Part 3 Murdering Liberty, Killing Hope, When Psychopaths Rule the World ... Operation Northwoods 911

Murdering Liberty, Killing Hope, 

When Psychopaths Rule the World 

By Jeff Prager

Welcome To:

Operation Northwoods 911

On September 11, 2001, the United States government held a series of military exercises and drills. Operation Northern Vigilance was a NORAD operation, which involved deploying fighter aircraft to the northwestern part of North America, specifically Alaska and Northern Canada. The exercise was one part simulation, one part real world. It was in response to a similar test acted out by Russia on September 11, where long-range bombers were dispatched to Russia’s high north. The exercises were immediately called off after the news of the terrorist attacks and all simulated information was purged from NORADs computer screens. However, the event was a distraction for the US government on 9/11. 

Operation Northern Vigilance was not the only US exercise planned for September 11. A series of war games were also acted out, specifically Global Guardian. Global Guardian is an annual, command-level exercise held in the United States. It is an important task, and the purpose of the drill is to test and validate US nuclear command, control and execution procedures. Vigilant Guardian is an exercise that was run in conjunction with Global Guardian. It involved a simulated bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. The drill was conducted in real time, and appeared legitimate in offices and on computers, but without any planes in the air. One of the drills included was a traditional simulated hijacking. 

The National Reconnaissance Office drill that was being conducted on September 11, 2001, is the strangest. In the exercise, a simulated small aircraft crashed into one of the towers at the NRO headquarters. No plane was involved in the drill, but to simulate damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were closed off. A bioterrorism exercise was planned for September 12, 2001. It was named Operation Tripod and included a real life test of the US plan to distribute antibiotics to an entire city population during a bioterrorism attack. These US military drills set the stage for 911 and were an integral part of the event although they’re never mentioned by the media.

On September 11, at least five different “war games” were being conducted by the military and intelligence agencies. These exercises included simulations of 9/11 type events, a plane into building scenario near Dulles Airport in Virginia, and deployment of fighters to northern Canada and Alaska (which reduced the number of fighters that were available to protect the US). It seems that these exercises were the means used to paralyze the air defenses, thereby ensuring the success of the “attacks.” The British Navy was conducting exercises in the Indian ocean near the Middle East. A biowar exercise was also about to start in New York City. 

Who has the power to coordinate all of these exercises? Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah or Dick Cheney and the White House National Security Council?

It’s difficult to know where to start with 911 since my belief is that it was a vast conspiracy spanning 30 years. Perhaps we’ll start there. A 30 year conspiracy. 

Bob Kerrey, the man who headed the US government investigation into 911, in an unrehearsed 1 minute, 23 second video taken in a hotel or convention center lobby stated emphatically that, “911 was a 30 year conspiracy” and I’ve thus been forced to investigate this event from that perspective. While I try to avoid planes, no planes, cell phone calls, no cell phone calls, thermate, thermite and other normally debated issues it’s quite difficult to avoid those issues completely, so here we go. 

First, here’s a link to the short video of Kerrey: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDfm3NroVG8

Raytheon 911 Dead Men Tell 

No Tales And They Can’t Talk 

Seven Raytheon employees were killed on 911 on three hijacked planes. They were senior management employees involved with the technology used to fly commercial jumbo jets by remote control. What are the chances that on 911 seven employees of the same company involved in the same advanced technology which might be directly related to the events of 911 were killed on three separate planes on the same day? 

Murdered for National Security On Flight 11 

Peter Gay was Raytheon’s Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. [Associated Press, 9/25/2001] 

This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk. [Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance Journal, 3/2002] 

Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon electronic systems. [CNN, 9/2001] 

David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon electronic systems. [CNN, 9/2001]

Executed by the Bush Crime Family On Flight 175 

Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. For some very strange reason Homer was listed for several days as having died in the offices that were attacked at the Pentagon while working there and the reports were later updated to include him as one of those killed on Flight 175. [CNN, 9/2001; Northeastern University Voice, 12/11/2001] 

Killed by Order Of Dick Cheney On Flight 77 

Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him “our dean of electronic warfare.” [Associated Press, 9/25/2001] 

Charles S. Falkenberg worked on “EOS Webster” a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology. Raytheon was working on the Global Hawk pilotless aircraft program and along with NASA and Boeing had developed the technology to operate Boeing Jumbo Commercial jets by remote control. 

William E. Caswell was a Navy scientist whose work was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. Says his mother, “You just learn not to ask questions.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/16/2001]

The Controlled Impact Demonstration 

“They Were Drones” 

Boeing 720 - In this photograph (above) the B-720 is seen making a practice close approach over the prepared impact site. The wing openers, designed to tear open the wings and spill the fuel, are clearly seen on the ground just at the start of the bed of rocks. December 1984©NASA Photo

The significant question, asked by a news reporter during a 2001 George Bush interview just after the events of 911 was, “in the case of a hijacking can we take over and command commercial planes from the ground and fly them and land them safely, thereby preventing a hijacking.” Our president answered in the negative stating that the technology to do so was still several years off. That was a lie. It wasn’t the first lie nor was it the last. 

In 1984 at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, NASA, Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed up in a unique flight experiment called the “Controlled Impact Demonstration,” (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests. 

This isn’t about fuel tests of course. It’s about the ability to taxi, take off, fly and land commercial jets without human pilots. It’s about the ability to taxi, take off, fly and crash commercial jets. This is something we’ve been doing since the mid-1980s, perhaps before. 

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a “go-around,” there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish. 

This flight, called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), was the culmination of more than a year of preparation in a joint research project by NASA and the FAA to test the effectiveness of anti-misting kerosene (AMK) in a so-called survivable impact. Added to typical Jet A fuel, the AMK was designed to suppress the fireball that can result from an impact in which the airstream causes spilled fuel to vaporize into a mist. It also tested the remote controlled flight of jumbo jets, publicly, although the public wasn’t informed by the media. 

The plane was also instrumented for a variety of other impact-survivability experiments, including new seat designs, flight data recorders, galley and stowage-bin attachments, cabin fire-proof materials, and burn-resistant windows. Crash forces were measured, and a full complement of instrumented crash test dummies was carried on the flight. Also tested were the technical aspects of flying commercial jets by remote control. 

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility at Edwards AFB. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on the abort runway with one remotely piloted crash.

The Controlled Impact Demonstration proves that not only could large Boeing commercial jets be flown but that they could be piloted from start to finish; taxi, take-off and landing. More importantly, this demonstration proves we had these capabilities as early as the mid-1980s. And what’s absolutely critical to this analysis is that we could, using remote controlled Boeings, crash these things anywhere we chose to, even into buildings.

The QRS-11 Navigational Gyro-Chip 

This is your Captain Speaking 

This Plane Is Now A Missile • Kiss Yer Ass Goodbye

The QRS-11 allows a Boeing commercial jet to be controlled and flown from the ground and can be programmed from the ground to securely lock out the pilots ability to control and fly the plane. An individual on the ground or in an aircraft can take command of a Boeing commercial jet and lock out the pilots ability to fly making the commercial jet effectively, a missile. Up to 8 commercial planes can be flown from the same computer terminal based on technology available in 2001. 

In 2005 the State Department prepared civil charges against Boeing alleging 94 violations of the Arms Control Act because the company sold commercial airliners without obtaining an export license for a tiny gyrochip, the QSR-11, that has defense applications. 

The company faced a potential fine of as much as $47 million, and the case could have been another enormous blow to the company’s fragile relations with the federal government. In pursuing Boeing over exports of 96 jets to China and other countries between 2000 and 2003, the government resurrected a thorny and highly politicized issue: How should the U.S. protect dual-use technology that has both military and commercial applications without damaging its increasingly globalized trade? 

To Boeing, the case is fallout from an overzealous application of export controls that threatened to derail overseas sales by treating commercial airplanes on a par with fighter jets. In September 2003, two 737 jets went to China only after President Bush personally signed off on the deliveries. Though the central national-security issue ultimately was decided in Boeing’s favor, the State Department alleges that between 2000 and 2003 the company showed “a blatant disregard for the authority of the Department,” misrepresenting facts and making false statements on shipping documents to get around the export restrictions. Boeing claims it ignored State Department edicts because its lawyers advised that the department was “without legal authority” to regulate the exports. That open defiance of the State Department was the crux of the case. 

Though a Boeing document erroneously refers to the chip as “relatively unsophisticated” technology, the gyrochip also has been used to help stabilize and steer guided missiles. In the draft charging letter, the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls alleges that between 2000 and 2003 Boeing broke export control laws in shipping to China and other countries what was then classified as militarily significant technology. Further, it claims the company did so deliberately and repeatedly even after it had been warned to stop. 

Boeing “was aware that a [State] Department export license was required but chose to export without authorization by using false statements on documents,” the charging letter alleges. Boeing managers declared on shipping certificates that no export license was required, even after the State Department had told the company otherwise, according to the letter. Boeing eventually acknowledged to the State Department that it had exported 96 aircraft and 27 spare gyrochip-equipped flight boxes without export licenses. 

The QRS-11 chip, made by a unit of BEI Technologies in Concord, Calif., is just over 1-½ inches in diameter and weighs about 2 ounces. It sells for between $1,000 and $2,000. Described as “a gyro on a chip,” it is used to help control the flight of missiles and aircraft. On Boeing jets, three BEI microchips are embedded in an instrument box made by French avionics firm Thales. Acting together, the three chips provide a three-dimensional positional reading, telling the pilot through the flight display the precise yaw, roll and pitch of the airplane. This no-moving parts electronic-sensor system acts as a back-up to a spinning gyroscope. Because of its use in guided missiles, the sensor is classified as a significant military item. Export-control regulations dictate that any larger system containing the sensor — even a commercial airplane — also must be considered a military item.

A Critical Piece Of The Puzzle 

It is reported that the US company Raytheon landed a 727 six times in a military base in New Mexico without any pilots on board. This was done to test equipment making future hijackings more difficult, by allowing ground control to take over the flying of a hijacked plane. [Associated Press, 10/2/2001; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/28/2001] 

Seven Raytheon employees with possible ties to this remote control technology program appear to have been on the hijacked 9/11 flights. Sometime before April of 2001 a specially designed Global Hawk plane flew from the US to Australia without pilot or passengers. [Independent Television News, 4/24/2001] 

However, most media reports after 9/11 suggest such technology is currently impossible. For instance, the Observer quotes an expert who says that “the technology is pretty much there” but still untried. [Observer, 9/16/2001] 

An aviation-security expert at Jane’s Defence Weekly says this type of technology belongs “in the realms of science fiction.” [Financial Times, 9/18/2001; Economist, 9/20/2001] 

Even President Bush appears to deny the technology currently exists. He gives a speech after 9/11 in which he mentions that the government would give grants to research “new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.” [New York Times]. 

These are LIES. So let me ask you, “why would George Bush LIE” about the ability to remotely fly commercial jets from the ground and more importantly, why would he lie about a Gyro Chip designed specifically to allow air traffic controllers the ability to take command of a hijacked airliner? I want the reader to understand that it’s my contention the planes were flown by remote from the start and they were commanded by remote from the ground locking out the pilots ability to fly.

Mohammad Alive and

Living at the Pancake House

NO IMAGES exist of any of the alleged hijackers actually boarding the planes. None. They are seen only at the terminal and only 2 of them are captured on airport video. They are seen entering a security check point but not passing through that check point and actually boarding the planes. 

And his address has changed. Not to Paradise in the Sky, or Virgin City, but Orlando, a long, long way from heaven. Atta’s current address (image above), if Florida Division of Corporate Records can be believed, is 4124 West Colonial Dr, Orlando, FL., the location of an International House of Pancakes. It’s well known amongst intelligence agencies that the Mossad has infiltrated every Arab political organization on earth, especially those in the Middle East. Was Mohamed Atta an intelligence operative? The evidence seems to indicate that he was and this is discussed in great detail further on in this book. Still, the idea that the “Mohamed Atta” who is alleged to have flown Flight 11 into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 had been listed as a corporate officer in a Florida company, without it having become public knowledge by now, seemed a tad unlikely, perhaps even a little far-fetched, except that it’s not

Speaking from his Cairo home, Mr Atta described hearing about the attacks after returning from a holiday on the Red Sea on the evening of September 12. “My daughter called and said she was going to drop in. She stood at the door and said ‘turn on the TV’,” he said. Amid images of the jets crashing into the Twin Towers, he saw his son’s passport photograph. “As I saw the picture of my son,” he said, “I knew that he hadn’t done it. My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for two minutes about this and that.” When asked where his son was, Atta’s father replied, “Ask the Mossad.” 

“He didn’t tell me where he was calling from. At that time neither of us knew anything about the attacks. Mr Atta called his son a “gentle and tender boy”, who enjoyed reading history and geography books and was nicknamed “Bolbol”, or nightingale, by his parents. 

Kate Connolly in Berlin, The Guardian, Monday 2 September 2002 01.28 BST http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa 

Many of the men named by the FBI as hijacker’s in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York have turned up alive and well. The identities of four or more of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now seriously in doubt. 

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Except that he told journalists that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September of 2001, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco. 

Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports. Abdelaziz Al Omari says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver. Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News. The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says. Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi. Khalid Al-Midhar may also be alive He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged publicly that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK - “Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well” [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm] 

What do we know about Mohammad Atta? Well, we know quite a bit and we discuss Atta in depth further on in this book. One day after the 9/11 Commission Report says the terrorist ringleader finished making withdrawals in Virginia Beach, VA. totaling $18,000 from a SunTrust Bank account, on April 5th, 2001 Hassan Erroudani, an Orlando man with close ties to the CIA and the Moroccan Embassy in Washington D.C., filed incorporation papers (image at right) with the state of Florida listing the President of KARAM LLC as “Mohamed Atta.” Incorporation documents give the names of the KARAM LLC’s officers as Hassan Erroudani, Mohamed Atta, and Jamal Erroudani. Karam LLC was delisted in 2002 by the state of Florida for failing to file an annual report. When the firm filed for reinstatement on January 13, 2003, it once again listed “Mohamed Atta” as a corporate officer. 

But Atta had now been demoted to Company Secretary and he moved to the Pancake House, ostensibly to learn the fine art of pancake preparation and table bussing.

Daniel Hopsicker, an internet blogger, spoke with KARAM LLC principal and founder Hassan Erroudani, who he reached by phone at his Orlando home. Hopsicker hadn’t counted on either Erroudani’s flat refusal to answer any questions about the “Mohamed Atta” listed as an officer in his company, or his tone of evident hostility. Hopsicker had been nothing if not polite, even to the point of suggesting a reason for why the whole thing might be just a big misunderstanding.

“Was it perhaps just a case of two different men with similar names?” he asked politely. 

Ennoudani’s forceful response: “I don’t have anything to say about that.” 

And then he hung up. 

Why would someone do that... unless they possess what is commonly known as guilty knowledge? His behavior seemed both inexplicable and suspicious. Who exactly is Mohamed Atta? According to Wikipedia Mohamed Atta varied his name on documents, also using “Mehan Atta”, “Mohammad El Amir”, “Muhammad Atta”, “Mohamed El Sayed”, “Mohamed Elsayed”, “Muhammad al-Amir”, “Awag Al Sayyid Atta”, “Muhammad al-Amir”, and “Awad Al Sayad”. In Germany, he registered his name as “Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta”, and went by the name, “Mohamed el-Amir” at the Technical University of Hamburg. In his will written in 1996, Atta gives his name as “Mohamed the son of Mohamed Elamir awad Elsayed.” When he came to the United States, he used the name “Mohamed Atta.” Atta also claimed different nationalities, sometimes Egyptian and other times told people that he was from the United Arab Emirates. 

It’s this writers belief that Mohamed Atta is still alive, living in Israel or an Arab country or maybe somewhere else under an assumed name with incalculable wealth derived from a deep cover covert operation which we uncovered in the preceding pages that. Or, he was murdered by the perpetrators of the events of 911. To Mr. Atta, wherever you are and whoever you are, you were a key participant in the greatest crime ever perpetrated and you’ll have to live with that ... or you were murdered with it...

The Drunken Lunatic Nuclear Armed State

Not known for its public displays of new weaponry, Israel’s military sent a message to Iran recently by unveiling its latest “breakthrough” in unmanned aircraft, the Heron TP, nicknamed Eitan, which is Hebrew for “strong.” The Eitan (next page) is the world’s largest drone—with a wingspan of 86 feet that makes it nearly the size of a Boeing 737 jetliner. It can remain airborne for about 20 hours and fly as far as the Persian Gulf, which means it’s capable of entering Iranian airspace. Not only can the Eitan perform surveillance and carry communications-jamming equipment, but it can also launch air-to-ground missiles. Palestinians say Israel first used the drone during its last offensive in the Gaza Strip. Israeli military commanders have not publicly confirmed the Eitan’s offensive capabilities. 

The IAI Heron (Machatz-1) is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle developed by the Malat (UAV) division of Israel Aerospace Industries (not pictured). It is capable of Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) operations of up to 52 hours’ duration at up to 35,000 feet. It has demonstrated 52 hours of continuous flight, but the effective operational maximal flight duration is less, due to payload and flight profile. On September 11, 2005 it was announced that the Israel Defence Forces purchased US$50 million worth of Heron systems. The Machatz-1 has a wingspan of 54 feet, 5 inches and a length of 27 feet, 10 inches. 

The Northrop Grumman (formerly Ryan Aeronautical) RQ-4 Global Hawk (known as Tier II+ during development) is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) used by the United States Air Force and Navy as a surveillance aircraft. In role and operational design, the Global Hawk is similar to the Lockheed U-2, the venerable 1950s spy plane. It is a theater commander’s asset to provide a broad overview and systematic target surveillance. For this purpose, the Global Hawk is able to provide high resolution Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) — that can penetrate cloud-cover and sandstorms — and Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) imagery at long range with long loiter times over target areas. It can survey as much as 40,000 square miles (100,000 square kilometers) of terrain a day. 

Missions for the Global Hawk cover the spectrum of intelligence collection capability to support forces in worldwide peace, crisis, and wartime operations. According to the Air Force, the capabilities of the aircraft allow more precise targeting of weapons and better protection of forces through superior surveillance capabilities. The Global Hawk costs about $35 million USD (actual per-aircraft costs; with development costs also included, the per-aircraft cost rises to $123.2 million USD each

These are not small aircraft and any one of them could easily be mistaken for a large commercial airliner to the untrained civilian eye gazing over Washington, New York or Maryland. Where drones are not normally expected a civilian could easily see one of these drones slightly redesigned to look like a commercial jet, the Global Hawk or the Eitan (above) as an example, flying at maximum speed of 497.1 mph (432.0 kn, 800.0 km/h;) or cruising speed of 404 mph (351 kn; 650 km/h) and mistake it for a commercial airliner. With a range of 15,525 mi (13,491 nmi; 24,985 km) at an endurance of 36 hours and a service ceiling of 65,000 ft (19,812 m) these drones could essentially be launched from almost anywhere on the planet and hit the Pentagon, or anything else that was targeted. Who knows what’s designed into the Eitan?

The Heron TP family of drones, of which Eitan is the latest, are designed as surveillance planes. They have a lot of stamina, and Eitan can stay in the air for 24 hours. It has a payload of 1000kg, according to some sources, while others say it can take 1000kg of sensors. The meanings are relevant, because there’s a big difference between a combat load of that size and cameras. 

The furor about its range is based on the ongoing “debate” about whether Israeli planes can reach Iran. The Iranians say they can’t, the Israelis say they can. This fascinatingly unproductive debate has somehow managed to overlook the fact that any combat plane can refuel in the air. Hence the great interest in the long range drone. 

In point of fact, systems like Eltan are much more effective as spotters than they can be as combat aircraft. They can’t evade interceptors, with a low airspeed of 207kmh (130 mph). This one, however, has advanced thermal and other sensors which could operate as a source of targeting data for an attack. 

In practice, most drones operate as advanced reconnaissance, and the portable drones, little things with good real time cameras, are getting some respect and affection from the grunts in Afghanistan because of their reliability and saving a lot of extra sore feet on patrols. Al Jazeera has an article which is a bit more focused than other regional news on the subject. The topic of an attack on Iran more or less drowns out other information. The actual information on public offer appears to come from a brief broadcast on intel.livetv, and it’s not very long, or very specific. This YouTube video, with Eitan at the start, contains most of the “news” which is getting sprayed around the world with such uninformative zeal.

Wikipedia has more specifications which are better definitions of Eitan’s actual functions. More importantly, the Wikipedia article’s also related to the commercial prospects of this potentially very useful plane, which appears to be one of the primary drivers of its sudden rise to fame. 

Israel Aerospace Industries is exporting versions of these planes. The long range and high sensor payloads create a different type of operational paradigm for many services, allowing for prolonged surveillance, and apparently much more information in terms of types of data it can acquire. Eitan has a distant cousin in the form of the American Global Hawk, a long range, high yield drone which can be adapted to a range of functions including theoretical combat capabilities, but it’s not configured or powered like a Global Hawk. 

This is a medium range plane, and its most likely combat role would be supporting ground forces and assisting some air operations, which it appears to be equipped to do very effectively. It’s not designed as a natural participant in combat. It has no obvious hard points, and a single prop driven plane would require some modifications to lug any weapon with major combat capability long ranges for 24 hours. In missions outside Israel it would need to operate under the wing of the air superiority of the Israeli Air Force. 

The YouTube video is mainly newsworthy for its comprehensive documentation of the fact that nobody in the Middle East seems to be able to get out of the unproductive cliché conflict mode of the last nearly 70 years. The comments on the thread are more revealing than the video. Eitan is seen as a direct threat, whether it is one or not. It’s supposed to be able to “hit” Iran. 

Very likely the Eitan will be able to hit Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and maybe even the USA if we threaten to stop our yearly $3 billion to $5 billion dollar bribery payments. 

Fascism is a really ugly thing, no?

An Eyewitness To The crime 

I see Drones

An eyewitness from the Pentagon has come forward with an astonishing account that debunks the official 9/11 story and corroborates the hypothesis that an unmanned and weaponized Global Hawk drone was involved in the attack. 

Nearly 5 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, Samuel L. Danner has come forward with testimony which, if accurate, completely debunks the official version that a hijacked Boeing 757 flew into the 5-sided military fortress housing the U.S. Department of Defense. 

Danner, a civilian pilot and electrical engineer from Hagerstown, Maryland, says he was trying to get out of Washington on the morning of 9/11 after hearing of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Having made a wrong turn, Danner wound up heading south on Washington Blvd. (Virginia Highway 27), the highway that passes alongside the western side of the Pentagon. It was from the shoulder of Highway 27, across from the Pentagon, that Danner says he observed the approaching aircraft involved in the attack. 

Danner’s eyewitness account corroborates the theory that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known as Global Hawk, was flown by remote control into the newly renovated section of the Pentagon, the fortress of the Department of War that was built on a low lying area formerly known as Hell’s Bottom. Although Danner’s testimony is unique in its detail and description of the aircraft, it is supported by an abundance of photographic evidence and numerous statements made by other eyewitnesses. 

Now a multi-billion dollar defense project involving contractors like L3 Communications Titan Group, Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., and Raytheon, the Global Hawk is a 44-foot long jet-powered surveillance UAV with a 116 foot wing span that can fly 15,000+ miles at an altitude of 65,000 feet at over 400 miles per hour. At the time of the attack, however, the U.S. Air Force had only 6 Global Hawks in service that we know of. Two of the original Global Hawks reportedly crashed, one at China Lake, California, another “somewhere overseas,” according to a spokesman at Edwards Air Force Base where the aircraft is tested. That doesn’t mean there weren’t more, it means we don’t know if there were. 

“Two Global Hawk crashes occurred in the Central Command Area of Operation, which is Southwest Asia,” a spokesman for the U.S.A.F. later told AFP. “Both these crashes occurred during support for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, which started after September 11th,” he added. 

The evidence supporting the theory that a Global Hawk was flown into the Pentagon by remote control has been investigated by American Free Press. While Danner’s testimony corroborates this hypothesis, which is supported by evidence, there is not a single piece of evidence, physical or photographic in the public domain to support the government version that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. 

Danner, who was diagnosed with a form of lymphoma in September 2004, contacted 9/11 researcher Eric Hufschmid, author of Painful Questions, on June 29. Danner’s initial wide-ranging two-hour conversation with Hufschmid is available online at www.erichufschmid.net.

Asked why he finally decided to come forth with his ground-breaking testimony, Danner told AFP, “It’s been bugging me.” Danner said his son had shown him the 9/11 video called Loose Change by Dylan Avery on the Internet. “It made so much sense to me,” Danner said. “It got me upset, in a good sense, in a patriotic sense. I asked myself why I didn’t come out with this earlier?” Danner told AFP that being a 53-year old lymphoma patient going through chemotherapy had motivated him to come forward with his testimony. Since coming forward with his account, Danner has been the guest on several of Michael C. Piper’s radio programs on Republic Broadcasting Network, which are archived at http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper06.html 

The government version that a Boeing 757 hijacked by Arabs hit the Pentagon is “a big bogus lie,” Danner says. About the five video frames released by the government and the official explanation, Danner says: “That’s a lie if I ever saw one. The American people need to know.” 

“It was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon,” Danner told AFP, “No way.” In fact, Danner’s description of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon fits precisely with that of a Global Hawk, a relatively unknown UAV which was still being tested in 2001. 

Danner, a certified pilot who no longer flies due to his illness, has had a lifelong interest in aircraft, both military and civilian, and has attended military air shows at Andrews AFB outside Washington. “I like airplanes,” Danner says, and his ability to identify aircraft quickly and accurately is central to the credibility of his testimony. He was, however, not familiar with the Global Hawk at the time. As he drove south on the west side of the Pentagon shortly after 9:30 a.m. on 9/11, Danner noticed a strange object in the air. He noticed that other drivers were also distracted by the object, which he described as an unidentified flying object. Danner pulled over on the right hand shoulder, stopped his car, and got out to observe the approaching aircraft. From this position, with the Pentagon on his left, he recalled his observations of the aircraft he says struck the Pentagon. 

Danner described the object as a white aircraft, without any cockpit or fuselage windows, which came at him very fast. It was “bigger than a Gulfstream 300,” he said, and had only one engine located on the rear section between a V tail, which reminded him of a Beechcraft Bonanza. The aircraft had a “funny looking front” with the shape of “a humpback whale,” he said. He saw the aircraft finish a tight descending turn to the right as it approached the Pentagon. As it leveled off just off the ground he said he heard “a high pitched whine” as the single engine aircraft “spooled up.” 

“It was real low,” he said as it turned and dove toward the Pentagon over the highway cloverleaf southwest of the Pentagon. Danner said the aircraft had approached from the north and had made a 270 degree turn done while descending. 

“It looked like it was under perfect control,” Danner said, adding that he did not see any windows on the cockpit or the fuselage. Danner estimated that the aircraft was traveling about 200 mph as it made the tight turn and then accelerated as it leveled out and aimed itself at the Pentagon. The engine configuration reminded Danner of an older Boeing 727, which has a turbine jet engine located on the back of the plane above the fuselage. “That was the only engine I saw,” Danner said, “there was none affixed to any fore or aft wings.

“It had a V tail,” Danner told AFP, “it had a Bonanza V tail.” 

Danner, who estimates that he was less than 500 feet from the path of this aircraft, noted that it was very quiet: “There wasn’t the roar noise that you get with a jet at full throttle. This thing knew how to fly quietly“ I mean I could hear the whine and I knew it was jet powered.” Danner’s description of the aircraft’s small size is confirmed by early eyewitness reports. One witness, Steve Riskus, has previously confirmed to AFP that the plane was very quiet. “There was a four-engine jet above us,” Danner said, which looked to him like a Boeing 707 or a DC-8 at about 15,000 feet. He said this plane may have been controlling the windowless drone by “flying it by camera.” Danner noticed that people at the Pentagon were aware of this plane overhead. Danner said he had contacted some of the people he met on the lawn of the Pentagon to encourage them to come forward with their testimony. 

Danner says the aircraft flew with remarkable precision as it leveled off and went right into the southwestern facade of the Pentagon. The impact created a “brilliant white flash” that he described as “a phosphorous kind of flash.” This suggests the UAV carried high energy explosives or a depleted uranium (DU) missile. If a DU missile was used, this could explain the source of Danner’s lymphoma. If he was contaminated by DU at the Pentagon crash site, the other people in the proximity would also have been affected.

Wearing his emergency medical technician (EMT) shirt that he carried in his car, Danner went directly to the crash site expecting to find wreckage, debris, wounded and dead. “I didn’t find anything,” Danner says. “I was there to rescue, but there were no bodies and no substantial pieces of wreckage.” Rather than finding wreckage of a Boeing 757, passengers and luggage, Danner found “a bunch of sheet metal” and a bent and damaged 3-foot engine that was missing its turbine blades. Danner said he stood two feet away from the 3-foot engine. The engine was found about 25 feet from the exterior wall and appears to have bounced off the two-foot thick limestone-clad wall. 

At the scene of the crash Danner recalls smelling gun powder or cordite. The white flash he saw suggests that the aircraft was weaponized with a missile. A DU missile launched as the aircraft approached the building would explain the brilliant white flash, the hole pierced through three rings of the Pentagon, and the huge explosion. Later, Danner participated in the retrieval of small pieces of the aircraft from the lawn with Pentagon personnel. He said he found small pieces of shredded aluminum and bits of carbon fiber and polymer resins. The Global Hawk has an aluminum fuselage and carbon fiber wings. “We were told to pick up every piece of debris,” Danner said, which they put into trash bags. Danner said the scene felt more like a crime scene than a crash scene and he was mystified by the way the evidence was being removed rather than flagged and documented. From the image on this page, taken just after the bombing and before the building facade had fallen, one can easily see that a Boeing commercial jet did not strike the Pentagon. Whether it was, a missile dropped by a drone which then flew over the building, a missile launched from an off-shore vessel, a drone packed with explosives, bombs planted in the building or something else entirely, we do know it was not a Boeing commercial passenger jet.

The Clock Lady 

Arab Terrorists Don’t Plant Bombs Inside The Pentagon 

Barbara Honegger, the Clock Lady, served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst (1981-83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (Tudor, 1989) and in the Iran-Contra expose documentary film “Cover-Up,” and was called as a researcher-witness at both the October 23, 2004 and August 27, 2005 Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, California. 

Barbara Honegger makes the best case yet for US government complicity in the events of 911. In fact, Honegger sets the stage for a scenario that indicates with clarity that the US government was directly and solely responsible for the events of 911. 

World 9/11 truth authority Prof. David Ray Griffin has included the core finding of Honeggers white paper – evidence for inside-the-building bombs at the Pentagon on 9/11, paralleling the already-well-known inside-the building explosives at the WTC that morning – in his latest and most definitive expose book on September 11th, “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited” (Chapter 2, ‘Reports of Bombs’). In a previous book, Griffin said that any serious reinvestigation of 9/11 should include the information and analysis contained in Honeggers White Paper. Honegger’s two-hour under-oath videotaped interview and testimony of key Pentagon eyewitness April Gallop, cited in the next chapter, formed the basis for a critical new 9/11 lawsuit filed in Manhattan on Dec. 15, 2008. 

The Pentagon was first attacked shortly after 9:30 a.m. – well before 9:37:46, when the Official Lie says a plane hit the building from the outside. The Pentagon was first attacked much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim. The Pentagon and mainstream media first reported 9:43 as the time of alleged Flight 77 impact (some reports, reportedly also quoting official sources, were as late as 9:48 and 9:47). Over time, the time given by officials for the claimed outside impact on the building moved earlier and earlier, finally down to 9:37, but has never come close to the actual time of the first violent event at the Pentagon — shortly after 9:30 a.m. 

Clearly, if the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at almost 9:38 were true, Flight 77 could not have been the source of massive damage to the west side of the building which occurred between five and eight minutes earlier. There are converging lines of evidence of a 9:30 -to- 9:32 a.m. violent event at the Pentagon on September 11, well before the Official Story says anything hit the building: 

Multiple standard-issue, battery- and/or electric-operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on 9/11 — including one in the heliport just outside the west wedge — were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2 by a violent event, almost certainly a bomb or bombs inside the building and/or in a truck or construction trailer parked right outside the west face. The first Associated Press report, in fact, stated that the Pentagon had been damaged by a “booby trapped truck.” The Navy posted the stopped heliport clock on an official website and another of the stopped clocks was in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution. These are just some of the west-section Pentagon clocks – as well as an inside-the-building victim’s wrist watch – that were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11. 

April Gallop 

We Have Bombs In The House! 

April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance, was at her desk in the Army administrative offices in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the area of the building most heavily destroyed and with the most casualties, when what she said sounded and felt “like a bomb” went off. “Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb,” 

In a videotaped interview Gallop stated: “There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel.” In those two hours of videotaped testimony, Gallop states that the explosion went off at the precise instant she hit the ‘power on’ button on her computer in the Army administrative area, to which she had just returned that morning after months of pregnancy and childbirth leave, and that the explosion stopped her wrist watch just after 9:30 a.m. She has kept the stopped wrist watch in a safe deposit box as evidence of the exact moment of the initial explosion. 

The FAA’s Timeline document “Executive Summary—Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis –– September 11, 2001” includes: “0932: ATC (Air Traffic Control) AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.” The time is the critical fact here, not the claimed cause, which was taken from the official story and not the result of any ATC eyewitnesses. 

Denmark’s soon-to-be Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller was in a building in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 from which he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his wrist watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32. On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave an audiotaped Secretary of the Navy lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., a DoD educational institution, in which he clearly and explicitly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. A tape of this segment of his talk was played at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence at American University in Washington, D.C. in July 2005, and is on the public record. 

The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) between 9:30 and 9:32 a.m., possibly followed by an impact from an airborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77, a Boeing 757. We have already seen that Army employee April Gallop, whose watch was stopped by the violent event at the Pentagon shortly after 9:30, says that her military training and experience led her to immediately determine the source of the initial explosion was a bomb. 

Barbara Honegger claims to have interviewed an Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, who was on temporary duty assignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11. He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutes before the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11. He had just returned to his temporary office on the ground floor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the building shake. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor just outside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling “Bombs!” and “A bomb went off!” 

This Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, which was one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the Naval Command Center. The day before 9/11, September 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference at which he acknowledged that the Pentagon was “missing”—could not account for and needed to “find” — $2.3 Trillion dollars. Were the auditors who could “follow the money,” and the computers whose data could help them do it, intentionally targeted? It is worth noting that the Pentagon’s top financial officer at the time, Dov Zakheim, who also acknowledged the “missing” trillions, had a company that specializes in aircraft remote-control technology. As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front-hub assembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior jet fighter and in Air Force A-3 Sky Warriors — normally piloted planes — were secretly retrofitted to be remote controlled drones and fitted with missiles in a highly compartmented operation at an airport near Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/11, the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors and their computerized data were intentionally targeted on 9/11. 

The Ft. Monmouth Army auditor and his two colleagues were also eyewitnesses to multiple teams of bomb- sniffing dogs and their K-9 handlers in camouflage uniform at the Pentagon metro station just outside the Pentagon at approximately 7:30 am on 9/11. He said that K-9 bomb squads had not been at the Pentagon metro stop before 9/11, or since, but only that day. Since K-9 dog squads don’t usually search for airliners, but bombs, a bomb attack was clearly anticipated. Ms. Gallop said she also saw the bomb sniffing K-9 teams that morning, from the top of the Pentagon metro stop looking down. 

Outwards and Inwards? 

I Had No Idea!

Survivor eyewitnesses from inside the west section of the Pentagon reported that the blast caused its windows first to expand outwards, and then inwards. Multiple witnesses said they smelled cordite after the initial explosion at the Pentagon, an explosive which has a distinct and very different smell from that of burning jet fuel. And as we have already noted, Ms. Gallop said there was no smell of jet fuel inside the most damaged section of the building shortly after the first violent event that stopped her watch there shortly after 9:30 am. 

Even Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told Sam Donaldson in an ABC News interview shortly after 9/11 that he first thought a bomb had gone off in the building. Donaldson: “What did you think it was?” Rumsfeld: “A bomb? I had no idea...” 

It is important to note that bomb explosion(s) at 9:32am on the ground floor of the west section of the Pentagon are not inconsistent with there having also been a later, or even near-simultaneous, impact by some airborne object -- a piloted plane, unmanned drone, or missile -- into the same or nearby section of the building, which may have been the cause of the collapse of the west wall section approximately 20 minutes after the initial violent event. Indeed, if a heat-seeking missile hit the building after the bomb(s) went off, the heat from the explosion(s) would become the target for the missile. Recall that the A-3 Sky Warrior planes were retrofitted shortly before 9/11, not only enabling them to be remotely controlled but also fitted with missiles. The round-shaped exit hole in the inner wall of the “C” Ring is evidence that a missile or a piloted or pilot-less remote-controlled plane significantly smaller than Flight 77 also struck the building subsequent to bombs going off and penetrated the inside of the third ring, as bomb detonations would not have resulted in such a near-symmetrical round-shaped opening unless they were carefully shaped charges.

CBS Reports: Pentagon Cannot Account 

for 2.3 Trillion And Bombs Explode

“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” is what Rumsfeld said on national television on September 10th, 2001. And from PBS we learn that this figure came from a report of the Pentagon’s inspector general. “Its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends,” reports CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales. Such a disclosure normally might have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington on the following morning would assure that the story remained buried ... 

Was part of the reason for the Pentagon attacked to hide the loss, misplacement or more likely the purposeful misdirection of $2.3 trillion in US taxpayer dollars? Were the financial investigators in the Office Of Naval Intelligence getting close to discovering the truth? 

Was there far more then $2.3 trillion dollars involved? 

I believe there was. 

FAR more.

Honegger interviewed the then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11, Robert Andrews — the top civilian official in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld — a former Green Beret whose office was on the second floor of the south section of the Pentagon, adjacent to the west section. While drawing the path that he took that morning on a sketch of the Pentagon, he revealed the following: 

Immediately after the second World Trade Center attack of 9:03 am, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld left his office on the Potomac side of the Pentagon and went (merely) across the hall on the same floor to his Executive Support Center (ESC), which is set up for teleconferencing. There, he joined the teleconference of top government officials run by Richard Clarke out of the White House Situation Room media room. Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, confirms that Rumsfeld was among the first officials on this teleconference shortly after the second WTC tower was hit. Clarke’s account and Andrews’ confirmation of it are completely at odds with the official cover story and the 9/11 Commission, which claim that no one could locate Secretary Rumsfeld until approximately 10:30am when he walked into the National Military Command Center (NMCC). 

The fact that Rumsfeld, the military’s top civilian official, was on Clarke’s teleconference with the top official of the FAA, Director Jane Garvey, also puts the complete lie to the official cover story that Air Force interceptors weren’t scrambled in time because the military and FAA “couldn’t talk each other” on 9/11. The top-most officials of the Pentagon and FAA were talking to one another constantly on Clarke’s teleconference from as early as 9:15. This taped Clarke teleconference is the “Butterfield tape” of 9/11. [During the 1970s Watergate scandal, secretly-made tapes of President Nixon’s Oval Office conversations revealed by Alexander Butterfield were the “smoking guns” which forced Nixon to resign or face certain impeachment and trial in the Senate.] 

Immediately after the second WTC tower was struck at 9:03 am, Andrews and his aide left his office and ran as fast as they could down to the Secretary of Defense’s West section Counterterrorism Center (CTC), arriving at approximately 9:10. While he and his aide were in the CTC, a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32. He and his aide then immediately evacuated the CTC with the goal of joining Rumsfeld in his Executive Support Center (ESC) across the hall from Rumsfeld’s main office. He said that Rumsfeld was already on the White House teleconference when they arrived. En route to Rumsfeld’s ESC, Andrews said when he and his aide entered the corridor on the inside ring of the west section, “we had to walk over dead bodies” to get to the inner courtyard. (Note: This is two rings further in towards the center from the inner most hole made by whatever allegedly impacted the Pentagon that morning.) 

Once in the inner courtyard, Andrews and his aide ran as fast as they could to Rumsfeld’s Executive Support Center, where he joined Rumsfeld as his special operations/counterterrorism adviser during Clarke’s White House teleconference. Andrews also said that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke with President Bush while in the Pentagon Executive Support Center. Whether this was via the teleconference or by phone or other means was not stated. The fact that Rumsfeld personally communicated with Bush on 9/11 while Rumsfeld was in his Pentagon ESC was published on an official DoD web site. 

I have written communications from a former U.S. military helicopter pilot and current executive director of one of the US’s premier aviation societies who personally knows and communicates regularly with the highest-ranking first responders at the WTC on 9/11, that the New York City Fire Department -- presumably its Fire Chief, who reported to then mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- ordered the doors to the roofs of the WTC towers locked, which blocked the only avenue of escape for victims above the plane impact floors, ensuring their horrific deaths; that at least one of the two New York Police Department helicopters seen hovering near the burning towers on television footage that morning, and probably both, was equipped with a winch and jump seat designed for the rescue of victims and in fact was the same helicopter and crew that had rescued victims from the burning WTC1 in 1993, and that these Police Department helicopters were ordered by the Fire Department not to try to rescue victims from the towers, even though there were heliports on the roofs and the winch and jump seat could have been dropped outside the windows on the sides of the towers where victims were waiting to be rescued; and that the Fire Department also explicitly refused the help of large numbers of military helicopters, whose pilots spontaneously converged on the New York area only to be ordered to wait at a nearby base. 

WTC janitor William “Willy” Rodriguez, the last non emergency response person to leave the WTC alive on 9/11, has testified that he was in the first basement level of the WTC when an immense explosion went off below him in the yet-deeper subbasement level(s) of the building a few seconds before the plane hit the tower high above. As Robert Andrews revealed that the west side basement level of the Pentagon was damaged at approximately 9:32 am and as we know that the cause of the 9:32 Pentagon attack was not an impact event but explosives, there are thus eye- and ear witness reports of bombs going off in both the Pentagon and the WTC underground level(s) before both buildings were hit by anything from the outside. 

As no “outside” terrorist, al Qaeda or otherwise, could have had access to either the Pentagon or the sustained advance access needed to pre-place explosives inside the WTC, only domestic insiders could have pre-placed the explosives in both the Pentagon and the WTC. Further, because the WTC 1 deep-basement explosions(s) experienced by Willy Rodriguez happened before the tower was hit by a plane; as any incoming plane not controlled by the same party that triggered the sub-basement detonation(s) could have veered off from the building at the last second, ruining the plane-impact-as-cover story for the later building collapse; and as the sub-basement explosions were necessary for the actual later collapse of the buildings by controlled demolition, the same domestic U.S. insiders had to have controlled both the sub-basement detonations and the incoming plane(s). Thus, even if al Qaeda hijackers were on the incoming planes, they were not in final control of the impact of the planes into the buildings, which had to have been 100 percent guaranteed by domestic U.S. insider controllers to ensure that, once the WTC 1 subbasement explosions went off, the plane did not veer off and miss the building and ruin the plane-impact-and-fires cover story for the building collapse.

This fact is critical, as it may take jurisdiction for the mass murders at the WTC out of the hands from the Bush Administration’s FBI, which oversees crimes committed in the air, as a cogent legal argument can be made that the real crime of controlling the plane into the towers was committed on the ground, in a terrestrial bldg. or vehicle, where its true controllers almost certainly resided. If so, this would place the crime of the WTC mass murders squarely with the State of New York, as murder is a State crime and multiple/mass murders are the sum of individual State crimes. Because the controllers of the timing of the basement level explosives had to have also been the controllers of the final approach of the planes, and the former was arguably, and provably with legal discovery and subpoena power, on the ground and not in the air, a Manhattan grand jury can be given the case and pull jurisdiction for the Bush-Cheney Reichstag Fire out of their federal hands. 

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

In addition to the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon - i.e. the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width; no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building; wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757; Pentagon requests to TV media on the morning of 9/11 not to take up-close images, etc. -- there is also official evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the building:

In the Air Force’s own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building. This fighter jet — not Flight 77 — is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270 to 330-degree descent before disappearing from the radar. [When a plane flies low enough to go undetected, usually at or below 500 feet, it is said to be flying “under the radar.” Note: The Pilotsfor911truth website and their “Pandora’s Black Box” video have determined from official data released by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that the true altitude/height of the plane represented by the blip was 476 feet – way to high to have hit the Pentagon at all, let alone the ground floor, but, significantly, in just the height range to been seen by controllers to have just gone off radar and be said to have crashed. Military pilots — like the one sent by Gen. Arnold on 9/11 to report on the Pentagon’s damage — are trained to fly at approx. 500 feet above ground in order to evade radar detection. In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 330-degree maneuver (originally claimed to be a 270-degree maneuver, since updated) on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was. 

Thus, the likely reason the Pentagon has refused to lower the current official time for “Flight 77” impact, 9:37, to 9:32 am—the actual time of the first explosions there—is that they decided to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was “Flight 77.” As the official cover story claims that the alleged 9:37 impact was the only Pentagon attack that morning, yet by the time Arnold’s surveillance jet arrived on the scene the violent event had already happened, the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact.

It is significant that the The 9/11 Commission Report ignores the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to its own commission and did this only for the testimony of Secretary Mineta. The clear reason for this blatant and targeted censorship is that Mineta’s eyewitness testimony is extremely dangerous to the official cover story. The portion of Mineta’s testimony that is particularly dangerous is his claim that Vice President Cheney, in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) beneath the White House since before Mineta arrived in the PEOC at 9:20am, insisted to an incredulous “young man” that “the orders (given earlier by Cheney to this same individual) still stand” when the man told Cheney that the presumed plane they had been tracking as a blip on a screen was 50, then 30, and finally just 10 miles from Washington—orders which could only have been not to shoot down the plane. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the agent to ask Cheney if they “still” stood, despite the plane’s being almost upon the capital where Cheney himself was. This is critical because of the timing that can be inferred from Mineta’s testimony: 

As Mineta arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 am, and as Mineta estimated the “still stand?” interaction between Cheney and the agent happened 5 to 6 minutes after that, or about 9:25, it can be inferred based on the officially given speed of the plane represented by the blip of 540 mph that whatever that fast-approaching blip represented, it arrived in the vicinity of the Pentagon at approximately 9:32—nowhere close to the original official cover story time of 9:43, or even the six-minute-earlier time the Pentagon finally settled on for an alleged impact time of 9:37. 

next-77s

The Anthrax Connection 

Real Terrorists Don’t Use Anthrax

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.