report also puts her working in coach. It seems likely that she did not witness everything that happened in the front of the plane. Source
Flight attendant Madeline Sweeney (see below) suggests all three victims may have survived the stabbings. And she also reveals why the passengers in coach were calm:
The Staff Monograph on the Four Flights and Civil Aviation Security says that Ong was in position 3, "assigned to the right aft jumpseat at the back of the aircraft behind the coach section", and the Commission report also puts her working in coach. It seems likely that she did not witness everything that happened in the front of the plane. Source
Flight attendant Madeline Sweeney (see below) suggests all three victims may have survived the stabbings. And she also reveals why the passengers in coach were calm:
Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throat slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed - one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other's wounds seemed minor; a doctor had been requested; the flight attendants were unable to contact the cockpit; and there was a bomb in the cockpit...
Why is nobody in the background screaming?
...At 0841, Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class... Source
(Thanks, Mike)01:07:24
Flight attendant Madeline Sweeney allegedly talked with her ground manager Michael Woodward for 25 minutes. Allegedly? Michael Woodward says "actually."
She describes 4 hijackers. The FBI says there were 5. Hmm. Could be a mistake made in the heat of the moment. She says the hijackers were in rows 9 and 10. The FAA says there were all in row 8.
This from 911myths.org:
Sweeney is reported as giving specific seat numbers. The names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit cards of these hijackers are quickly identified: Abdulaziz Alomari is in 9G, Mohamed Atta is in 9D, and Satam Al Suqami is in 10B. Source
Alomari and Atta were actually booked in 8G and 8D, so the report was one row out, but that's not exactly a difficult mistake to make. Especially as Sweeney was also reportedly working in coach with Ong, and so may have relied on second-hand information about their location. And as there were no other passengers sitting in the row 7 to 10 D and G seats, it wasn't hard to figure out the most likely candidates for who she was talking about
Alomari and Atta were actually booked in 8G and 8D, so the report was one row out, but that's not exactly a difficult mistake to make. Especially as Sweeney was also reportedly working in coach with Ong, and so may have relied on second-hand information about their location. And as there were no other passengers sitting in the row 7 to 10 D and G seats, it wasn't hard to figure out the most likely candidates for who she was talking about
Near the end, she screams, "I see buildings. Water. Oh my God!"
No, she didn't "scream." Does the horror of this story really need your dramatic embellishment?
Woodward asked Sweeney to look out of the window and see if she could tell what was going on. "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings," she told him...
Sweeney told Woodward the plane was flying very low. Then, he said, "She took a very slow, deep breath and then just said, 'Oh, my God!' Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn't in panic." Source
Sweeney told Woodward the plane was flying very low. Then, he said, "She took a very slow, deep breath and then just said, 'Oh, my God!' Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn't in panic." Source
Madeline was a flight attendant out of Boston for 12 years. I think she would have recognized Manhattan. No comment.
A man claiming to be Mark Bingham called his mother, Alice, who was visiting his sister-in-law. "Claiming to be." His mother certainly says it was him.
The caller says, "Mom? This is Mark Bingham." When was the last time you called your mother and used your full name? What an effing creep you are, Dylan Avery. "I just want to tell you that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys on board and they have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the Airfone," and then "You believe me, don't you, Mom?"
"Yes Mark, I believe you, who are these guys?"
Then he was interrupted by someone who was speaking in a low-toned male voice, speaking what sounded like English. After 30 seconds of muffled sounds, the caller repeats "I'm calling you with an Airfone." Loose Change says this technology didn't exist in 2001.
His mother asks him again, "Who are these guys?"
After another pause he returns and asks again, "You believe me, don't you, Mom?"
There was another pause, and the phone just trailed off.
To date, none of the calls, except for Betty Ong's call to American Airlines, has been released to the public.
They have been since.
01:08:47But to be honest, none of that matters.
Thank you for being honest. I think all of "that" matters very much. When it comes right down to it, what could possibly matter more? Sorry you don't think it's important.
Why? Because none of these calls could have taken place.No matter how much you didn't want them to, they did take place. Real people made those calls in the real world, Dylan Avery. Their last calls. And because no one could help those on flight 93, they tried to help themselves, and may have saved many lives in the process. And because they fought for their lives, who will ever dare to try to take over an airliner again?
Kee Dewdney of Physics911.net conducted some research of his own.Knowing of the geniuses at Physics911.net, I'm sure Ken did quality "research." 
In an experiment called Project Achilles, he took a series of cell phones onto a Cessna 172
Project Achilles, huh? Interesting name. This "researcher" couldn't have some bias here, could he?
Did he follow the flight paths of the 4 airliners? No. He did 4 "laps" over London, Ontario.
Which cell phones did he use? Two Motorola phones, "fully charged."
Are you aware that the three calls you listed above - which you say "couldn't have happened" - along with several others, were made with the airplane's installed GTE Airphones?
"Yeah, but...they still couldn't have happened."
Sometimes, Mr. Avery, ignorance is just hurtful.
Show us the calculation and the science behind it. We know he didn't go there in a Cessna 172, which with its best engine has a service ceiling of 17,000 feet.
Less than one in a hundredth of a chance.Yet look at this testimony from a flight 1989 passenger, which was corroborated by the pilot, other passengers, and air traffic control:
"...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight." Source
Don't believe me? Even American Airlines has put their foot in the government's mouth.
No, I don't believe you, because you're not even aware that it was common to be able to connect on a cell phone at altitude in 2001.
On July 15th, 2004, passengers aboard a commercial American Airlines flight were able to send and receive calls from their cell phones as if they were on the ground, thanks to a cell station that was installed into the plane. "It worked great. I called the office. I called my wife. I called a friend in Paris. They all heard me great, and I could hear them loud and clear." Nice to know.Why would American Airlines spend thousands of dollars on this technology in 2004 Because it had become reliable and cost-effective, and the demand was there. When cell phones worked so well on September 11th, 2001?
They didn't work well, but enough worked. Cell phones were generally more powerful then. Their power has been reduced to lower radiation emissions.
The cell phone calls were fake. No question about it. So how is it possible to fake a person's voice? In 1999, the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico revealed their voice morphing technology. General Carl W. Steiner, the former Commander-in-chief of U.S. Special Operations declared on tape: "Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government."Another example was Colin Powell saying, "I am being treated well by my captors." With just a 10-minute recording of somebody's voice, they are able, in almost real time, to clone someone's speech. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy.
Let's remember that these weren't just people leaving messages on answering machines. Most of these were live, back-and-forth conversations that happened in real time as events unfolded. Betty Ong had a 23-minute conversation.
The following is a the text of a pamphlet I handed out at the premiere of the film "United 93" on April 25, 2006. The creators of "Loose Change were there to gain publicity and protest the official "lie" that the passengers of flight 93 fought for their lives.
The Truth About the "9-11 Truth Movement"
Dear friends,
You may be approached outside this event by members of a self-described "9-11 Truth Alliance" or "Truth Movement." Unfortunately, truth is a casualty when these people speak about 9-11. They are conspiracy-mongers who claim that the terrorist attacks of 9-11 were carried out by the U.S. government, not by Islamic terrorists associated with al Qaida.
They also believe that United flight 93 did not crash in Pennsylvania, but instead landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio and that the whereabouts of its passengers and crew are unknown. For publicity reasons they have chosen to trumpet their ignorance at this event, which is attended by families of flight 93 victims. They are angry that the film "United 93" reflects the "official government version" of 9-11, which is that heroic passengers fought back against the terrorists, and in doing so, may have saved many lives.
Among the most aggressive publicity seekers in the "Truth Movement" are the creators and supporters of a video called "9-11 Loose Change", which is being distributed by its creators here.
They also have an internet forum where members can discuss the video and other 9-11 topics:
Last night I went to the "9-11 Truth Alliance Meeting" and it was very successful. I also made good strives on getting the idea of doing a demonstrations @ Theaters over the Fight 93 movie coming out this month. If we play our cards right, and come up with a good slogan, we may just get some air time on local news channels. [sic] Let's bite these bastards where it hurts, and have this Fight 93 movie backfire on them." -datars, Loose Change Forum Member
That's right, they think we're "bastards" for saying that United flight 93 crashed, despite the facts that 95% of the plane was recovered, with both black boxes, and the remains of all passengers were positively identified. The "Loose Change" video also promotes the idea that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, but again, it does not speculate on the fate of its passengers. Very little is said about the victims in "Loose Change."
Dylan Avery, the writer and director of "Loose Change," finally gets around to a sustained comment about 9/11 victims an hour and six minutes into the video - and he spends the next four and a half minutes ridiculing the fact that several passengers and crew members made desperate cell phone and Earphone calls from the hijacked planes.
"For starters, the calls themselves are extremely peculiar. Most of them are only a couple sentences long, before the callers end the conversation, only to call back later."
Dylan Avery on Betty Ong, Flight Attendant on AA flight 11: "Does Ms. Ong sound like a woman on a hijacked plane who just saw three people murdered? Why is nobody in the background screaming?"
Dylan Avery on Madeline Sweeney, who was also working flight 11: "She describes 4 hijackers. The FBI says there were 5. She says the hijackers were in rows 9 and 10. The FAA says there were all in row 8. Near the end, she screams, 'I see buildings. Water. Oh my God!' Madeline was a flight attendant out of Boston for 12 years. I think she would have recognized Manhattan. ...The cell phone calls were fake. No question about it." -From the "Loose Change" video
The creators of "Loose Change," Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Breams, rely on a network of volunteer workers to copy and distribute the video, hold screenings, and run their internet forum.
Disregard for the victims of 9-11 seems to have rubbed off on these supporters. There is a well-known photo of a woman standing in the smoking gash made by one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center. She came to work on a beautiful morning, and somehow the entire universe turned against her. She has no good options.
"BUT LOOK AT HER OUTFIT, 100% ASBESTOS CHINOS WITH A LOVELY MATCHING FLAME RETARDANT CABLE KNIT V NECK SWEATER. THAT OUTFIT IS HOT, HOT, HOT! - popul vuh, Loose Change Forum Global Moderator
"You dont need to be a Rhodes Scholar to know a plane [Flight 93] didnt crash into that crater. Anyone who will argue a plane DID crash there is in complete denial and no amount information will alter their belief." [sic] - FM258, Loose Change Forum Administrator
"I think these people that think Flight 93 is a great movie, are using it to hide their pain. They don't want to admit to the truth and they would much rather believe their familiy members were heros. [sic] - DJLegacy2k1, Loose Change Forum Administrator
If the quotes above bother you, please say so to the "Loose Change" people at this event.
Dylan Avery admittedly started the Loose Change project as a work of fiction. It has remained so. A few minutes' fact-checking easily refutes every major claim in the video. How bad is it? We counted 426 errors in a video that runs for 1:19:32. It is an avalanche of ignorance.
We don't want to give these conspiracy-mongers unnecessary publicity, but neither are we going to let them spread misinformation and hatred in our communities unopposed. Surprisingly, these theories are spreading, and seem to be especially popular with teenage boys and young men. Videos like "Loose Change" are very popular downloads on the internet, and a Google search of "9/11 conspiracy" turns up nearly a million web pages. Conspiracy theorists have had some success voicing their views on major media outlets. That trend may continue with intellectual giants like Charlie Sheen on their side.
You Can Help Stop the Spread of Misinformation About 9-11
We don't discourage you from watching "Loose Change" and videos like it. If nothing else they are a frightening reminder of how easily some people can become divorced from reality. If you feel as we do after watching the video, let the "Loose Change" creators and supporters know on their web forum: http://www.loosechange911.com. And email Dylan Avery: dylan@loosechange911.com
Ask teens and young adults if they've heard of these theories. Encourage them to think for themselves and remind them that conspiracy sites are not a good place to find the facts about anything.
A good list of links to 9-11 conspiracy-debunking sites is at www.911getthefacts.blogspot.com.
A more generic version of this flyer is on that blog. Feel free to print several copies and bring them to your local theater when "Universal 93" is released nationwide on April 28: the "Truth Movement" people plan to be at as many theaters as possible.
Thank you for speaking out against ignorance!
The authors of this flyer do not speak for the families of 9/11 victims, for Universal Pictures, or for anyone else. We are not supported by any organization, and have no political or economic motive. We simply believe that the events of 9/11 should be portrayed accurately and that the families and friends of victims should be treated with respect.
Dear friends,
You may be approached outside this event by members of a self-described "9-11 Truth Alliance" or "Truth Movement." Unfortunately, truth is a casualty when these people speak about 9-11. They are conspiracy-mongers who claim that the terrorist attacks of 9-11 were carried out by the U.S. government, not by Islamic terrorists associated with al Qaida.
They also believe that United flight 93 did not crash in Pennsylvania, but instead landed safely in Cleveland, Ohio and that the whereabouts of its passengers and crew are unknown. For publicity reasons they have chosen to trumpet their ignorance at this event, which is attended by families of flight 93 victims. They are angry that the film "United 93" reflects the "official government version" of 9-11, which is that heroic passengers fought back against the terrorists, and in doing so, may have saved many lives.
Among the most aggressive publicity seekers in the "Truth Movement" are the creators and supporters of a video called "9-11 Loose Change", which is being distributed by its creators here.
They also have an internet forum where members can discuss the video and other 9-11 topics:
Last night I went to the "9-11 Truth Alliance Meeting" and it was very successful. I also made good strives on getting the idea of doing a demonstrations @ Theaters over the Fight 93 movie coming out this month. If we play our cards right, and come up with a good slogan, we may just get some air time on local news channels. [sic] Let's bite these bastards where it hurts, and have this Fight 93 movie backfire on them." -datars, Loose Change Forum Member
That's right, they think we're "bastards" for saying that United flight 93 crashed, despite the facts that 95% of the plane was recovered, with both black boxes, and the remains of all passengers were positively identified. The "Loose Change" video also promotes the idea that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, but again, it does not speculate on the fate of its passengers. Very little is said about the victims in "Loose Change."
Dylan Avery, the writer and director of "Loose Change," finally gets around to a sustained comment about 9/11 victims an hour and six minutes into the video - and he spends the next four and a half minutes ridiculing the fact that several passengers and crew members made desperate cell phone and Earphone calls from the hijacked planes.
"For starters, the calls themselves are extremely peculiar. Most of them are only a couple sentences long, before the callers end the conversation, only to call back later."
Dylan Avery on Betty Ong, Flight Attendant on AA flight 11: "Does Ms. Ong sound like a woman on a hijacked plane who just saw three people murdered? Why is nobody in the background screaming?"
Dylan Avery on Madeline Sweeney, who was also working flight 11: "She describes 4 hijackers. The FBI says there were 5. She says the hijackers were in rows 9 and 10. The FAA says there were all in row 8. Near the end, she screams, 'I see buildings. Water. Oh my God!' Madeline was a flight attendant out of Boston for 12 years. I think she would have recognized Manhattan. ...The cell phone calls were fake. No question about it." -From the "Loose Change" video
The creators of "Loose Change," Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Breams, rely on a network of volunteer workers to copy and distribute the video, hold screenings, and run their internet forum.
Disregard for the victims of 9-11 seems to have rubbed off on these supporters. There is a well-known photo of a woman standing in the smoking gash made by one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center. She came to work on a beautiful morning, and somehow the entire universe turned against her. She has no good options.
"BUT LOOK AT HER OUTFIT, 100% ASBESTOS CHINOS WITH A LOVELY MATCHING FLAME RETARDANT CABLE KNIT V NECK SWEATER. THAT OUTFIT IS HOT, HOT, HOT! - popul vuh, Loose Change Forum Global Moderator
"You dont need to be a Rhodes Scholar to know a plane [Flight 93] didnt crash into that crater. Anyone who will argue a plane DID crash there is in complete denial and no amount information will alter their belief." [sic] - FM258, Loose Change Forum Administrator
"I think these people that think Flight 93 is a great movie, are using it to hide their pain. They don't want to admit to the truth and they would much rather believe their familiy members were heros. [sic] - DJLegacy2k1, Loose Change Forum Administrator
If the quotes above bother you, please say so to the "Loose Change" people at this event.
Dylan Avery admittedly started the Loose Change project as a work of fiction. It has remained so. A few minutes' fact-checking easily refutes every major claim in the video. How bad is it? We counted 426 errors in a video that runs for 1:19:32. It is an avalanche of ignorance.
We don't want to give these conspiracy-mongers unnecessary publicity, but neither are we going to let them spread misinformation and hatred in our communities unopposed. Surprisingly, these theories are spreading, and seem to be especially popular with teenage boys and young men. Videos like "Loose Change" are very popular downloads on the internet, and a Google search of "9/11 conspiracy" turns up nearly a million web pages. Conspiracy theorists have had some success voicing their views on major media outlets. That trend may continue with intellectual giants like Charlie Sheen on their side.
You Can Help Stop the Spread of Misinformation About 9-11
We don't discourage you from watching "Loose Change" and videos like it. If nothing else they are a frightening reminder of how easily some people can become divorced from reality. If you feel as we do after watching the video, let the "Loose Change" creators and supporters know on their web forum: http://www.loosechange911.com. And email Dylan Avery: dylan@loosechange911.com
Ask teens and young adults if they've heard of these theories. Encourage them to think for themselves and remind them that conspiracy sites are not a good place to find the facts about anything.
A good list of links to 9-11 conspiracy-debunking sites is at www.911getthefacts.blogspot.com.
A more generic version of this flyer is on that blog. Feel free to print several copies and bring them to your local theater when "Universal 93" is released nationwide on April 28: the "Truth Movement" people plan to be at as many theaters as possible.
Thank you for speaking out against ignorance!
The authors of this flyer do not speak for the families of 9/11 victims, for Universal Pictures, or for anyone else. We are not supported by any organization, and have no political or economic motive. We simply believe that the events of 9/11 should be portrayed accurately and that the families and friends of victims should be treated with respect.
01:10:38
So what about the hijackers?
The Saudi government admits that 15 were their citizens and that their families were notified of the deaths. Source
On September 14th, 2001, the Department of Justice released the names of the alleged 19 hijackers. But on September 23rd, the BBC reported that Waleed Al Shehri was alive and well in Casablanca, Morrocco.The article is from Sept. 23, 2001. The creators of "Loose Change Second Edition," which was made in 2005, choose to ignore information learned since then.
This appears to be a case of mistaken identity. A different Waleed was brother of Wail (below). His family says he disappeared before 9/11. There is no evidence that he's alive. Source
In the same article, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that "the identity of several of the hijackers is in doubt."
That was true as of Sept 23, 2001. You really have trouble getting past September of '01, don't you? Well, that explains a lot. You don't understand that "investigations" involve hard work and real research in the real world. That takes time. Since September, 2001, much has been learned.
Mueller's statement to the Joint Intelligence Inquiry Committee in 2002.
Page 3 of this paper shows the connections between the 19 terrorists.
"The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday. Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered. "We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said. Source
Mueller's statement to the Joint Intelligence Inquiry Committee in 2002.
Page 3 of this paper shows the connections between the 19 terrorists.
01:11:09
So how many hijackers turned up alive? At least 9 of them.
False. The hijackers all died. People with the same names as the hijackers are alive. There are 288 people listed in the U.S. phone directory who have my name, and certainly there are more who are children or are unlisted.
Wail M. Alshehri is alive and well. Brother of Waleed above. His family says he disappeared. No evidence that he's alive. SourceMohand Alshehri is alive in Saudi Arabia. Evidence that it's not just a guy with the same name?
Khalid Almihdhar is a computer programmer in Mecca. Almihdhar the hijacker was a known, experienced Islamic militant and Al Qaeda member. Source
Salem Alhazmi works at a chemical plant in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. Alhamzi the hijacker was a known, experienced islamic militant and Al Qaeda member. Source
Saeed Alghamdi is training to be a pilot in Tunis. Der Spiegel investigated this particular claim, and found that it appeared to be a case of mistaken identity. Source
Ahmed Alnami is an administrative supervisor for Saudi Airlines. Again, that's just a guy with the same name. The hijacker Alnami went missing from his family in December, 2000. Source
We already covered Waleed and Abdulaziz. And last but not least, Mohammed Atta's father claimed to receive a phone call from his son on September 12th.
However, Atta's father did not say this when he was interviewed on Sept. 19. Atta's father also allegedly praised the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks and said more would follow. There is no proof that Atta is alive. Source
On September 20th and 27th, Mueller admitted on CNN that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers"Again, that's in September of 2001. Obviously the investigation had not been completed. Mueller's statement to the Joint Intelligence Inquiry Committee in 2002.
Indeed. After all, not even the official autopsy for Flight 77 lists the hijackers,Nor does it list the two-year-old on that flight, whose remains were not identified. The report you refer to is of the body parts and tissue samples positively identified by the pathologists. DNA analysis of the hijacker's remains could not be done because that requires a reference sample. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the 19 Arab men identified by the FBI did board and take control of the flights. Source Source
And the opening paragraph makes no mention of their absence.So if there's no proof that the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda or if they were even on the plane in the first place, Another assumption not supported by evidence. Your tally is coming up in a few pages. You still have time to submit a new draft of the "Loose Change" script!
What justification do we have for bombing Afghanistan?The Taliban admitted to harboring Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, who was wanted by the U.S. for the embassy bombings.
01:12:17Oh, that's right. The Bin Laden confession tape.
Assumption that we would not have invaded Afghanistan without that tape.
On December 14th, 2001, the government released a tape, allegedly of bin Laden confessing to the attacks of 9/11, which they claimed to find in a house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. Proof that they didn't? Except there's a number of things wrong with this tape. One, the tape itself is of very poor quality. Okay. And two, the man in the video looks and acts nothing like bin Laden. Conspiracy theorists always use this single still image to "prove" that this isn't bin Laden. However, the man believed to be bin Laden appears for about a half-hour in the video. 
Same video, same guy. This is a screenshot taken directly from the video. (Not from LC)
Same video, same guy. This is a screenshot taken directly from the video. (Not from LC)
According to the FBI's website, Osama is left-handed.
It does say that. However he could be ambidextrous. We do see him in other videos not using his left hand at all. He shoots from the left side, but that has more to do with which eye is strongest, not which hand.
Yet, in this video, he is writing a note with his right hand.He does briefly appear to be writing with his right hand. It doesn't appear that his left is injured in the video. It's possible that he does this to disguise his handwriting.
Not to mention he's wearing a gold ring, which is forbidden by Islamic law,Bin Laden often wears a ring. How do you know what it's made of? And since when does he adhere to Islamic law?
And is never mentioned in the FBI's description of him.Well, he's wearing a ring on the same finger in these stills from Al Jazeera:
OBL ring 1 OBL ring 2
He also appears to be wearing a ring in this photo.
More here.
And, the guy to bin Laden's right in the video is also wearing a ring that's gold in color on his right hand.
Does anybody else see a problem here?
Yes. You're using a still from a very poor video with very harsh directional lighting. You should look at the whole video of the "fake" bin Laden, in which he looks just like Osama in most shots.
Here he is coming through the doorway in that video. He had to duck, and he towers over the others in the room. Bin Laden is 6'4"-6'6" tall. (Not from LC)
More screenshots from the confession video (not from LC)
Yes. You're using a still from a very poor video with very harsh directional lighting. You should look at the whole video of the "fake" bin Laden, in which he looks just like Osama in most shots.
Here he is coming through the doorway in that video. He had to duck, and he towers over the others in the room. Bin Laden is 6'4"-6'6" tall. (Not from LC)
More screenshots from the confession video (not from LC)
Until the government can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Al-Qaeda was behind September 11th,
Al Qaeda leaders, including Osama Bin Laden, claimed responsibility for the attacks. They said they were acting in accordance with the 1998 fatwa against the United States. Source
A more detailed look at bin Laden's and al Qaeda's claims of responsibility is here.
False. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You're the one making extraordinary claims, but you provide no proof to back them up. I highly recommend that you read and really make the effort to understand A Field Guide to Critical Thinking.
And now for the last question of all. Why would our government do such a thing?You haven't provided a single piece of evidence that indicates U.S. government complicity in 9/11. In America, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You haven't even provided circumstantial evidence that the attacks of 9/11 weren't carried out by Islamic Jihadists.
Let's put it this way, If I asked you in confidence for the name of a single American individual whom you have ACTUAL evidence against for complicity in the 9/11 attacks, would you be able to give ma a name? Just one. I don't need the whole plot laid out for me. Just tell me one person who you've got the goods on.
And if you say you can't give me a name because of the secret nature of the conspiracy, then how are you going to convince a government commission to investigate? And how could you be sure that any commissioners weren't in on the conspiracy?
It's wise to be skeptical of our leaders. Paranoia is unhealthy at any time.
And who are the experts lined up to fight for "truth? Karl Schwarz? David Ray Griffin? Steven E. Jones? Jimmy Walter? Alex Jones? These buffoons are the experts that we're supposed be impressed by?
I wish we could hold national elections today and not have to wait until 2008. But you don't have to wait to change the leadership of your group. You can reject the lunatic fringe now, put your video games aside, and get down to applying your youthful energy to issues in the real world.
01:14:09
First, we have Larry Silverstein, the man who purchased the World Trade Center in July, 2001.
I wonder if there's any chance that this would be coming up if his name was "Larry Jones."
After September 11th, Silverstein demanded $7.2 billion dollars form his insurers,"Demanded?" Yes, I hear he threatened to "pull" the chairs out from under them if they didn't comply.
Claiming that each plane counted as a separate act of terrorism. A sound business decision. However, on December 6th, 2004, the courts only rewarded him with $2.2 billion dollars.The awards totaled $4.6 billion in two phases. You are only off by $2.4 billion.
But you haven't made a claim here. Are you saying that he shouldn't have collected insurance money that he was owed and that he needed to rebuild?
This was covered earlier. Again, check the date on this article...
...and tell me how interested these Loose Change guys are in the "truth."
...and tell me how interested these Loose Change guys are in the "truth."According to the San Fransisco Chronicle, more than $2.5 Million dollars has remained unclaimed.
Had remained unclaimed, as of the September 29, 2001 Chronicle article. The money was collected by the investors after that. Did you really not check any stories after 9/01?
Really digging hard to get the most current info, aren't you?
As for 9-11 itself... Reuters reported that Convar, a German computer company, is responsible for helping companies and accountants of New York to restore their data from over 400 hard drives, that were recovered from the World Trade Center's rubble. Convar recovered information from 32 different computers hat suggested insider trading took place on 9-11.Assumption. Evidence?
This is from a 2001 article in "Unknown News." Its main columnist is named "Chuckles."
If they had sought "known news," they would have found that this was all resolved long ago.
Richard Wagner said that? He knew what "they" thought? Was this information recovered from a hard drive? Maybe an email that said "He, he. Once those planes come we're home free!"
Do you think that when a trade is made, it is only recorded on one computer? Are you that gullible? Don't answer.
Please cite the law you are referring to. And do you have Evidence that there was any incriminating evidence whatsoever? The 9/11 commission report says that all trades that initially appeared suspicious were found to have innocuous causes, after an exhaustive investigation.
Moving on. According to Wikipedia,01:15:33
"One of the world's largest gold depositories was stored underneath the World Trade Center."
In 1993 the value of the gold was estimated at one billion dollars, rumored to be owned by Kuwaiti interests. 1993? When the World Trade Center was destroyed, the amount of gold "far exceeded the 1993 levels."
Wrong. Source Do you think they only know the value of the gold once every eight years? Suppose you went to your bank and asked for the balance on your account and were told, "Well, here's about what you had 8 years ago, and we're sure you have a lot more than that now." No, they keep a running tally of the gold! Isn't that smart of them? And it makes people in the gold market very happy.
"The gold was finally recovered in its entirety in late 2001." Yes! A pearl amongst swine. Or was it?Yes, it was. But why settle for that when you can make up an extremely stupid story. The truth can be so boring!
On November 1st, 2001, the Timesonline reported that a large amount of gold was discovered in the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Correct. In the vault where it was stored under #4. Mayor Rudolph Guiliani announced that more than $230 million dollars was recovered from Ground Zero. Correct. From the vault where it was stored. You're doing good!However, the Comex metals trading division was storing gold bars for the Bank of Nova Scotia, Chase Manhattan Bank, The Bank of New York, Hong Kong, and Shanghai Banking, totaling $950 million dollars.Oops. You lost it there. Source? Think about it: if this were so, what effect would its loss have on the worldwide gold market?
And that's just one company. Your point? Rumor has it that over $160 billion dollars in gold were stored in the World Trade Center.
That's quite a rumor. Where did you hear it? That would be approximately 53.6% of the world's gold reserves as of September 2001. (Source: World Gold Council 2001 monthly report)
So where did all the gold go? It was all recovered. $230 million worth. Remember the gold that was found in November, 2001? Yeah, I just mentioned it. Reuters reported, that it was discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck, Nope. You're losing you're last screws. Along with several cars in a delivery tunnel underneath World Trade Center 5.No. No bodies were recovered. No kumquats were recovered either. Do you know why?
Here's the actual Reuters story
Here's the actual Reuters story
Treasure Found in World Trade Center Rubble
NEW YORK - Over $230 million in gold and silver was recovered from a delivery tunnel beneath 5 World Trade Center Wednesday. Canada's Bank of Nova Scotia stored over $200 million in gold and silver in their vaults under the building. They are still unsure how much of the recovered metal was theirs. It is believed that there were other valuables stored in the vaults but there is no information on how much of it has been lost or recovered in the disaster.
Officials finally reached the trove Tuesday after removing a 10-wheel truck and several cars that had been crushed by the debris. No bodies were recovered. More than 100 armed officers watched the workers. The contents of the vaults had to be removed because authorities need to demolish the building. - Reuters and New York Daily News
NEW YORK - Over $230 million in gold and silver was recovered from a delivery tunnel beneath 5 World Trade Center Wednesday. Canada's Bank of Nova Scotia stored over $200 million in gold and silver in their vaults under the building. They are still unsure how much of the recovered metal was theirs. It is believed that there were other valuables stored in the vaults but there is no information on how much of it has been lost or recovered in the disaster.
Officials finally reached the trove Tuesday after removing a 10-wheel truck and several cars that had been crushed by the debris. No bodies were recovered. More than 100 armed officers watched the workers. The contents of the vaults had to be removed because authorities need to demolish the building. - Reuters and New York Daily News
01:16:45 --> 01:16:50
As workers got closer to the gold, authorities began restricting access to Ground Zero, Well, restricting access to the vaults, anyway. Joined by FBI and Secret Service agents. Yup. One worker who was directed away from the tunnel told a reporter, "If I tried to go down there, they would have shot me." Chicken. Heavy-machinery operators and others worked under the watchful eye of more than 100 armed officers. I would expect so.
So, let me get this straight.
Okay, but we're running out of time. Do you mean just this, or everything?
Gold from WTC4 was found underneath WTC5, in an empty delivery truck, with an empty escort of cars.Ooh, you were so...not close. (and how do you find gold in an empty truck, Zen Master?)
I think it's safe to say that they were running away from the South Tower. Sorry. Unsafe to say... The question is, how did they know to flee from their stash, when not even the firefighters inside the South Tower expected it to collapse? Another demerit for you. 167 billion dollars in gold. 200 million is found. You are in error. And that's just the money.01:17:35
After September 11th, President Bush had and continues to have permission to do and say whatever he wants,
Permission from whom? I know he has to ask Condi's permission to use the loo. I don't recall us giving him permission to do whatever he wants.
all under the pretext of 9-11.The Patriot Act.
The Department of Homeland Security.
Afghanistan.
Iraq.
Insert 19 seconds of helicopter gun camera footage from the Gulf War in 1991. Footage shows three Iraqis being blown literally to bits by the helicopter's 30mm cannon. Thanks, Boomster.
It's time for America to accept 9-11 for what it was:A lie which killed thousands of people, only in turn killing hundreds of thousands more, to make billions upon trillions of dollars.
9/11 was a lie? No, it happened. Billions upon trillions?
Are you angry yet? You should be.Yes, I'm angry that you don't take 9/11 seriously enough to be bothered to do the slightest research, yet you presume to preach about it.
Every single attempt to investigate and uncover the truth behind 9-11 has been blackballed, ridiculed,You're referring to your "investigation," which consists of parroting the ideas of other conspiracy-mongers. Am I wrong? Okay, then: name a single original idea of yours that's in the video, or a single new fact you've uncovered that's backed by evidence. Anyway, "ridiculed" I get. You couldn't be more ridiculous if you tried. But how have you been blackballed? You're freely speaking out and freely distributing your video, right?
That's a dirty trick, attacking us with facts!
01:18:19And harassed by both the government and media alike, for even daring to question the official story.
Tell us exactly how you've been harassed by the government and the media for daring to question anything. Well, I'm waiting.
Still waiting.
Nothing? I thought not.
Getting towards the end here. Are they saving the best for last? Well, at least we have a REAL journalist on the scene: Geraldo Rivera.
"Jimmy Walter, you spent nearly 2 million dollars on an advertising blitz"Oh, crap. I forgot about this guy. Now I have to go back and add him to your list of spokesmen. His expertise in relevant areas? None. His foolishness? Mind-blowing.
One of the ideas promoted by his website: that no airliners were involved on 9/11.
Walter offers a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can prove that explosives were not used to bring down the twin towers. Sounds tempting, right? But you have to satisfy 22 of his conditions. Here's one:
Since that didn't happen, it's impossible to prove. His money is safe.
Walter says,
He then goes on to mention "the speed of gravity," which makes me think he may have taken pills of several colors.
Walter practices "Rational-Emotive-Behaviorism," which I think means that if you're going to go out for a beer with him you should expect him to do all the talking.
One of the ideas promoted by his website: that no airliners were involved on 9/11.
"What about all the witnesses? We have never found any reliable witnesses to these alleged big passenger jets. We find people who saw "something", who were home in bed with the drapes drawn and still "saw the plane" they think, because they heard the explosion...
We caution everyone that false-memories are easily planted about what people think they should have seen. Also, the mind is a computer that interprets signals from the eyes." Source
We caution everyone that false-memories are easily planted about what people think they should have seen. Also, the mind is a computer that interprets signals from the eyes." Source
Walter offers a $1,000,000 prize to anyone who can prove that explosives were not used to bring down the twin towers. Sounds tempting, right? But you have to satisfy 22 of his conditions. Here's one:
13) Entrants must prove how the trade towers steel structure was broken apart without explosives in 8.4 seconds.
Since that didn't happen, it's impossible to prove. His money is safe.
Walter says,
"Researchers I hired have confirmed the following. You be the judge. Unlike most new things that get less good, less perfect as you know them better, this has just got surer and surer, deeper and deeper. As they said in The Matrix, keep reading this site and see "how deep this rabbit hole goes". I really do feel like I took the red pill." Source
He then goes on to mention "the speed of gravity," which makes me think he may have taken pills of several colors.
Walter practices "Rational-Emotive-Behaviorism," which I think means that if you're going to go out for a beer with him you should expect him to do all the talking.
"to convince people here in New York and elsewhere that 9-11 was a self-inflicted wound. "
"Jimmy, welcome. Why are you doing this?"
"Thanks for having me, Geraldo. I'm doing this because a fool and his money are soon parted. I'm a patriot trying to defend this country from the real terrorists,"
So if you were on flight 93 you'd be shouting at everyone to stop bothering the other patriots who were trying to fly the plane into the arch-villain's HQ, right?
"who have damaged and changed our country. I am asking the same questions that the widows and orphans, parents and friends of the victims of 911 are asking,"Can you name some who agree with you, Jimmy, besides Willie Rodriguez?
"and have not had answered by either the 911 Commission, nor by any real investigation" Actually, there were several real investigations, with thousands of people working for public and private organizations involved. Their conclusions explicitly and comprehensively refute your claims. Are all the experts lying, Jimmy? Do you, with no expertise, know better than they? "to the mass murders, that 66% of New Yorkers want investigated."He's referring to a Zogby poll THAT HE COMMISSIONED on the eve of the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Not exactly impartial. For example, one of the questions referred to "the inexplicable and largely unreported collapse of the third WTC skyscraper." The poll results showed that the less schooling people had, the more they agreed with the conspiracy theory.
I'll say it again. Why are they hiding from us? What are they hiding from us? Their laughter? And what's it going to take until people in this country give a damn and do something about it?To give a damn about your theory? An enormous amount of Olde English HG 800.
America has been hijacked. Not by Al Qaeda. Not by Osama bin Laden.So we should forget about them, right? And Bin Laden is harmless? This headline from five minutes ago:
Bin Laden Tells Militants to Fight in Sudan
By Brian Knowlton
International Herald Tribune
Published: April 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 24 - A new audiotape from Osama bin Laden urges militants to travel to Sudan to fight against a proposed United Nations force for Darfur, and he accuses the United States and its European allies of waging "a Zionist-crusader war on Islam."
By Brian Knowlton
International Herald Tribune
Published: April 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 24 - A new audiotape from Osama bin Laden urges militants to travel to Sudan to fight against a proposed United Nations force for Darfur, and he accuses the United States and its European allies of waging "a Zionist-crusader war on Islam."
But by a group of tyrans [sic], ready and willing to do whatever it takes to keep their stranglehold on this country.
Evidence, please, that these people were complicit in the terrorist attacks of 9/11?
In case of stupidity, break glass, wrap flag around body. Keep tin foil handy.
01:19:20
So what are we going to do about it?
Take more screenshots of websites and splice them together as "Loose Change 3"?
Anything. Share this information with friends, family, total strangers.How about cleaning up your own mess before you advise others on what to do?
Hold screenings, conferences, whatever you have to do to get the word out.It's up to you.
Believe me, I will do my part to get the word out about you guys.
01:19:32 --> 01:19:35Ask questions. Demand answers.
Here are some questions that I'd like answers to, Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas.
When will you be correcting the mistakes I've pointed out?
When are you going to show the slightest regard for the truth about 9/11?
When are you going to learn what investigators do, and perhaps talk to a few?
When are you going to apologize to the families of the victims you've insulted?
I assume that sales of "Loose Change" and related merchandise will stop immediately, out of respect for those who do real work in the real world to learn the "truth" about events, and out of respect for the living and dead victims of 9/11, to whom your ignorant and cruel production is dedicated.
Yes, you can get information here, the same kind that's in "Loose Change."
One of these things is not like the others...
Nate, I'd like a word with you.
With this video you've shown NO respect for the truth or for people who care about truth.
Again and again, you've shown that you will believe absurd stories rather than evidence.
You can't be bothered to check the simplest of facts about 9/11.
Why doesn't the truth matter to you?
Are you men enough to admit your mistakes and correct them?
What's it going to be?
Please let them know what you think:
Speak out on the Loose Change Online Forum
Dylan Avery email Korey Rowe email Jason Bermas email
From Dylan Avery:
"Do not e-mail me about the following things:1) The Pod/missile/flash being removed from the [sic]
2) The B-52 error
3) Where the passengers are. I wish I knew, but I do not, and have nothing but theories."
Hmm. He might want to start "investigating" that.
"Finally, I receive a large amount of e-mail these days.If you want a response, try and keep it as quick and concise as possible. At the very least, know that I read every single one."Section VI: Appendices
The following section includes
Appendix A: Internet Resources
Appendix B: Summary of LC2E errors
Appendix C: 9/11 Air Defense Response
Appendix D: Excerpts from the PNAC "Pearl Harbor" report
Appendix E: Changes from LC first edition
Appendix A
Some Internet Resources for Further Research
I became aware of 9/11 conspiracy issues and of "Loose Change" by reading a forum for critical thinkers and debunkers of the ridiculous on the James Randi Educational Foundation website. There is a lively, informative discussion of 9/11 conspiracy issues there, and unlike the "Loose Change" forum, you won't be banned for disagreeing. Just be sure you've done your homework, because the JREFers have done theirs.
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
Government Reports
9-11 Commission Report
NIST Report WTC
FEMA WTC Report Chapter 1
FEMA WTC 1 & 2
FEMA WTC 4,5,6
FEMA WTC 7 Report
NIST Report Fire & WTC Structural Steel
NIST WTC Public Briefing
NIST WTC Materials Testing Videos and Computer Simulations
General 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking Sites
9-11 Myths...Reading Between the Lies
Popular Mechanics: Debunking the Myths
9-11 Conspiracy Smasher
Refuting 9-11 Conspiracy Theories
9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction
Controlled Demolition? Think Again.
Wikipedia's 9/11 links
General 9-11 Engineering Issues (not too technical)
PBS Nova Online: Why the towers fell
BBC Horizon WTC Program with Transcript
WTC Collapse: JOM Article
How Building Implosions Work
Collection of MIT Articles About 9-11
A Few Eyewitness and Victim Stories, Remains & Debris Identification
Flight 77 Eyewitness Accounts
Flight 93: 40 Lives, One Destiny
Flight 93 Personal Effects Returned
DNA & 9-11
Flight 77 & Pentagon DNA Analysis
WTC & Pentagon Aircraft Debris Photos
FEMA NYC attack photos
Articles That Are More Technical
Forensics - Physical Constants of Materials
MIT WTC Materials & Structures Analysis
JOM analysis of WTC Steel
9-11 The Technical Side (CAD Digest)
9-11 WTC (CAD Digest)
Frank Greening's WTC Collapse Report
Addendum to Greening's WTC Report: Energy Transfer
Frank Greening's questons about NIST Report
Terrorism & 9/11
Terror Warnings Timeline (CT Slant)
FBI Statement on Hijackers' Activities
Killtown's Hijacking, Aircraft, & Phone Calls page (CT slant)
Appendix B
Summary of "Loose Change Second Edition" Errors of Commission
Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25
Total flubs: 426
Appendix C
9/11 Air Defense Response
On September 11, 2001 the normal contingent of 14 fighters was on alert to protect the United States. Four of those were responsible for the northeast: two at Otis ANGB on Cape Cod and two at Langley AFB in southern Virginia. Before 9/11 NORAD was responsible for intruders heading to the U.S and Canada from outside our borders, not from within. Air Force planes were available for internal intecepts but did not take a proactive role: the FAA would have to request them to scramble if needed. NORAD and the FAA did run hijacking exercises that involved planes coming from outside the U.S., but as far as I know they did not plan for simultaneous multiple-plane hijackings , or for hijackings starting within the U.S.
From the 9/11 Commission report:
Before 9/11, it was not unheard of for a commercial aircraft to deviate slightly from its course, or for an FAA controller to lose radio contact with a pilot for a short period of time. A controller could also briefly lose a commercial aircraft's transponder signal, although this happened much less frequently. However, the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash. In all of these instances, the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft, the parent company of the aircraft, and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course. Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts-which could take five minutes or more-were tried and had failed.
Would the hijacked planes be easy to find? No. The hijackers turned off the planes' identifying transponders, so that Air Traffic Control would have to sort them out from a few thousand radar blips on screen in the northeast. And NORAD's radar system mostly looked outward from the coast, not inward.
On 9/11 the U.S. air defense system was not "engaged in as many as 15 war games simulating hijacks and attacks." There is specifically no record of hijacking drills being performed. The only military radar "clutter" was on NORAD screens in Colorado, and was eliminated as soon as the real-world alert was issued. Source
Here is NORAD's timeline of events:
American Airlines Flight 11 Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0840*
Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s) 0846**
Fighters Airborne 0852
Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) 0846 (estimated)***
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles
United Airlines Flight 175 Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0843
Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass.
Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11) 0846
Fighters Airborne 0852
Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles
American Flight 77 Dulles enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0924
Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s) 0924
Fighters Airborne 0930
Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles
United Flight 93 Newark to San Francisco
FAA Notification to NEADS N/A *****
Fighter Scramble Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)
Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)
Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania) 1003 (estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles
(from DC F-16 CAP)
As for the FAA's culpability, the 9/11 Commission report does say the FAA did not follow proper procedure for notifying the military:
Military Notification and Response.
Boston Center (FAA) did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked.
Boston Center (FAA) did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked.
And:
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings.
Langley fighters placed on battle stations:
Because the Otis fighters had expended a great deal of fuel in flying first to military airspace and then to New York, the battle commanders were concerned about refueling. NEADS considered scrambling alert fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to New York, to provide backup. The Langley fighters were placed on battle stations at 9:09.137 NORAD had no indication that any other plane had been hijacked.
Because the Otis fighters had expended a great deal of fuel in flying first to military airspace and then to New York, the battle commanders were concerned about refueling. NEADS considered scrambling alert fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to New York, to provide backup. The Langley fighters were placed on battle stations at 9:09.137 NORAD had no indication that any other plane had been hijacked.
Confusion between flight 77 and flight 11, fighters head in wrong direction.
Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.149
After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued the order at 9:23:"Okay . . . scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area... . [I]f they're there then we'll run on them.. . .These guys are smart." That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 9:24. Radar data show the Langley fighters airborne at 9:30. NEADS decided to keep the Otis fighters over New York. The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area. The mission crew commander explained to us that the purpose was to position the Langley fighters between the reported southbound American 11 and the nation's capital.150
At the suggestion of the Boston Center's military liaison, NEADS contacted the FAA's Washington Center to ask about American 11. In the course of the conversation, a Washington Center manager informed NEADS: "We're looking-we also lost American 77."The time was 9:34.151This was the first notice to the military that American 77 was missing, and it had come by chance. If NEADS had not placed that call, the NEADS air defenders would have received no information whatsoever that the flight was even missing, although the FAA had been searching for it. No one at FAA headquarters ever asked for military assistance with American 77.
At 9:36, the FAA's Boston Center called NEADS and relayed the discovery about an unidentified aircraft closing in on Washington: "Latest report. Aircraft VFR [visual flight rules] six miles southeast of the White House. . . . Six, southwest. Six, southwest of the White House, deviating away." This startling news prompted the mission crew commander at NEADS to take immediate control of the airspace to clear a flight path for the Langley fighters: "Okay, we're going to turn it . . . crank it up. . . . Run them to the White House." He then discovered, to his surprise, that the Langley fighters were not headed north toward the Baltimore area as instructed, but east over the ocean. "I don't care how many windows you break," he said. "Damn it.. . . Okay. Push them back."152
The Langley fighters were heading east, not north, for three reasons. First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target's location. Second, a "generic" flight plan-prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly-incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to go "090 for 60" superseded the original scramble order.153
After the 9:36 call to NEADS about the unidentified aircraft a few miles from the White House, the Langley fighters were ordered to Washington, D.C. Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track, but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away.154
Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all. After the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport. Remembering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989.The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second.
Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.149
After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued the order at 9:23:"Okay . . . scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area... . [I]f they're there then we'll run on them.. . .These guys are smart." That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 9:24. Radar data show the Langley fighters airborne at 9:30. NEADS decided to keep the Otis fighters over New York. The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area. The mission crew commander explained to us that the purpose was to position the Langley fighters between the reported southbound American 11 and the nation's capital.150
At the suggestion of the Boston Center's military liaison, NEADS contacted the FAA's Washington Center to ask about American 11. In the course of the conversation, a Washington Center manager informed NEADS: "We're looking-we also lost American 77."The time was 9:34.151This was the first notice to the military that American 77 was missing, and it had come by chance. If NEADS had not placed that call, the NEADS air defenders would have received no information whatsoever that the flight was even missing, although the FAA had been searching for it. No one at FAA headquarters ever asked for military assistance with American 77.
At 9:36, the FAA's Boston Center called NEADS and relayed the discovery about an unidentified aircraft closing in on Washington: "Latest report. Aircraft VFR [visual flight rules] six miles southeast of the White House. . . . Six, southwest. Six, southwest of the White House, deviating away." This startling news prompted the mission crew commander at NEADS to take immediate control of the airspace to clear a flight path for the Langley fighters: "Okay, we're going to turn it . . . crank it up. . . . Run them to the White House." He then discovered, to his surprise, that the Langley fighters were not headed north toward the Baltimore area as instructed, but east over the ocean. "I don't care how many windows you break," he said. "Damn it.. . . Okay. Push them back."152
The Langley fighters were heading east, not north, for three reasons. First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target's location. Second, a "generic" flight plan-prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly-incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to go "090 for 60" superseded the original scramble order.153
After the 9:36 call to NEADS about the unidentified aircraft a few miles from the White House, the Langley fighters were ordered to Washington, D.C. Controllers at NEADS located an unknown primary radar track, but "it kind of faded" over Washington. The time was 9:38.The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46.The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away.154
Right after the Pentagon was hit, NEADS learned of another possible hijacked aircraft. It was an aircraft that in fact had not been hijacked at all. After the second World Trade Center crash, Boston Center managers recognized that both aircraft were transcontinental 767 jetliners that had departed Logan Airport. Remembering the "we have some planes" remark, Boston Center guessed that Delta 1989 might also be hijacked. Boston Center called NEADS at 9:41 and identified Delta 1989, a 767 jet that had left Logan Airport for Las Vegas, as a possible hijack. NEADS warned the FAA's Cleveland Center to watch Delta 1989.The Command Center and FAA headquarters watched it too. During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft. The report of American 11 heading south was the first; Delta 1989 was the second.
So, confusion? Absolutely. Major problems that needed fixing? You bet. Evidence of conspiracy? None.
Appendix D
Excerpts from
Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
A Report of The Project for the New American Century
September 2000
ABOUT THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a nonprofit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project. William Kristol is chairman of the Project, and Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson and John R. Bolton serve as directors. Gary Schmitt is executive director of the Project.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievement of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape anew century favorable to American principles and interests?"[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities." Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20thcentury should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught gusto embrace the cause of American leadership."
- From the Project's founding Statement of Principles
PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY____
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 510, Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 293-4983 / Fax: (202) 293-4572
Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in defense spending have eroded the American military's combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon's plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has found itself undermanned, inadequately equipped and trained, straining to handle contingency operations, and ill-prepared to adapt itself to the revolution in military affairs. Without a well-conceived defense policy and an appropriate increase in defense spending, the United States has been letting its ability to take full advantage of the remarkable strategic opportunity at hand slipway.
With this in mind, we began a project in the spring of 1998 to examine the country's defense plans and resource requirements. We started from the premise that U.S. military capabilities should be sufficient to support an American grand strategy committed to building upon this unprecedented opportunity. We did not accept pre-ordained constraints that followed from assumptions about what the country might or might not be willing to expend on its defenses.
[Goals]
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
¥ Defend the American homeland;
¥ fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
¥ perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
¥ transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs;" To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today's force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the "Base Force" outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
Permanently based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey "tilt-rotor" aircraft for the Marine Corps.
CANCEL "ROADBLOCK" PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,
and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding
while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of
space control.
EXPLOIT THE "REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS" to insure the long-term superiority of
U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
¥ maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced
technologies, and,
¥ produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition
between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
I
NCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross
domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually.
...
In sum, the 1990s have been a "decade
of defense neglect."
...
Four Essential Missions
HOMELAND DEFENSE.
America must defend its homeland. During the Cold War,
nuclear deterrence was the key element in homeland defense; it remains essential. But the
new century has brought with it new challenges. While reconfiguring its nuclear force, the
United States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and
weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action
by threatening U.S. allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current
missions for U.S. armed forces, this must have priority.
LARGE WARS.
Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly
deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to
unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces.
This resembles the "two-war" standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over
the past decade. Yet this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and
potential new conflicts.
CONSTABULARY DUTIES.
Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conduction major theater campaigns. A decade's experience and the policies of two administrations have shown that such forces must be expanded to meet the needs of the new, long-term NATO mission in the Balkans, the continuing no-fly-zone and other missions in Southwest Asia, and other presence missions in vital regions of East Asia. These duties are today's most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations.
TRANSFORM U.S. ARMED FORCES.
Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called "revolution in military affairs," sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets.
Transformation Forces
The fourth element in American force posture - and certainly the one, which holds the key to any longer-term hopes to extend the current Pax Americana - is the mission to transform U.S. military forces to meet new geopolitical and technological challenges. While the prime directive for transformation will be to design and deploy global missile defense system, the effects of information and other advanced technologies promise to revolutionize the nature of conventional armed forces. Moreover, themed to create weapons systems optimized for operations in the Pacific theater will create requirements quite distinct from the current generation of systems designed for warfare on the European continent and those new systems like the F-22 fighter that also were developed to meet late-Cold-War needs.
Although the basic concept for a system of global missile defenses capable of defending the United States and its allies against the threat of smaller and simpler ballistic missiles has been well understood since the late 1980s, a decade has been squandered in developing the requisite technologies. In fact, work on the key elements of such a system, especially those that would operate in space, has either been so slowed or halted completely, so that the process of deploying robust missile defenses remains a long-term project. If for no other reason, the mission to create such a missile defense system should be considered a matter of military transformation.
As will be argued more fully below, effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of U.S. military forces abroad. Without it, weak states operating small arsenals of crude ballistic missiles, armed with basic nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction, will be a in a strong position to deter the United States from using conventional force, no matter the technological or other advantages we may enjoy. Even if such enemies are merely able to threaten American allies rather than the United States homeland itself, America's ability to project power will be deeply compromised. Alas, neither Administration strategists nor Pentagon force planners seem to have grasped this elemental point; certainly, efforts to fund, design and develop an effective system of missile defenses do not reflect any sense of urgency. Nonetheless, the first task in transforming U.S. military to meet the technological and strategic realities of a new century is to create such a system. Creating a system of global missile defenses is but the first task of transformation; the need to reshape U.S. conventional forces is almost as pressing. For, although American armed forces possess capabilities and enjoy advantages that far surpass those of even our richest and closest allies, let alone our declared and potential enemies, the combination of technological and strategic change that marks the new century places these advantages at risk. Today's U.S. conventional forces are masters of a mature paradigm of warfare, marked by the dominance of armored vehicles, aircraft carriers and, especially, manned tactical aircraft, that is beginning to be overtaken by a new paradigm, marked by long-range precision strikes and the proliferation of missile technologies. Ironically, it has been the United States that has pioneered this new form of high-technology conventional warfare: it was suggested by the 1991 Gulf War and has been revealed more fully by the operations of the past decade. Even the "Allied Force" air war for Kosovo showed a distorted version of the emerging paradigm of warfare.
Yet even these pioneering capabilities are the residue of investments first made in the mid- and late 1980s; over the past decade the pace of innovation within the Pentagon has slowed measurably. In part, this is due to reduced defense budgets, the overwhelming dominance of U.S. forces today, and the multiplicity of constabulary missions. And without the driving challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation have lacked urgency. Nonetheless, a variety of new potential challenges can be clearly foreseen. The Chinese military, in particular, seeks to exploit the revolution in military affairs to offset American advantages in naval and air power, for example. If the United States is to retain the technological and tactical advantages it now enjoys in large-scale conventional conflicts, the effort at transformation must be considered as pressing a mission as preparing for today's potential theater wars or constabulary missions - indeed, it must receive a significant, separate allocation of forces and budgetary resources over the next two
decades.
In addition, the process of transformation must proceed from an appreciation of American strategy and political goals. For example, as the leader of a global network of alliances and strategic partnerships, U.S. armed forces cannot retreat into a "Fortress America." Thus, while long-range precision strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations, American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers. To remain as the leader of a variety of coalitions, the United States must partake in the risks its allies face; security guarantees that depend solely upon power projected from the continental United States will inevitably become discounted. Moreover, the process of transformation should proceed in a spirit of competition among the services and between service and joint approaches. Inevitably, new technologies may create the need for entirely new military organizations; this report will argue below that the emergence of space as a key theater of war suggests forcefully that, in time, it may be wise to create a separate "space service." Thus far, the Defense Department has attempted to take a prematurely joint approach to transformation. While it is certain that new technologies will allow for the closer combination of traditional service capabilities, it is too early in the process of transformation to choke off what should be the healthy and competitive face of "interservice rivalry." Because the separate services are the military institutions most attuned to providing forces designed to carry out the specific missions required by U.S. strategy, they are in fact best equipped to become the engines of transformation and change within the context of enduring mission requirements.
Finally, it must be remembered that the process of transformation is indeed a process: even the most vivid view of the armed forces of the future must be grounded in an understanding of today's forces. In general terms, it seems likely that the process of transformation will take several decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons systems for a decade or more. Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The break point will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs - tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example - that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to
come.
..
Persian Gulf
In the decade since the end of the Cold War, the Persian Gulf and the surrounding region has witnessed a geometric increase in the presence of U.S. armed forces, peaking above 500,000 troops during Operation Desert Storm, but rarely falling below 20,000 in the intervening years. In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other neighboring states roughly 5,000 airmen and a large and varied fleet of Air Force aircraft patrol the skies of Operation Southern Watch, often complemented by Navy aircraft from carriers in the Gulf and, during the strikes reacting to Saddam Hussein's periodic provocations, cruise missiles from Navy surface vessels and submarines. Flights from Turkey under Northern Watch also involve substantial forces, and indeed more often result in combat actions.
After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region. In addition to the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, the United States now also retains what amounts to a near-permanent land force presence in Kuwait. A substantial heavy task force with almost the strength of a brigade rotates four times a year on average for maneuvers and joint training with the Kuwaiti army, with the result that commanders now believe that, in conjunction with the Southern Watch fleet, Kuwait itself is strongly defended against any Iraqi attack. With a minor increase in strength, more permanent basing arrangements, and continued no fly and "no drive" zone enforcement, the danger of a repeat short-warning Iraqi invasion as in 1990 would be significantly reduced. With the rationalization of ground-based U.S. air forces in the region, the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed.
As recent strikes against Iraq demonstrate, the preferred weapon for punitive raids is the cruise missile, supplemented by stealthy strike aircraft and longer-range Air Force strike aircraft. Carrier aircraft are most useful in sustaining a campaign begun with missiles and stealth strike aircraft, indicating that a surface action group capable of launching several hundred cruise missiles is the most valuable naval presence in the Gulf. With a substantial permanent Army ground presence in Kuwait, the demands for Marine presence in the Gulf could be scaled back as well.
...
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence. The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm, that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present opportunities for America's adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.
Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge on future battlefields.
Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.
In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow's U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:
¥ Global missile defenses.
A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and space based components.
¥ Control of space and cyberspace.
Much as control of the high seas - and the protection of international commerce - defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new "international commons" be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the "info sphere" will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.
¥ Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces.
In exploiting the "revolution in military affairs," the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions.
Missile Defenses Ever since the Persian Gulf War of 1991, when an Iraqi Scud missile hit a Saudi warehouse in which American soldiers were sleeping, causing the largest single number of casualties in the war; when Israeli and Saudi citizens donned gas masks in nightly terror of Scud attacks; and when the great "Scud Hunt" proved to be an elusive game that absorbed a huge proportion of U.S. aircraft, the value of the ballistic missile has been clear to America's adversaries. When their missiles are tipped with warheads carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, even weak regional powers have a credible deterrent, regardless of the balance of conventional forces. That is why, according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America - North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria - "already have or are developing ballistic missiles" that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad. And one, North Korea, is on the verge of deploying missiles that can hit the American homeland. Such capabilities pose a grave challenge to the American peace and the military power that preserves that peace.
The ability to control this emerging threat through traditional nonproliferation treaties is limited when the geopolitical and strategic advantages of such weapons are so apparent and so readily acquired. The Clinton Administration's diplomacy, threats and pleadings did nothing to prevent first India and shortly thereafter Pakistan from demonstrating their nuclear capabilities. Nor have formal international agreements such as the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime done much to stem missile proliferation, even when backed by U.S. sanctions; in the final analysis, the administration has preferred to subordinate its nonproliferation policy to larger regional and country-specific goals. Thus, President Clinton lamented in June 1998 that he found sanctions legislation so inflexible that he was forced to "fudge" the intelligence evidence on China's transfer of ballistic missiles to Pakistan to avoid the legal requirements to impose sanctions on Beijing.
At the same time, the administration's devotion to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the Soviet Union has frustrated development of useful ballistic missile defenses. This is reflected in deep budget cuts - planned spending on missile defenses for the late 1990s has been more than halved, halting work on space-based interceptors, cutting funds for a national missile defense system by 80 percent and theater defenses by 30 percent. Further, the administration has cut funding just at the crucial moments when individual programs begin to show promise. Only upgrades of currently existing systems like the Patriot missile - originally designed primarily for air defense against jet fighters, not missile defense - have proceeded generally on course.
Most damaging of all was the decision in 1993 to terminate the "Brilliant Pebbles" project. This legacy of the original Reagan era "Star Wars" effort had matured to the point where it was becoming feasible to develop a space-based interceptor capable of destroying ballistic missiles in the early or middle portion of their flight - far preferable than attempting to hit individual warheads surrounded by clusters of decoys on their final course toward their targets. But since a space-based system would violate the ABM Treaty, the administration killed the "Brilliant Pebbles" program, choosing instead to proceed with a ground-based interceptor and radar system - one that will be costly without being especially effective.
While there is an argument to be made for "terminal" ground-based interceptors as an element in a larger architecture of missile defenses, it deserves the lowest rather than the first priority. The first element in any missile defense network should be a galaxy of surveillance satellites with sensors capable of acquiring enemy ballistic missiles immediately upon launch. Once a missile is tracked and targeted, this information needs to be instantly disseminated through a world-wide command-and-control system, including direct links to interceptors. To address the special problems of theater range ballistic missiles, theater-level defenses should be layered as well. In addition to space-based systems, these theater systems should include both land and sea-based interceptors, to allow for deployment to trouble spots to reinforce theater systems already in place or to cover gaps where no defenses exist. In addition, they should be "two-tiered," providing close-in "point defense" of valuable targets and forces as well as upper-level, "theater wide" coverage.
Current programs could provide the necessary density for a layered approach to theater missile defense, although funding for each component has been inadequate, especially for the upper-tier, sea based effort, known as the Navy Theater-Wide program. Point defense is to be provided by the Patriot Advanced Capability, Level 3, or PAC-3 version of the Patriot air defense missile and by the Navy Area Defense system, likewise an upgrade of the current Standard air defense missile and the Aegis radar system. Both systems are on the verge of being deployed.
These lower-tier defenses, though they will be capable of providing protection against the basic Scuds and Scud variants that comprise the arsenals of most American adversaries today, are less effective against longer-range, higher-velocity missiles that several states have under development. Moreover, they will be less effective against missiles with more complex warheads or those that break apart, as many Iraqi modified Scuds did during the Gulf War. And finally, point defenses, even when they successfully intercept an incoming missile, may not offset the effects against weapons of mass destruction.
Thus the requirement for upper-tier, theater-wide defenses like the Army's Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Navy Theater-Wide systems. Though housed in a Patriot-like launcher, THAAD is an entirely new system designed to intercept medium-range ballistic missiles earlier in their flight, in the so-called "mid-course." The Navy Theater- Wide system is based upon the Aegis system, with an upgraded radar and higher velocity - though intentionally slowed down to meet administration concerns over violating the ABM Treaty - version of the Standard missile. The THAAD system has enjoyed recent test success, but development of the Navy Theater-Wide system has been hampered by lack of funds.
Similarly, a fifth component of a theater-wide network of ballistic missile defenses, the Air Force's airborne laser project, has suffered from insufficient funding. This system, which mounts a high energy laser in a 747 aircraft, is designed to intercept theater ballistic missiles in their earliest, or "boost" phase, when they are most vulnerable. To maximize their effectiveness, these theater-level interceptors should receive continuous targeting information directly from a global constellation of satellites carrying infrared sensors capable of detecting ballistic missile launches as they happen.
The low-earth-orbit tier of the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS Low), now under development by the Air Force, will provide continuous observations of ballistic missiles in the boost, midcourse and reentry phases of attack. Current missile tracking radars can see objects only above the horizon and must be placed in friendly territory; consequently, they are most effective only in the later phases of a ballistic missile's flight. SBIRS Low, however, can see a hostile missile earlier in its trajectory, increasing times for interception and multiplying the effectiveness of theater-range interceptors by cueing their radars with targeting data. It will also provide precise launch-point information, allowing theater forces a better chance to destroy hostile launchers before more missiles can be fired.
There is also a SBIRS High project, but both SBIRS programs have suffered budget cuts that are to delay their deployments by two years. But to be most effective, this array global reconnaissance and targeting satellites should be linked to a global network of space-based interceptors (or space-based lasers). In fact, it is misleading to think of such a system as a "national" missile defense system, for it would be a vital element in theater defenses, protecting U.S. allies or expeditionary forces abroad from longer-range theater weapons. This is why the Bush Administration's missile defense architecture, which is almost identical to the network described above, was called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS).
By contrast, the Clinton Administration's plan to develop limited national missile defenses based upon Minuteman III missiles fitted with a so-called "exoatmospheric kill vehicle" is the most technologically challenging, most expensive, and least effective form of long range ballistic missile defense. Indeed, the Clinton Administration's differentiation between theater and national missile defense systems is yet another legacy of the ABM Treaty, one that does not fit the current strategic circumstances. Moreover, by differentiating between national and theater defenses, current plans drive a wedge between the United States and its allies, and risk "decoupling." Conversely, American interests will diverge from those of our allies if theater defenses can protect our friends and forces abroad, but the American people at home remain threatened.
In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. Projecting conventional military forces or simply asserting political influence abroad, particularly in times of crisis, will be far more complex and constrained when the American homeland or the territory of our allies is subject to attack by otherwise weak rogue regimes capable of cobbling together a miniscule ballistic missile force. Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence.
Space and Cyberspace
No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space. Although this would appear to be creating a potential new theater of warfare, in fact space has been militarized for the better part of four decades. Weather, communications, navigation and reconnaissance satellites are increasingly essential elements in American military power. Indeed, U.S. armed forces are uniquely dependent upon space. As the 1996 Joint Strategy Review, a precursor to the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, concluded, "Space is already inextricably linked to military operations on land, on the sea, and in the air." The report of the National Defense Panel agreed: "Unrestricted use of space has become a major strategic interest of the United
States."
Given the advantages U.S. armed forces enjoy as a result of this unrestricted use of space, it is shortsighted to expect potential adversaries to refrain from attempting to offset to disable or offset U.S. space capabilities. And with the proliferation of space know-how and related technology around the world, our adversaries will inevitably seek to enjoy many of the same space advantages in the future. Moreover, "space commerce" is a growing part of the global economy. In 1996, commercial launches exceeded military launches in the United States, and commercial revenues exceeded government expenditures on space. Today, more than 1,100 commercial companies across more than 50 countries are developing, building, and operating space systems.
Many of these commercial space systems have direct military applications, including information from global positioning system constellations and better than- one-meter resolution imaging satellites. Indeed, 95 percent of current U.S. military communications are carried over commercial circuits, including commercial communications satellites.
The U.S. Space Command foresees that in the coming decades, an adversary will have sophisticated regional situational awareness. Enemies may very well know, in near real time, the disposition of all forces....In fact, national military forces, paramilitary units, terrorists, and any other potential adversaries will share the high ground of space with the United States and its allies. Adversaries may also share the same commercial satellite services for communications, imagery, and navigation....The space "playing field" is leveling rapidly, so U.S. forces will be increasingly vulnerable. Though adversaries will benefit greatly from space, losing the use of space may be more devastating to the United States. It would be intolerable for U.S. forces...to be deprived of capabilities in space.
In short, the unequivocal supremacy in space enjoyed by the United States today will be increasingly at risk. As Colin Gray and John Sheldon have written, "Space control is not an avoidable issue. It is not an optional extra." For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space - defined by Space Command as "the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space" - must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised.
The complexity of space control will only grow as commercial activity increases. American and other allied investments in space systems will create a requirement to secure and protect these space assets; they are already an important measure of American power. Yet it will not merely be enough to protect friendly commercial uses of space. As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely to become the new "international commons," where commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. Just as Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote about "sea-power" at the beginning of the 20th century in this sense, American strategists will be forced to regard "space-power" in the 21st.
To ensure America's control of space in the near term, the minimum requirements are to develop a robust capability to transport systems to space, carry on operations once there, and service and recover space systems as needed. As outlined by Space Command, carrying out this program would include a mix of reusable and expendable launch vehicles and vehicles that can operate within space, including "space tugs to deploy, reconstitute, replenish, refurbish, augment, and sustain" space systems. But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses and defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or air force, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the "Department of Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force enhancement, space control and force application." (Emphasis added.)
In sum, the ability to preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the ability to operate in space militarily; both the requirements for effective global missile defenses and projecting global conventional military power demand it. Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor past U.S. defense reviews have established a coherent policy and program for achieving this goal.
Ends and Means of Space Control
As with defense spending more broadly, the state of U.S. "space forces" - the systems required to ensure continued access and eventual control of space - has deteriorated over the past decade, and few new initiatives or programs are on the immediate horizon. The U.S. approach to space has been one of dilatory drift. As Gen. Richard Myers, commander-in-chief of SPACECOM, put it, "Our Cold War-era capabilities have atrophied," even though those capabilities are still important today. And while Space Command has a clear vision of what must be done in space, it speaks equally clearly about "the question of resources." As the command succinctly notes its long-range plan: "When we match the reality of space dependence against resource trends, we find a problem."
But in addition to the problem of lack of resources, there is an institutional problem. Indeed, some of the difficulties in maintaining U.S. military space supremacy result from the bureaucratic "black hole" that prevents the SPACECOM vision from gaining the support required to carry it out. For one, U.S. military space planning remains linked to the ups and downs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. America's difficulties in reducing the cost of space launches - perhaps the single biggest hurdle to improving U.S. space capabilities overall - result in part from the requirements and dominance of NASA programs over the past several decades, most notably the space shuttle program.
Secondly, within the national security bureaucracy, the majority of space investment decisions are made by the National Reconnaissance Office and the Air Force, neither of which considers military operations outside the earth's atmosphere as a primary mission. And there is no question that in an era of tightened budgets, investments in space-control capabilities have suffered for lack of institutional support and have been squeezed out by these organization's other priorities. Although, under the Goldwater-Nichols reforms of the mid-1980s, the unified commanders - of which SPACECOM is one - have a greater say in Pentagon programming and budgeting, these powers remain secondary to the traditional "raise and- train" powers of the separate services.
Therefore, over the long haul, it will be necessary to unite the essential elements of the current SPACECOM vision to the resource-allocation and institution-building responsibilities of a military service. In addition, it is almost certain that the conduct of warfare in outer space will differ as much from traditional air warfare as air warfare has from warfare at sea or on land; space warfare will demand new organizations, operational strategies, doctrines and training schemes. Thus, the argument to replace U.S. Space Command with U.S. Space Forces - a separate service under the Defense Department - is compelling. While it is conceivable that, as military space capabilities develop, a transitory "Space Corps" under the Department of the Air Force might make sense, it ought to be regarded as an intermediary step, analogous to the World War II-era Army Air Corps, not to the Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Navy Department. If space control is an essential element for maintaining American military preeminence in the decades to come, then it will be imperative to reorganize the Department of Defense to ensure that its institutional structure reflects new military realities.
Cyberspace, or 'Net-War'
If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then "cyberspace," and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new "global commons."
The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict. From the early use of the Internet by Zapatista insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo, communication by computer has added a new dimension to warfare. Moreover, the use of the Internet to spread computer viruses reveals how easy it can be to disrupt the normal functioning of commercial and even military computer networks. Any nation which cannot assure the free and secure access of its citizens to these systems will sacrifice an element of its sovereignty and its power.
Although many concepts of "cyber-war" have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing "control," or even what "security" on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner.
Taken together, the prospects for space war or "cyberspace war" represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the U.S. armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance.
CONCLUSION
In its simplest terms, our intent is to provide forces sufficient to meet today's missions as effectively and efficiently as possible, while readying U.S. armed forces for the likely new missions of the future. Thus, the defense program described above would preserve current force structure while improving its readiness, better posturing it for its current missions, and making selected investments in modernization.
At the same time, we would shift the weight of defense recapitalization efforts to transforming U.S. forces for the decades to come. At four cents on the dollar of America's national wealth, this is an affordable program. It is also a wise program. Only such a force posture, service structure and level of defense spending will provide America and its leaders with a variety of forces to meet the strategic demands of the world's sole superpower.
Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures. This is the choice we face. It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace.
Appendix E
Some Excerpts from "Loose Change 1"that are not in the Second Edition
(LC 2E is longer than the first version.)
Note that in the first version of "Loose Change," it is accepted that flight 93 crashed in PA. Dylan Avery even used "Let's Roll" as the last line of the first version, and he included several eyewitness reports of the plane going down. What made him change his mind?
00:00:52
8:46 A.M. New York City, New York
00:00:52
American Airlines Flight 11 is allegedly flown into North Tower
by Mohammed Atta
00:00:58
This is the widely known video of the attack
shot by Jules Naudet
00:01:03
At face value it may not look like much, however
upon closer inspection
00:01:11
In case you've missed it
00:01:16
one more time
00:01:25
if you look closely, you'll notice
that the shadow of a plane
00:01:28
meets the building after the flash occurs
00:01:31
this means that the flash is not the
fuselage colliding with the building
00:01:34
but rather - separate event
00:01:37
not to mention that the flash is
twice as wide as fuselage itself
00:01:43
within minutes of the attack
00:01:44
newsteams from all over the city had their
cameras trained on the World Trade Center
00:01:48
therefore, the second impact was covered
by almost every conceivable angle
00:01:54
this footage was shot by CNN
00:01:56
on the under side of the fuselage
an extra piece of the equipment is visible
00:02:07
when questioned about this, Boeing representatives
refused to discuss it - due to national security
00:02:13
this is what the under side of the Boeing 757
should look like
00:02:20
the following footage was taken from the documentary
Why the Towers Fell
00:02:25
oh oh oh
00:02:27
bring it back
00:02:37
you catch that?
00:02:50
a missile is fired seconds before impact
00:02:54
skeptics claim that flash is the fuselage
colliding with the building
00:02:58
if that would've be the case, it would look like this
00:03:03
also, notice that the flash is reflected on the
fuselage of the plane
00:03:09
the flash is also present on the footage
taken by Edwin Fairbanks
00:03:16
Jennifer Spell
00:03:21
CNN
00:03:27
Al Quaeda certainly could not have had
this equipment at Logan international airport
00:03:32
and even if they did, the flight crew
would've noticed it
00:03:35
so where did this plane come from?
***
[Marcel Bernard, flight instructor]
00:09:17
And that was in the second week of August?
00:09:19
I believe so, I don't remember the exact dates, but
00:09:21
you know, couple months before 911
00:09:26
Certainly after the fact we found out they were
stayin at the hotel in Laurel, supposedly
00:09:30
Laurel, Maryland ?
00:09:31
Yeah. And some of the others who were involved
00:09:35
but he had come to us to get checked out
in the aeroplane
00:09:39
so we usually take him out to the practise area
and have him do a little airwork
00:09:45
and then, certainly come back to the airport and
00:09:47
and accomplish a bunch of takeoffs and landings
and that sort of thing and
00:09:53
sometimes we practise emergencies and those
kinds of things and
00:09:59
do those kinds of maneuvres, so we can find him
competent or be comfortable to rent him an aircraft
00:10:03
to satisfy the insurance requirements
00:10:06
In his case, he was....
having problems with the landing phase
00:10:11
How was he, when he was just behind the control
of the flying?
00:10:14
I've talked to both instructors
00:10:18
that flew with him
00:10:21
and consensus was , he was very quiet
00:10:25
average, or below average piloting skills
***
00:11:49
If a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon at full speed
00:11:52
the wings would rip off outside
00:11:54
sending the fuselage inside the building.
00:12:00
Why is there absolutely no trace of the wings outside?
00:12:04
In fact, why are there no pieces
of the aircraft at all?
00:12:07
Not one seat cushion, engine, vertical stabiliser, nothing.
***
00:16:01
The third and final piece of an identifiable debris is a
wheel hub.
00:16:04
This particular wheel is made by BF Goodrich Aerospace Division.
00:16:10
They also manufacture the wheels for the 757.
00:16:13
But a wheel hub from the 757 has a much larger
radius to width ratio. [A Karl Schwarz argument]
00:16:19
This tyre is used for carrier based and general rear wheels of
smaller military planes, not commercial airliners.
00:16:27
No matter where this debris came from,
it did not come from 757, period.
***
00:19:51
Some people described the plane flying directly
over their car before slamming into the Pentagon.
00:20:05
This is what happens when a car gets too close
to the way of a commercial airliner.
00:20:11
These people shoul've been blown off the highway.
00:20:16
And a number of people described a plane flying
overhead almost immediately after the crash.
***
00:23:22
On August 5th 1970 a 50 storey office building
in New York burned for more than 6 hours.
00:23:27
It did not collapse.
***
00:28:10
"We tried to get some of the people out, then there was secondary explosions,
and the subsequent collapses, I don't know how many people were in there"
00:28:16
They also noted how the collapses looked exactly like
controlled demolition.
00:28:19
" One of those, almost looks like one of those
planned implosions "
00:28:24
" But of course, there was nothing planned. "
00:28:26
" The second building that was hit by the plane
has just completely collapsed. "
00:28:30
" The entire building has just collapsed, as if
a demolition team set off "
***
00:30:03
However, there is no soot, no fire, no fuel residue.
Instead, the entire lobby is coated with a fine dust,
00:30:10
which is the signature of high explosives.
00:30:15
Mike Pecoraro was working in a 6th sub-basement
of a North Tower when the first plane struck.
00:30:20
Mike and his friend ascended to the C level and
when they arrived, they found that the machine shop was gone.
00:30:25
They found nothing there, but rubble. We're talking about
a 50 ton hydraulic press. Gone.
00:30:30
They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air.
"You could stand here, and 2 inches over you couldn't breathe."
00:30:38
The two made their way to the parking garage,
but found that it, too, was gone.
00:30:41
There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor,
and you couldn't see anything.
00:30:45
They went up 2 more levels to the building's lobby.
As they reached the B level,
00:30:48
they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed
about 300 pounds, wrinkled up like a piece of aluminium foil on the floor.
00:30:57
The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors
were missing. The marble was missing some of the walls.
00:31:02
The west windows were all gone. Broken glass everywhere, the
revolving doors were all broken and their glass was gone.
00:31:08
Every sprinkler head was going off.
00:31:11
Could an explosion 90 floors above cause a uniform damage
to the lobby and sub-basements of the North Tower?
****
00:32:44
" It's a... all glass was taken out, there were
10 foot by 10 foot "
00:32:49
" a marble panels that were once walls "
00:32:55
" that were loose from a World Trade Center "
00:32:58
" I went around by the freight elevator and I can see which is blown. "
***
00:40:03
You're probably asking: If there were bombs in the building,
how would they get in there without anyone noticing it?
00:40:09
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World
Trade Center
00:40:12
told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were
numerous unannounced and unusual drills
00:40:18
where sections of both the Twin Towers and building 7
were evacuated for 'security reasons'.
00:40:25
Scott Forbes, an employee that worked for Fiduciary Trust
in the South Tower
00:40:29
told Victor Thorn at WingTV that his company was given 3 weeks
advanced notice
00:40:33
that New York's Port Authority would take out power in the
South Tower from the 48th floor up.
00:40:37
The reason given was that the Port Authority was performing a
cabling upgrade to increase WTC's computer bandwidth.
00:40:43
Forbes stated that a 'power-down' had never been initiated
prior to this occasion.
00:40:48
As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC's security
cameras were rendered inopperative
00:40:53
as were its ID systems and elevators to the upper floors.
00:40:56
There were plenty of engineers going in-and-out of the WTC who
had free access throughout the building due to its security system being knocked out.
00:41:04
Also, video cameras on top of the WTC, which were used to feed
daily images to local TV stations were strangely inoperative on 9/11.
***
00:42:37
10:06 A.M. Shanksville, Pennsylvania
00:42:42
Flight 93 was on route from New Jersey to California
00:42:46
with 45 passengers. When it went off course at 8:56
at north east of Ohio.
00:42:52
According to the official story, a group of passengers led by
Tod Beamer's cryout: Let's roll!
00:42:57
overpowered the hijackers and forced the plane to the ground.
00:43:01
However, eyewittness testimony and physical evidence
paint a much different picture.
00:43:06
Let's start with the eyewittnesses.
00:43:08
Westmoreland County received a call at 9:58 from somebody
claiming to be aboard Flight 93.
00:43:14
He said he was locked in a bathroom and told dispatchers
that the plane was hijacked.
00:43:18
He said he felt the plain going down, heard an explosion
and saw a white smoke in a cabin.
00:43:22
The line went dead shortly thereafter.
00:43:26
Eric Peterson of of Lambertsville was working with a friend in his
auto shop when Flight 93 flew overhead.
00:43:31
It was going end over end, and then dropped below a tree line and exploded.
00:43:35
Peterson saw a flash and then a mushroom cloud of smoke.
00:43:39
There was a crater in the ground that was really burning. There
were pieces of fuselage and clothing all over the area,
00:43:44
burning. He said, he didn't see any debris longer
than a couple feet long.
00:43:48
A caller to the Howard Stern show explicitly describes
what happened:
00:44:11
And a number of eyewittnesses all agree on one thing:
00:44:15
Susan Mcelwain, who lives two miles from the crashsite
saw a white plane rocketed 40 or 50 feet over her mini-van.
00:44:22
" It came right over me, it was so low i ducked. It was travelling
real fast, but it didn't make any sound. "
00:44:28
" Then it disapeared behind some trees."
00:44:31
" A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this
fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured that it crashed. "
00:44:37
" I didn't think much more about it until the authorities started
to say there had been no other plane. "
00:44:42
" The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93
crashed and must have been there at the very moment it went down. "
00:44:48
" There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low
it was virtually on top of me. "
00:44:52
" It was white with no markings but it was definitely military,
it just had that look. "
00:44:56
" It had 2 rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the
back of a car and with 2 upright fins at the side. "
00:45:03
" I haven't found one like it on internet. It definitely wasn't
one of those executive jets. "
00:45:07
" The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around."
00:45:11
" Then, they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3000 feet up. "
00:45:16
" But I saw it, and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft
above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did. "
00:45:25
Lee Purbaugh also saw a white jet: "Yes, there was another plane. I didn't get a good look
but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon. "
00:45:34
Tom Spinelli was working at India Lake Marina, a mile
and a half away.
00:45:38
"I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash. "
00:45:45
The FBI's later explanation for the white jet was that a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 jet
00:45:51
was asked to descend from 34.000ft to 5.000ft some minutes after the crash to give co-ordinates for the site.
00:45:57
The plane and pilot have never been produced or identified.
00:46:01
Susan Mcelwain says a Falcon 20 was not the plane she saw.
00:46:05
But enough of the eyewittnesses, what about the
physical evidence?
00:46:08
" The debris here is spread over 3 to 4 mile radius "
00:46:11
" which is now been completely sealed off and is being treated
according to the FBI as a crime scene. "
00:46:17
" Governor Tom Ridge makes a remarks earlier at press
conference, he had flown over the site "
00:46:23
" he said the emergency response here was immediate "
00:46:26
" he also said, that I don't know whether you're able or not
to see the picture of this, but "
00:46:31
" this is one of those cases, where the pictures really do
tell the story, that sort of the most horrifying aspects "
00:46:37
" of this particular crash scene is how little debris is visible."
00:46:42
" There is a large crater in the ground and I'm hoping that
you are all seeing it as I'm talking about it, but "
00:46:50
" thats really all you see is a large crater in the ground and just
tiny, tiny pieces of debris, there's been at least one report that, "
00:46:57
" the investigators out there and there are hundreds of
them as I said tonight. "
00:47:01
" Uh, had found nothing larger than a phonebook ."
00:47:06
Light debris from the plane was scattered up to 8 miles away.
And a section of engine weighing a ton
00:47:11
was located 2000 yards - over a mile from a crash site.
[My understanding is that it was 300 yards downhill.]
***
00:48:23
" How big would you say that hole was? "
00:48:25
" From my estimates, I would guess it was probably
around 20 to 15 feet. "
00:48:30
" long, and probably about 10 feet wide. "
00:48:33
" What could you see on the ground if anything other than dirt and ash? "
00:48:37
" You couldn't see anything. You just see dirt, ash and
people walking around, broken trees. "
00:48:44
Chris Bollyn visited Somerset County to investigate what really
happened to Flight 93.
00:48:50
Nena Lensbouer told Bollyn that the hole was 5 to 6 feet deep and
smaller than the 24-foot trailer in her front yard.
00:48:56
She described hearing an explosion, like an atomic bomb,
not a crash.
00:49:01
Lensbouer told Bollyn that she did not see any evidence of the
plane then or at any time during the excavation at the site,
00:49:07
an effort that reportedly recovered 95 percent of the plane
and 10 percent of the human remains.
00:49:13
If the government is lying about Flight 93, is it implausible
to suggest that the rest of the story is also a lie?
***
00:52:15
Next question: What about the cellphone calls?
00:52:18
" Tonight, we're getting reports of cellphone calls from at least 3 of those 4 flights "
00:52:23
" one from a flight attendant and two from passengers that were
onboard this flight "
00:52:28
" and they talk about knifes and again no mention of guns "
00:52:31
" in the first case it was the flight that came out of Boston and that was an American Airlines flight "
00:52:36
" and it was a flight attendant, who apparently got a cellphone
call off, "
00:52:40
" I've heard variously, it was to American Airlines Operations
or maybe somewhere else, but she reported "
00:52:45
" that her fellow attendants had been stabbed in the back of the
plane and that the cabin had been taken over "
00:52:52
" and upfront that the crew of the plane had been taken over
and the plane was going down in New York, was the quote that we heard "
00:53:00
Several of these calls are extremely peculiar.
00:53:03
Flight attendant Madeleine Sweeney allegedly talked with her
ground manager Michael Woodberg for 25 minutes until the plane crashed.
00:53:10
Near the end she says: "I see buildings, water. Oh my God!"
00:53:15
As if she had never seen the Manhattan Skyline
before in her life.
00:53:20
A man claiming to be Mark Bigham called his mother Alice,
who was visiting her sister-in-law.
00:53:25
His sister took the call and gave it to Alice. The caller says:
" Mom? This is Mark Bigham. "
00:53:30
What was the last time you called your mother and used
your full name?
00:53:33
The caller continues: "I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco
and there are 3 guys who have taken over the plane and say they have a bomb "
00:53:40
" Who are these guys? "
00:53:41
The caller pauses and then: "You believe me don't you?"
00:53:45
"Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?"
00:53:47
After a pase the line went dead.
00:53:51
A man claiming to be Todd Beamer got through to a
Verizon supervisor
00:53:54
telling of 3 hijackers armed with knifes, one claiming to have a bomb, 13 minutes later he recites the 23rd Psalm of the Bible
00:54:02
and drops the phone turning to utter his rallying cry: "Let's roll!"
00:54:06
Why would Beamer spend the last minutes of his life talking to a
complete stranger as opposed to a member of his own family?
00:54:14
The remaining calls were short, no more than a couple
sentences before saying they had to go.
00:54:18
calling back a couple minutes later.
00:54:22
But the most important evidence is an experiment conducted
by A.K.Dewdney of physics911.net .
***
00:54:51
Less than a 1 in a 100 chance. The majority of the cellphone calls
made on September 11th were made at cruising altitude
00:54:58
meaning the plane was travelling at 33000 feet at
500 miles per hour.
00:55:02
The cellphone calls were fake - no "ifs" "ands" or "buts".
***
00:58:14
Until the government can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Al Quaeda was behind September 11th
00:58:19
the Americans have every reason to believe otherwise.
00:58:54
I know that it's hard to imagine that our own government
would murder almost 3 thousand people.
00:59:00
But once you begin to accept that possibility, you can no longergo back to the 19 Arabs
00:59:04
or melting trusses or Let's Roll. The official story becomes the conspiracy theory.
00:59:11
America has been hijacked, not by Al Quaeda, not by
Osama Bin-Laden,
00:59:18
but by a group of tyrants ready and willing to do whatever
it takes to keep their strangle hold on this country.
00:59:25
So what are we gonna do about it? Are we gonna sit down
and take it? Or are we gonna stand up and fight for what little freedoms we have left?
00:59:33
The story of Flight 93 is a perfect metaphor of a state of this country.
00:59:37
A group of heros willing to sacrifice themselves for the good
of nation voted to take matters in their own hands
00:59:42
no matter the consequences.
The time has come. Let's Roll. [END OF LC 1]
Fair Use Notice: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and for the general purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research and / or educational purposes only. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the
No comments:
Post a Comment