Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
darkbreed

911: Professional experts says it was staged

512 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

mrbusdriver

electronic anti-hijack system captures the planes and guides them on to their pre programmed targets.

Are there any airline pilots that state such a system exists operationally in civil airliners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

So would I, but I liked Little Fish's response too; most of all, the notion that the planes used to crash into the buildings were remote controlled. I also think that the following article has some really good information on what may have happened to the planes and the passengers:

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?

All people have to do is to check the public records, obituaries and even cell phone records of those who have made calls from the airliners.

It is an insult to those who have lost friends and family in those attacks to claim that there were no passengers in those airliners, and those airliners were not drones either.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

So would I, but I liked Little Fish's response too; most of all, the notion that the planes used to crash into the buildings were remote controlled. I also think that the following article has some really good information on what may have happened to the planes and the passengers:

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?

All people have to do is to check the public records, obituaries and even cell phone records of those who have made calls from the airliners.

I have looked at all 3.

1- Public Records:

For public records, by all means, take a look at the link above; It links to BTS (Bureau of Transportation Statistics), which shows how 2 of the 4 airplanes alleged to have taken off on 9/11, didn't take off on 9/11 at all.

2- Obituaries:

Here's some interesting facts on the the obituaries of 5 people from a particular company on 9/11 that I got from an interesting article titled The Path to 9/11: PART 17 – Raytheon, E-Systems & the Return of Washington Group International:

… Raytheon was the 5th biggest government contractor in 2003 and 2004. (of interest are the other companies listed as well).

As one the the biggest military contractor both in America and in the world, Raytheon develloped and introduced the very first remotely controlled and pilot-less Airliner just a couple of months before 9-11 according to an August 2001 article in the USA Today (by the way, the said article may have been removed from the USA Today archives as of one month ago, for a free copy contact pepelapiu@msn.com )

Interestingly enough, on 9-11 Raytheon lost five of their high ranking employees. As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilotless aircraft program (see 1998 (D) and August 2001).

1) Stanley Hall (Flight 77) was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare." [AP, 9/25/01]

2) Peter Gay (Flight 11) was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. [AP, 9/25/01] Raytheon's El Segundo's Electronic Systems division is one of two divisions making the remote controlled Global Hawk. [iSR Journal, 3/02]

3) Kenneth Waldie (Flight 11) was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.

4) David Kovalcin (Flight 11) was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems. [CNN, 9/01]

5) Herbert Homer (Flight 175) was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. [CNN, 9/01, Northeastern University Voice, 12/11/01]

Raytheon employees with possible links to Global Hawk can be connected to three of the four flights. There may be more, since many of the passengers' jobs and personal information have remained anonymous.

A surprising number of passengers, especially on Flight 77, have military connections. For instance, 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, 9/16/01]

So, now we have a major player in the military which stands to make millions, if not billions with the wars resulting from 9-11, we also know Raytheon to be responsible for the development of Global Hawk and remotely-piloted airliners. But so it happens, five of their employees were allegedly all on board the four airplanes. But it gets better, much better. You remember those Saudi royalties and Bin Laden relatives flown out of the country just a couple of days following 9-11 when no one else was allowed to fly?

They were flown out of the country directly from a Raytheon owned airfield according to The St-Petersburg Times. Just as coincidence would have it, 15 of the 19 alleged terrorists were Saudi nationals according to The Washington Times. That's right my friends, none from Iraq or Afghanistan but mostly from Saudi Arabia.

Did Raytheon have any involvment with the 9-11 events?

It should be added that Raytheon has gained over $8.5 billions in government military contracts in 2004, nearly double that of pre 9/11 years!

Source: http://www.antifasci...international-2

3: On the alleged cell phone calls made from the hijacked airplanes on 9/11, here's a very good article from 9/11 luminary, David Ray Griffin, author of many books on 9/11:

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=10103

It is an insult to those who have lost friends and family in those attacks to claim that there were no passengers in those airliners, and those airliners were not drones either.

I would argue that it's an insult to those who have lost friends and family to not fully investigate the truth of what happened on 9/11. You may want to read up a bit on the 9/11 Family steering committee:

http://en.wikipedia....ering_Committee

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

3: On the alleged cell phone calls made from the hijacked airplanes on 9/11, here's a very good article from 9/11 luminary, David Ray Griffin, author of many books on 9/11:

http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=10103

The real facts disagree.

Tom Burnett made several phone calls to his wife beginning at 09:30:32 from rows 24 and 25, though he was assigned a seat in row four. Burnett explained that the plane had been hijacked by men claiming to have a bomb. He also said that a passenger had been stabbed with a knife and that he believed the bomb threat was a ruse to control the passengers. During one of Tom Burnett's calls, his wife informed him of the attacks on the World Trade Center and he replied that the hijackers were "talking about crashing this plane ...

Oh my God. It's a suicide mission." He ended his last call by saying, "Don't worry, we're going to do something." An unknown flight attendant attempted to contact the United Airlines maintenance facility at 09:32:29.

The call lasted 95 seconds, but was not received as it may have been in queue. Flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw called the maintenance facility at 09:35:40 from row 33. She reported the flight had been hijacked by men with knives who were in the cabin and flight deck and had stabbed another flight attendant.

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

2- Obituaries:

Here's some interesting facts on the the obituaries of 5 people from a particular company on 9/11 that I got from an interesting article titled The Path to 9/11: PART 17 – Raytheon, E-Systems & the Return of Washington Group International:

Have the passenger lists of every other flight due to take off in the US that day been checked? Along with the history and employment connections of all involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

2- Obituaries:

Here's something that refutes what you are presenting.

[quote

The voice of the survivors Flight 93, fight to hear tape transformed her life

Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz1ZkCQzk3n

When he told her he thought Flight 93 had crashed, she collapsed on a couch.

On that day, Burnett's life changed forever: Tom Burnett, whom she'd known from their second date was the man she wanted to spend the rest of her life with, was dead.

Almost overnight, Burnett, a former Delta Airlines flight attendant and suburban mother of three small daughters, became one of the most forceful family members of Flight 93 victims to plead with the FBI for an opportunity to hear the tape.

Burnett, the daughter of an Arkansas cotton farmer, had a grit behind her soft voice and courteous manner, and she wanted to hear for herself. Two weeks after the crash, Flight 93 victims' families met with President Bush at the White House.

Bush spoke with Burnett and kissed her on both cheeks. She didn't waste her opportunity, telling the president she would like to hear the tape. The president said he could understand why she felt that way.

Last month the FBI scheduled the tape-playing session at a Marriott hotel in Princeton.As the months passed, Burnett exuded the stoic, almost serene presence of a woman who now had a mission -- to wrest something worthwhile out of the plane's wreckage strewn over the Pennsylvania countryside.

My link

And,

Flight 93 hijacker: 'Shall we finish it off?'

"The [flight] recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts and breaking glass and plates. At 10:00:03 a.m., Jarrah stabilized the airplane," the report says.

"Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, 'Is that it? Shall we finish it off?' A hijacker responded, 'No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off.' "

Jarrah resumed pitching the plane up and down.

"In the cockpit. If we don't, we'll die," a passenger is heard saying.

"Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, 'Roll it!' " the report says.

By 10:01 a.m., Jarrah stopped his violent maneuvers and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!"

According to the report, he then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?"

"Yes, put it in it, and pull it down," the other responded.

The passengers continued with their assault, trying to break through the cockpit door. At 10:02 a.m. and 23 seconds, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!"

"The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," the report concludes.

"The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting, 'Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.'

"With the sounds of the passenger counter-attack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C."

The report says Jarrah intended to fly the plane into the White House or the U.S. Capitol. "He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93," the report says.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I

2- Obituaries:

Flight175.png

Flight11.png

Flight77.png

Flight93.png

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

More have been killed for less throughout history.

Yes, true. But nothing of the sort has ever happened on American soil. To believe in this theory, you would have to believe a board decided to vote in favor of slaughtering 3,000 innocent American lives. I get that we're all about the money these days, but I have a hard time believing a group of rich Americans decided to make a little more money by murdering their own countrymen in broad daylight in a supremely risky and elaborate mission. I really have a hard time believing anyone could seriously consider this a realistic scenario, much less more plausible than the theory we have now, which is completely plausible.

I'd be interested in reading that if you can find it.

Silverstein windfall myth

As we write the insurance payments are not going to reach $7.1 billion. The current situation is $4.6 billion at a maximum, although this may be subject to change (up or down) as a result of court rulings.

And of course this isn't profit for Silverstein. The money is being provided for him to rebuild the WTC complex, and it turns out that's quite expensive ($6.3 billion in April 2006, see here).

$4.6 billion in insurance money, $6.3 billion in costs? Not such a great deal, then. What’s more, don’t imagine the insurance companies have handed over all of this money.

Much more in the link.

He's rebuilding at a loss. So I guess that board voted to kill innocent Americans so they can have an excuse to lose billion(s) of dollars. I wonder how they got so rich, since they're quite obviously tremendously stupid.

Then again, there's always the theory that terrorists hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings. Why is this so far-fetched and unacceptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

The real facts disagree.

Tom Burnett made several phone calls to his wife beginning at 09:30:32 from rows 24 and 25, though he was assigned a seat in row four. Burnett explained that the plane had been hijacked by men claiming to have a bomb. He also said that a passenger had been stabbed with a knife and that he believed the bomb threat was a ruse to control the passengers. During one of Tom Burnett's calls, his wife informed him of the attacks on the World Trade Center and he replied that the hijackers were "talking about crashing this plane ...

Oh my God. It's a suicide mission." He ended his last call by saying, "Don't worry, we're going to do something." An unknown flight attendant attempted to contact the United Airlines maintenance facility at 09:32:29.

The call lasted 95 seconds, but was not received as it may have been in queue. Flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw called the maintenance facility at 09:35:40 from row 33. She reported the flight had been hijacked by men with knives who were in the cabin and flight deck and had stabbed another flight attendant.

My link

I'm not saying that people don't believe that Tom Burnett made calls from the plane, including his wife, who received the calls. However, David Ray Griffin explains how these calls would have been impossible. From page 86-88 of his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" :

United 93 Telephone Calls: A prior Example?

There is reason to believe, moreover, that voice morphing had already been used at least once before in the process of creating the official story about the 9/11 attacks. I refer to the alleged telephone calls made by passenger on United Flight 93 before it crashed in Pennsylvania.

At least nine of these calls were reportedly made on cell phones. Given the fact that there were at most only two alleged cell phone calls from the other three flights combined, UA 93 has been called the "Cellphone Flight." (237) There is reason to believe, however, that these calls were fabricated. Given the cell phone technology at the time, the alleged calls from cell phones (as distinct from seat-back phones) would apparently have been impossible.

In the system that then existed, a cell phone had to reach and then complete an electronic "handshake" with the nearest cellsite. The handshake took at least eight seconds. Then if the cell phone, being in a moving automobile or a low-flying airplane, moved into a new cell, the call had to be "handed off" to a new cellsite, and this process, which could take several seconds, often resulted in dropped calls.

Given that system, the claim that cell phone calls were successfully made from Flight 93 faces two problems. One problem involved altitude. For a cell phone call to be made from an airplane, the phone had to reach a cellsite on the ground; otherwise the phone would indicate "no signal." But if the plane was too high, the cell phone could not make contact with a cellsite or, if it did manage to make contact, it could not maintain it long enough to complete a call.

Experiments to test the possibility of the alleged calls were undertaken by the Canadian science wrter A.K. Dewdney, a former professor of mathematics and computer science known to readers of Scientific American as the long-time author of a regular column. On the basis of experiments with various kinds of cell phones in a single-engine plane, he reached the following conclusions: Successful calls were for the most part possible only under 2,000 feet. Between 2,000 and 8,000 feet, they were highly unlikely. Above 8,000 feet, they were extremely unlikely. At 20,000 feet, Dewdney concluded, "the chance of a typical cell phone call making it to ground engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred....[T]he probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand." The likelihood of nine successful calls at that altitude, he says, would be "infinitesimal," which in operational terms, he added, means "impossible." (238)

In later experiments, he found that in a twin-engine airplane, there was an even lower and more definite cutoff point. In the single-engine aircraft, "The success rates [had] decayed from 75 percent at 2,000 feet to 13 percent at 8,000." But in the twin-engine aircraft, "The success rate decayed from 95 percent at 2,000 feet to 44 percent at 5,000 feet, 10 percent at 6,000 feet and 0 percent at 7,000." This finding supported his earlier hypothesis that "[t]he larger the mass of the aircraft, the lower the cutoff altitude." The implication would be that in a large airliner, the absolute cutoff altitude would be even lower. This conclusion, he adds, "is very much in harmony with many anecdotal reports... that in large passenger jets, one loses contact during takeoff, frequently before the plane reaches 1000 feet altitude." (239) Dewdney's later experiments give him reason to be even more confident of his earlier assertion that cell phone calls from airliners flying above 30,000 feet would have been "flat out impossible." (240)

This conclusion creates an enormous problem for the official story, because UA 93, according to the 9/11 Commission, was at 34,300 feet when "the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones." Shortly thereafter, moreover, an air traffic controller "observed United 93 climbing to 40,700 feet." (241) The likelihood that even one of those alleged cell phone calls would have gotten through was, therefore, close to zero. There was simply no possibility whatsoever that nine of the alleged cell phone calls could have been successful.

Flight 93's altitude was, moreover, only part of the problem. Also problematic was its speed, which would have been in the range of 500 mils per hour.

As we saw, it took several seconds for a cell phone to complete an electronic handshake with a cellsite, then a few more seconds for it, when moving from one cell to another, to be "handed off" to the new cell site. A cell phone in an airplane going 500 miles per hour would generally have been moving from cellsite to cellsite too quickly for these transactions to have been completed.

The twofold problem faced by the claim about Flight 93's cell phone calls was stated succinctly in 1999 by an airline pilot, who wrote: "The idea of being able to use a cell phone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (242) (additional evidence supporting this claim will be provided in Chapter 4.)

The new technology that would make such calls possible was successfully tested only in 2004. These new cell phones employ a completely different system. Antennas in the front and rear of the cabin transmit the calls to a cellular base station on the plane known as a "pico cell", which then transmits the calls via a satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network. (243)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I'm not saying that people don't believe that Tom Burnett made calls from the plane, including his wife, who received the calls. However, David Ray Griffin explains how these calls would have been impossible. From page 86-88 of his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" :

David Ray Griffin, doesn't know what he is talking about. I was using a cell phone in flight just yesterday on the way back from our Young Eagles rally where we flew 40 children, and on another note, cell phones are used thousands of times each day aboard corporate and private aircraft.

He is in the same boat of misinformation as those who have claimed that the U.S. government was behind the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Flight175.png

[more pics of alleged passengers on planes]

My link

Do you think pictures of the alleged names of the passengers on the 4 alleged hijacked flights of 9/11 will make all the discrepancies go away? Far from it. I've posted the following link many times; have you ever taken a look at it?

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?

Since you may never take a look at the link, I've decided to post the introduction to the article...

*****

Most people are not aware that there are issues with the 4 groups of people who flew on the 4 flights of 9/11 from 3 locations. There are so many issues it would take a newsroom full of dedicated reporters a long time to sift through it all. There are problems with the boarding of passengers on 3 flights. And on the 4th flight we find 2 boardings, an unusual event to say the least. Two of the aircraft, we are to believe didn't even take off on 9/11, as this is what registers in the BTS database for flights 11 & 77 on 911. Two of the aircraft that allegedly struck the towers, can be plausibly shown to be drones, calling into question both passenger and crew from those respective flights. (11 & 175) While flight 77 obviously didn't crash at the Pentagon from all evidence shown, and flight 77 is one of the 2 flight which BTS shows no departure time for. While flight 93 wasn't even a regular flight on 9/11, it was created in the last 2 hours before it flew. And as you will see are good reasons to believe Flight 93 was boarded twice at Newark. If this sounds confusing, it is because it was meant to be so. But I believe this article shows it is possible to make some simple sense out of the days events and tie them all together...

*****

I just found another interesting article on the subject of the alleged 9/11 passengers:

No video tapes of passengers boarding 9/11 flights at Zionist run Boston's Logan, Newark's Liberty, Washington's Dulles airports?

An excerpt from that article:

******************

NEW YORK, 6 NOVEMBER 2005 -- Those who have bothered to read the 9/11

skeptics know about the extraordinary "coincidences" that took place that

fateful morning. One of them happens to be the lack of routine video

surveillance tapes of ANY of the passengers alleged to have boarded the

ill-fated flights at Boston's Logan, Newark's Liberty and Washington's

Dulles international airports.

The 9/11 Commission simply ignored this issue even though it can be fairly

said that not only did the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington originate

at these airport gates, but so did the resulting invasions and occupations

of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why haven't we seen these video tapes? Why has the Fourth Estate failed to

ask, Why haven't we seen these video tapes? Why the conspiracy of silence?

Well, the answer may very well lie in Holland. You see, security at some if

not all of these airport gates of 9/11 was in the hands of an American

minimum-wage subsidiary of a Dutch corporation called ICTS-International.

What is most remarkable about this arrangement is that the Dutch corporation

ICTS-International was, as of 9/11, Dutch in name only. An early 2003 check

of its web-site showed a Board of Directors consisting entirely of nationals

of the Zionist state with the single exception of the Comptroller, who

apparently was the nominal Dutchman. And if I need to clue in the clueless,

the Zionists were hellbent on finding a reason for the USA to invade Iraq.

And it would be fair to say that these Zionists of ICTS-International were

the gatekeepers of 9/11 and all that followed, such as the invasions of Iraq

and Afghanistan. Interesting, eh?

But the story gets even wilder. Not long after 9/11, the chairman of ICTS,

Ezra Harel, whose surname is famous in the annals of the Mossad, died

suddenly of a heart attack in his early 50s on his yacht off the coast of

Palestine. Talk about not being available for comment!

But that's not the kicker. Hours before the House version of the first

Patriot Act went to a vote, "technical corrections" were inserted into the

body of the legislation whereby foreign security companies such as

ICTS-International would be immune from lawsuits related to the events of

9/11. Talk about not being available for deposition! This "Patriot" act

legislative sleight of hand occurred before the inception of the 9/11

Commission when Fearless Leader George W. Bush was still resisting the very

IDEA of an investigation into 9/11. Hence, in the face of an institutional

cover-up, citizens were denied the possibility of a discovery process which

is normally afforded to litigants. Without such discovery process,

ICTS-International would never be compelled by a court of law to give

testimony and show evidence related to the missing airport video

surveillance tapes of 9/11 or any other aspect of security measures in place

on 9/11.

The legal situation has since changed and ICTS-International is now a

co-defendant in a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the Southern

District of New York. (see <http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com>

www.sept11tortlitigation.com) More about this will follow.

And so, we are supposed to believe that even as multiple NORAD drills were

underway, video surveillance tapes from multiple cameras at multiple

locations in three different "Category X" high security international

airports just happened to fail to capture images of ANY of the passengers -

the good, the bad and the ugly - about to board the ill-fated flights of

9/11! As many 9/11 skeptics already know, what I have just described here

is just one aspect of the BIG LIE about 9/11. Some of the answers to our

national security problem will be found in Holland. That is for sure!

But there are those who will insist that they have seen on television video

surveillance tapes of the hijackers of 9/11 and are satisfied with the

official explanation of what happened on that fateful day.

However, these people are confused by the tape repeatedly shown on TV of two

of the alleged hijackers (Mohammad Atta being one of them) passing through a

security checkpoint at Portland Maine International Airport to take a

connecting flight to Boston on the morning of 11 September 2001.

This Portland tape has no timestamp, which makes it suspect. Also, even IF

the tape were genuine, it does not place either of the two young Arabs at

Logan International Airport.

Nearly all Americans were lulled into believing that the Portland, Maine

tape was sufficient proof when it was not. People were mesmerized by the

repeated showing of this tape on TV and in their emotional state did not

realize exactly what they were looking at and what they weren't looking at.

Also, yet another tape was shown in the 24 hour interval leading to the

official release of the 9/11 Commission Report; however, this tape, released

to the news media by the South Carolina law firm Motley Rice LLC, was

almost immediately withdrawn because it quickly became apparent that it was

bogus. This Motley Rice surveillance tape purportedly showed two young

Arabs boarding flight 77 at Dulles International Airport on the morning of

9/11. But again, just like the Portland Maine tape, there is no timestamp,

which makes it suspect. Beyond that, as pointed out by the late, great

Internet researcher/writer Joe Vialls, who some believe is really Ari

Ben-Menashe (see <http://www.judicial-inc.biz> www.judicial-inc.biz), the

shadows appearing just outside the terminal door are those you would expect

to see at midday rather than in the early morning. Moreover, the

surveillance camera is no ordinary surveillance camera; for the tape reveals

a panning camera focused on the two young Arabs and then zooming in on them

and then moving left as they move left instead of following the pretty

blonde lady who was going to the right. Clearly, some person unknown at

some time unknown was filming these young Arab men for a specific but

unknown reason.

This Motley Rice film was never shown again because of the critical eyes of

researchers, many of whom preserved copies of the mysterious tape in their

computers.

In consideration of the foregoing, one must conclude that no tape has EVER

been shown that reveals ANY of the passengers boarding the 9/11 flights out

of Boston's Logan, Newark's Liberty and Washington's Dulles international

airports.

One must also ask, if the 9/11 surveillance tapes at these airports do in

fact exist, why haven't we seen them? And if they do not even exist, how

can this be explained?

******************

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Do you think pictures of the alleged names of the passengers on the 4 alleged hijacked flights of 9/11 will make all the discrepancies go away? Far from it. I've posted the following link many times; have you ever taken a look at it?

The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What about the Passengers? What happened to them?

Since you may never take a look at the link, I've decided to post the introduction to the article...

*****

Most people are not aware that there are issues with the 4 groups of people who flew on the 4 flights of 9/11 from 3 locations. There are so many issues it would take a newsroom full of dedicated reporters a long time to sift through it all. There are problems with the boarding of passengers on 3 flights. And on the 4th flight we find 2 boardings, an unusual event to say the least. Two of the aircraft, we are to believe didn't even take off on 9/11, as this is what registers in the BTS database for flights 11 & 77 on 911. Two of the aircraft that allegedly struck the towers, can be plausibly shown to be drones, calling into question both passenger and crew from those respective flights. (11 & 175) While flight 77 obviously didn't crash at the Pentagon from all evidence shown, and flight 77 is one of the 2 flight which BTS shows no departure time for. While flight 93 wasn't even a regular flight on 9/11, it was created in the last 2 hours before it flew. And as you will see are good reasons to believe Flight 93 was boarded twice at Newark. If this sounds confusing, it is because it was meant to be so. But I believe this article shows it is possible to make some simple sense out of the days events and tie them all together...

*****

I just found another interesting article on the subject of the alleged 9/11 passengers:

No video tapes of passengers boarding 9/11 flights at Zionist run Boston's Logan, Newark's Liberty, Washington's Dulles airports?

An excerpt from that article:

******************

NEW YORK, 6 NOVEMBER 2005 -- Those who have bothered to read the 9/11

skeptics know about the extraordinary "coincidences" that took place that

fateful morning. One of them happens to be the lack of routine video

surveillance tapes of ANY of the passengers alleged to have boarded the

ill-fated flights at Boston's Logan, Newark's Liberty and Washington's

Dulles international airports.

The 9/11 Commission simply ignored this issue even though it can be fairly

said that not only did the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington originate

at these airport gates, but so did the resulting invasions and occupations

of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why haven't we seen these video tapes? Why has the Fourth Estate failed to

ask, Why haven't we seen these video tapes? Why the conspiracy of silence?

Well, the answer may very well lie in Holland. You see, security at some if

not all of these airport gates of 9/11 was in the hands of an American

minimum-wage subsidiary of a Dutch corporation called ICTS-International.

What is most remarkable about this arrangement is that the Dutch corporation

ICTS-International was, as of 9/11, Dutch in name only. An early 2003 check

of its web-site showed a Board of Directors consisting entirely of nationals

of the Zionist state with the single exception of the Comptroller, who

apparently was the nominal Dutchman. And if I need to clue in the clueless,

the Zionists were hellbent on finding a reason for the USA to invade Iraq.

And it would be fair to say that these Zionists of ICTS-International were

the gatekeepers of 9/11 and all that followed, such as the invasions of Iraq

and Afghanistan. Interesting, eh?

But the story gets even wilder. Not long after 9/11, the chairman of ICTS,

Ezra Harel, whose surname is famous in the annals of the Mossad, died

suddenly of a heart attack in his early 50s on his yacht off the coast of

Palestine. Talk about not being available for comment!

But that's not the kicker. Hours before the House version of the first

Patriot Act went to a vote, "technical corrections" were inserted into the

body of the legislation whereby foreign security companies such as

ICTS-International would be immune from lawsuits related to the events of

9/11. Talk about not being available for deposition! This "Patriot" act

legislative sleight of hand occurred before the inception of the 9/11

Commission when Fearless Leader George W. Bush was still resisting the very

IDEA of an investigation into 9/11. Hence, in the face of an institutional

cover-up, citizens were denied the possibility of a discovery process which

is normally afforded to litigants. Without such discovery process,

ICTS-International would never be compelled by a court of law to give

testimony and show evidence related to the missing airport video

surveillance tapes of 9/11 or any other aspect of security measures in place

on 9/11.

The legal situation has since changed and ICTS-International is now a

co-defendant in a lawsuit in Federal District Court for the Southern

District of New York. (see <http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com>

www.sept11tortlitigation.com) More about this will follow.

And so, we are supposed to believe that even as multiple NORAD drills were

underway, video surveillance tapes from multiple cameras at multiple

locations in three different "Category X" high security international

airports just happened to fail to capture images of ANY of the passengers -

the good, the bad and the ugly - about to board the ill-fated flights of

9/11! As many 9/11 skeptics already know, what I have just described here

is just one aspect of the BIG LIE about 9/11. Some of the answers to our

national security problem will be found in Holland. That is for sure!

But there are those who will insist that they have seen on television video

surveillance tapes of the hijackers of 9/11 and are satisfied with the

official explanation of what happened on that fateful day.

However, these people are confused by the tape repeatedly shown on TV of two

of the alleged hijackers (Mohammad Atta being one of them) passing through a

security checkpoint at Portland Maine International Airport to take a

connecting flight to Boston on the morning of 11 September 2001.

This Portland tape has no timestamp, which makes it suspect. Also, even IF

the tape were genuine, it does not place either of the two young Arabs at

Logan International Airport.

Nearly all Americans were lulled into believing that the Portland, Maine

tape was sufficient proof when it was not. People were mesmerized by the

repeated showing of this tape on TV and in their emotional state did not

realize exactly what they were looking at and what they weren't looking at.

Also, yet another tape was shown in the 24 hour interval leading to the

official release of the 9/11 Commission Report; however, this tape, released

to the news media by the South Carolina law firm Motley Rice LLC, was

almost immediately withdrawn because it quickly became apparent that it was

bogus. This Motley Rice surveillance tape purportedly showed two young

Arabs boarding flight 77 at Dulles International Airport on the morning of

9/11. But again, just like the Portland Maine tape, there is no timestamp,

which makes it suspect. Beyond that, as pointed out by the late, great

Internet researcher/writer Joe Vialls, who some believe is really Ari

Ben-Menashe (see <http://www.judicial-inc.biz> www.judicial-inc.biz), the

shadows appearing just outside the terminal door are those you would expect

to see at midday rather than in the early morning. Moreover, the

surveillance camera is no ordinary surveillance camera; for the tape reveals

a panning camera focused on the two young Arabs and then zooming in on them

and then moving left as they move left instead of following the pretty

blonde lady who was going to the right. Clearly, some person unknown at

some time unknown was filming these young Arab men for a specific but

unknown reason.

This Motley Rice film was never shown again because of the critical eyes of

researchers, many of whom preserved copies of the mysterious tape in their

computers.

In consideration of the foregoing, one must conclude that no tape has EVER

been shown that reveals ANY of the passengers boarding the 9/11 flights out

of Boston's Logan, Newark's Liberty and Washington's Dulles international

airports.

One must also ask, if the 9/11 surveillance tapes at these airports do in

fact exist, why haven't we seen them? And if they do not even exist, how

can this be explained?

******************

You need to avoid those websites where people make up things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

I'm not saying that people don't believe that Tom Burnett made calls from the plane, including his wife, who received the calls. However, David Ray Griffin explains how these calls would have been impossible. From page 86-88 of his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" :

David Ray Griffin, doesn't know what he is talking about. I was using a cell phone in flight just yesterday and besides, cell phones are used thousands of times each day aboard corporate and private aircraft.

He is in the same boat of misinformation as those who have claimed that the U.S. government was behind the 911 attacks.

Did you actually read what I put up or did you skip over some (or all) of it? Most notably, the end of my excerpt of David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" book. Here it is again (important part bolded):

The twofold problem faced by the claim about Flight 93's cell phone calls was stated succinctly in 1999 by an airline pilot, who wrote: "The idea of being able to use a cell phone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (242) (additional evidence supporting this claim will be provided in Chapter 4.)

The new technology that would make such calls possible was successfully tested only in 2004. These new cell phones employ a completely different system. Antennas in the front and rear of the cabin transmit the calls to a cellular base station on the plane known as a "pico cell", which then transmits the calls via a satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network. (243)

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

You need to avoid those websites where people make up things.

What evidence do you have that anything the author of that article wrote was made up? Here's an excerpt from another article that confirms that no credible video recordings of the alleged hijackers at the airports where they allegedly took off for the last time were ever found:

There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11

As shown above, the US authorities have failed to prove that the 19 individuals accused of the mass murder of 9/11 had boarded the aircraft, which they allegedly used to commit the crime. No authenticated, original, passenger lists, bearing their names, have been released; no one is known to have seen them board the aircraft; no video recordings documented their boarding; no boarding pass stub is known to exist; and there is no actual proof that the alleged hijackers actually died at the known crash sites, because their bodily remains were not positively identified (except for one dubious case) and no chain-of-custody report accompanied these remains.

In the months following 9/11, reports appeared in mainstream media that at least five of the alleged hijackers were actually living in various Arab countries. [89] These reports led to speculation that the identities of some of the hijackers were in doubt. Typical of such reports is an Associated Press dispatch of 3 November 2001, which states: "The FBI released the names and photos of the hijackers in late September. The names were those listed on the planes' passenger manifests and investigators were certain those were the names the hijackers used when they entered the United States. But questions remained about whether they were the hijackers' true identities. The FBI has not disclosed which names were in doubt and [FBI Director] Mueller provided no new information on the hijackers' identities beyond his statement to reporters." The 9/11 Commission did neither address at all these doubts nor the reports about the "living hijackers".

On September 14, 2001, the FBI released the names of the 19 individuals "who have been identified as hijackers aboard the four airliners that crashed on September 11, 2001". [90] On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photographs of these 19 individuals. Withdrawing from its unqualified statement of September 14, the new press release said these were photographs the FBI merely "believed to be the hijackers of the four airliners". [91] Yet for most names no birth date, birthplace or specific residence is given despite the apparent availability of such data on visa application forms and other documentation possessed by the FBI. The FBI webpage provides the following caveat: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way." This statement, issued on September 27, 2001, is still valid today, anno 2008, because the webpage has not been updated since it was initially posted and remains, therefore, the US government's official position that their identities are in doubt. Accordingly, a significant difference exists between the official position of the US government, as reflected by the website of the FBI, regarding the identities of the alleged perpetrators of the crime committed on 9/11 and the popularized version parroted by politicians and the media about the guilt of 19 Muslims for the mass murder of 9/11. The 9/11 Commission has studiously avoided the question of the alleged hijackers' identities. It must be added, however, that the aforementioned statement is deliberately deceptive, because there is no hard evidence that any person actually hijacked the airliners and crashed them on the known sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

Without having to wade through scads of copy and pasted multi-paragraphed posts designed to bog us down into finite details, can anyone give me a simple yes or no to the following:

Has Scott provided a plausible alternative theory yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Without having to wade through scads of copy and pasted multi-paragraphed posts designed to bog us down into finite details, can anyone give me a simple yes or no to the following:

Has Scott provided a plausible alternative theory yet?

What if the only way you could find out was by reading through the 'scads of copy and pasted multi-paragraphed posts'? Would you be up for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

What if the only way you could find out was by reading through the 'scads of copy and pasted multi-paragraphed posts'? Would you be up for it?

Summarize for me, if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Summarize for me, if you can.

9/11 has multiple elements to it; theories on what happened that day has spanned many books. I've read a few, but even the authors of these books would tell you that much work remains to be done.

I think that Q24 did a good summary on how explosives may have been placed in the WTC buildings in post 369 in this thread. I can't link to the post in question, probably because a post was deleted at around that time, which a moderator or administrator told me can mess links up, but here's the page that it's on:

http://www.unexplain...c=213798&st=360

The quickest summary I've seen would have to be the part of Zeitgeist that deals with 9/11. The film has 3 parts. The first deals with religion, the second with 9/11, and the third with the international banking cartels. Here's a link to the documentary, which has won many awards:

http://vimeo.com/13726978

I personally found that "The Reflecting Pool", which was a movie who follows an investigator trying to uncover what truly happened on 9/11, was very good as well. It can be seen here:

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

9/11 has multiple elements to it; theories on what happened that day has spanned many books. I've read a few, but even the authors of these books would tell you that much work remains to be done.

I think that Q24 did a good summary on how explosives may have been placed in the WTC buildings in post 369 in this thread. I can't link to the post in question, probably because a post was deleted at around that time, which a moderator or administrator told me can mess links up, but here's the page that it's on:

http://www.unexplain...c=213798&st=360

The quickest summary I've seen would have to be the part of Zeitgeist that deals with 9/11. The film has 3 parts. The first deals with religion, the second with 9/11, and the third with the international banking cartels. Here's a link to the documentary, which has won many awards:

http://vimeo.com/13726978

I personally found that "The Reflecting Pool", which was a movie who follows an investigator trying to uncover what truly happened on 9/11, was very good as well. It can be seen here:

So, in summary, you would have me watch 4+ hours of videos?

Can't you just say what you think happened on 9/11 in a few paragraphs that are produced from your own mind?

ETA: when I first saw Loose Change, I was new to the 9/11 inside job theory, and I bought into it. It wasn't until after I started checking things out for myself that I realized this was a complete work of fiction, and that the makers of the film steered me into the direction they wanted me to go. This is why I wonder if you've applied independent thought to this theory, or if you are just buying what theorists are selling you without question.

Edited by TK0001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

So, in summary, you would have me watch 4+ hours of videos?

If you want to have some grasp of what happened on 9/11, you do need to put a little work into it. Honestly, those 4 hours would just be an appetizer. To deal with die hard official story supporters, you'd need a lot more than that. I've been researching 9/11 for years, and there's still many things I don't know.

Can't you just say what you think happened on 9/11 in a few paragraphs that are produced from your own mind?

In general, I've found that summarizing one's views on what happened on 9/11 is a very bad idea. It leads to people who are too impatient to do any research themselves to be armchair critics of said views. Seriously TK, don't be lazy; a few hours worth of documentaries is nothing. If you have to have the shortest summation possible, skip the first part of Zeitgeist and just watch the second part, which deals with 9/11. It's maybe 45 minutes long. Here's the link:

ETA: when I first saw Loose Change, I was new to the 9/11 inside job theory, and I bought into it.

You never told me you'd already seen a documentary on 9/11 that doesn't support the official story. I saw Loose Change as well and I thought it was great. And I say this having done a lot of research besides simply seeing that.

It wasn't until after I started checking things out for myself that I realized this was a complete work of fiction, and that the makers of the film steered me into the direction they wanted me to go.

Let me guess; you saw "screw loose change"? Seriously, that thing was awful. They start criticizing the film before the filmmakers of loose change even start talking. I stopped watching that junk after a few minutes.

This is why I wonder if you've applied independent thought to this theory, or if you are just buying what theorists are selling you without question.

I've spent years on this TK. I don't need anyone giving me summations; and I've come to realize that the best summations on 9/11 generally have video and audio elements to cram in extra information considering how little time they have to make their points; that is, documentaries on the subject. I don't skimp on reading lengthy articles if I think I'll learn something out of them. I've read -books- on 9/11, not just articles. I've seen videos on specific aspects of 9/11, particularly regarding the pentagon attack, from groups such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizens Investigation Team. I've been an active member of the truth movement in forums since 2008, writing thousands of posts across various forums, frequently in great detail. Indepedent thought is great TK; I highly recommend it. But you need more than independent thought to decipher what truly happened on 9/11; you need to put in the legwork. Lots of it. Seeing one little documentary on the subject? That's, well.. a small appetizer. But if you really want to get into this, you'll have to do more than that. Read a book or 2 from people who don't agree with the official story. I recommend any of Jim Marrs' books on the subject, or any book from David Ray Griffin. I read the book he edited with Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1; well worth the read in my view. I also read Jim Marrs book "The Terror Conspiracy", also quite good. Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" was one of the 2 books that Oliver Stone used to do his movie on JFK. I also have David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking on hand for forums such as this one. I haven't read the whole book; I use it more as a quick reference guide to various issues when I find I would like a little more information on a particular issue.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

If you want to have some grasp of what happened on 9/11, you do need to put a little work into it. Honestly, those 4 hours would just be an appetizer. To deal with die hard official story supporters, you'd need a lot more than that. I've been researching 9/11 for years, and there's still many things I don't know.

In general, I've found that summarizing one's views on what happened on 9/11 is a very bad idea. It leads to people who are too impatient to do any research themselves to be armchair critics of said views. Seriously TK, don't be lazy; a few hours worth of documentaries is nothing. If you have to have the shortest summation possible, skip the first part of Zeitgeist and just watch the second part, which deals with 9/11. It's maybe 45 minutes long. Here's the link:

You never told me you'd already seen a documentary on 9/11 that doesn't support the official story. I saw Loose Change as well and I thought it was great. And I say this having done a lot of research besides simply seeing that.

Let me guess; you saw "screw loose change"? Seriously, that thing was awful. They start criticizing the film before the filmmakers of loose change even start talking. I stopped watching that junk after a few minutes.

I've spent years on this TK. I don't need anyone giving me summations; and I've come to realize that the best summations on 9/11 generally have video and audio elements to cram in extra information considering how little time they have to make their points; that is, documentaries on the subject. I don't skimp on reading lengthy articles if I think I'll learn something out of them. I've read -books- on 9/11, not just articles. I've seen videos on specific aspects of 9/11, particularly regarding the pentagon attack, from groups such as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizens Investigation Team. I've been an active member of the truth movement in forums since 2008, writing thousands of posts across various forums, frequently in great detail. Indepedent thought is great TK; I highly recommend it. But you need more than independent thought to decipher what truly happened on 9/11; you need to put in the legwork. Lots of it. Seeing one little documentary on the subject? That's, well.. a small appetizer. But if you really want to get into this, you'll have to do more than that. Read a book or 2 from people who don't agree with the official story. I recommend any of Jim Marrs' books on the subject, or any book from David Ray Griffin. I read the book he edited with Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. 1; well worth the read in my view. I also read Jim Marrs book "The Terror Conspiracy", also quite good. Jim Marrs book "Crossfire" was one of the 2 books that Oliver Stone used to do his movie on JFK.

Scott, you have not been investigating 9/11, you have watched videos and read books, articles, and sites that support your already-formed opinion. Anything that counters this opinion you disregard. You say you have been investigating 9/11 for years, but dismissed Screw Loose Change after only a few minutes? That's pretty telling. It tells me you'd really rather not actually investigate 9/11.

It doesn't need to be as complex as you make it sound, Scott. Just summarize a theory of what you think happened on 9/11. Every complex thought, philosophy, or theory can be summarized.

You should be able to post something similar to this:

On 9/11, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked 4 passenger planes with the intent of flying them into significant American buildings. 3 of them succeeded, one failed and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The three buildings that were impacted by the planes eventually either partially or completely collapsed. One subsequent building also collapsed due to damage and fire it sustained from an initial collapse.

This is the belief that I hold, and it can and has been debated for years. The difference between me and you is that I have a clear, succinct belief as to what happened on 9/11, whereas all you have is arguments against this belief. You have nothing you can actually call your own opinion on what happened.

Movies, youtube videos, websites, internet forums, and books are all secondary. They can be used to support a theory. But first a theory must be presented counter to the one I just posted. Present something that can be held up to the light and examined. Something that is actually just as plausible or even more plausible than what I posted, and I might be inclined to believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

What evidence do you have that anything the author of that article wrote was made up? Here's an excerpt from another article that confirms that no credible video recordings of the alleged hijackers at the airports where they allegedly took off for the last time were ever found:

Once again, you are using a website that has made it up. It said that Muslims did not commit the terrorist acts, but people know that is a lie because documents were uncovered, among other things, that proved the terrorist were responsible for the 911 terrorist attacks.

In the Philippines,documents were uncovered years before the 911 attacks. which had shown that the terrorist were planing to use aircraft to attack America, and CIA headquarters was one of those targets.In addition, they were going to blow up several airliners over the Pacific Ocean and set off a small bomb on an airliner as a test that killed one of the passengers.

The apartment for which those documents were found, was that of the same terrorist who detonated a bomb under one of the WTC buildings in 1993.

So once again, you need to get away from those obviously flawed websites.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Alright TK, I remembered that I actually wrote an essay for a College English essay of mine on 9/11. Yes, it needs work, I didn't get a perfect score, but there it is. I guess it could be seen as a summation of sorts on my views regarding 9/11. The format that the Zeitgeist documentary used heavily influenced what I focused on, so you may want to see that first. Anyway, here goes...

************

Was 9/11 an inside job? by Scott G[...] Persuasive English Essay, Final Draft

"19 Hijackers, directed by Osama B. Laden, took over 4 Commercial Jets with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD), hit 75% of their targets…. The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism..." (Zeitgeist, 43:33)

Although this is commonly accepted as the "official story", there are several anomalies that suggest 9/11 was an inside job. I examine the claim that there was no warnings and point out certain issues concerning the funding of the lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta, as well as the man who was originally alleged to have been behind the mastermind behind the operation, Osama Bin Laden.

"The 911 Commission found that there were no warnings for this act of Terrorism…"

First, let's examine the claim that there were no warnings. The U.S. Secretary of State on 9/11 was Condoleeza Rice. Shortly after 9/11, she stated:

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile". (Zeitgeist, 44:03)

On September 23, 2001, Fainaru and Grivaldi reported the following in the Washington post:

Three days after the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III described reports that several of the hijackers had received flight training in the United States as "news, quite obviously," adding, "If we had understood that to be the case, we would have -- perhaps one could have averted this."

However, as the Washington Post article explains in its introduction, "A senior government official yesterday acknowledged law enforcement officials were aware that fewer than a dozen people with links to bin Laden had attended U.S. flight schools."

The article continues with the official attempting to explain away the fact that nothing was done:

However, the official said there was no information to indicate the flight students had been planning suicide hijacking attacks.

"We were unable to marry any information from investigations or the intelligence community that talked to their use of this expertise in the events that we saw unfold on the 11th," the official said.

The anonymous official's explanation is contradicted, however, by a member of a highly classified operation called "Able Danger". Dr. Daniele Ganser (2005) elaborates:

According to Army reserve Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Shaffer, a top secret Pentagon project code-named Able Danger had identified Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as members of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the attacks.

Able Danger was an 18-month highly classified operation tasked, according to Shaffer, with "developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale", and used data-mining techniques to look for "patterns, associations, and linkages". He said he himself had first encountered the names of the four hijackers in mid-2000.

I also find it highly suspicious that such highly ranking officials such as the U.S. Secretary of State and even the FBI Director could have been unaware of what Komarow & Squitieri reported in 2004:

In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

Perhaps most interesting of all, they were conducting multiple "simulations" on 9/11 itself, as 911proof.com points out:

On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony

"19 Hijackers…"

Next, I examine the claim that there was 19 hijackers. There is an interesting allegation concerning Pakistan's ISI Chief, General Mahmud Ahmed. The ISI is the Pakistani equivalent of the US' CIA. The allegation is that Ahmed had requested that $100,000 be sent to Mohammed Atta, which most believe was the lead 9/11 hijacker.

Joshi (2001) reports that the FBI and Indian Intelligence were involved in uncovering the evidence of Ahmed's involvement. Gupta & Mehkri (2001) corroborate Joshi's report and adds:

The fall of Ahmed was understandable and there is credible evidence linking him with the terrorists involved in the New York attacks. It is understood that Ahmed as ISI chief instructed Omar Sheikh, a Harkat-ul-Mujahideen terrorist freed during the Indian Airlines Kandahar hijacking, to send $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, who was involved in the kamikaze attack on the World Trade Center. Sheikh, who now lives near the Binori mosque in Karachi, was spotted in Islamabad at the time the money was transferred to Atta.

Zeitgeist also includes CNN footage that aired October 6, 2001, that bring up the findings as well.

Of further interest is the fact that on 9/11, Richard Leiby reports in the Washington post that General Ahmed was having breakfast with government officials in Washington, D.C. on September 11:

On the morning of Sept. 11, [Congressman] Goss and [senator] Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed -- the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan's intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. (http://www.washingto...36091-2002May17)

In the same article, Richard Leiby reports that "the discussion that morning touched on Taliban links to terrorism, but Goss says his greatest worry was the dispute in Kashmir -- and the nuclear weapons possessed by feuding Pakistan and India."

However, at the end of the article, Leiby quotes Goss:

"You can spend two hours in here saying, 'I've talked to Porter Goss,' and still not have a clue what my plans and intentions are"

That quote is especially interesting because of another nugget of information from an informant named Randy Glass, regarding the other man at the meeting, Senator Bob Graham. As John Pacenti for the Palm Beach post reported:

In August 2001, just before Glass started to serve a seven-month sentence for a $6 million jewelry scam, he said he reached out to Sen. Bob Graham and U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler. He said he told staffers for both lawmakers that a Pakistani operative working for the Taliban known as R.G. Abbas made three references to imminent plans to attack the World Trade Center during the probe, which ended in June 2001.

At one meeting at New York's Tribeca Grill caught on tape, Abbas pointed to the World Trade Center and said, "Those towers are coming down," Glass said.

Glass also now says the State Department, in an effort to maintain good diplomatic relations with Pakistan, pulled the plug on the South Florida terrorist probe, believing Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf could control the militant terrorist faction of his government.

Personally, I wonder if perhaps more was at stake then good diplomatic relations with Pakistan.

Further down, the article states:

Graham acknowledged at [sic] news conference in Boca Raton last month that Glass had contact with his office before Sept. 11, 2001, about an attack on the World Trade Center. "I was concerned about that and a dozen other pieces of information which emanated from the summer of 2001," the senator said.

Graham later said he was unaware of Glass' information until after the terrorist attacks. Glass did speak to a Tallahassee staffer before the attacks but the impression was that Glass wanted Graham to intercede in his criminal case, Anderson said.

Eric Johnson, Wexler's chief of staff, said Glass contacted the office by phone before the terrorist attacks but there is no record of what happened to that information. Since then, other information provided by Glass has been passed on to the FBI.

Glass angrily denies he contacted the lawmakers so they could intercede in his criminal case. He said he wanted only to relay information on plans for an attack in which the World Trade Center had been mentioned. He does say he wanted his prison sentence postponed so he could continue his work.

When the attacks occurred, Glass was in federal prison at Eglin Air Force Base.

"When it happened I literally fell to my knees and started to cry," Glass said. "The frustration level that I had. Who could I tell?"

At 1:01:00 in the film, they analyze the 9/11 Commission and its report and elaborate on this point, by pointing out that on page 172 of the 9/11 Comission Report "The US Government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately, the question is of little practical significance"

The speaker in the film states: "The American authorities had not managed to trace the source of the funding, and then the most amazing and disingenuous statement: 'ultimately it is of little consequence'. It is of massive consequence!"

Doesn't it matter who paid for 9/11?

Continuing in Zeitgeist, an audio recording from David Ray Griffin, who states in a video recording:

"Evidence was also apparently planted. The passport of one of the hijackers of Flight 11, was allegedly found in the rubble."

Zeitgeist then continues with an audio recording from well known conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who elaborates on the story of the passport:

"Goes through the fireball, through the side of the plane and comes down to the ground unscathed!"

Zeitgeist also claims that no evidence has ever linked any of the "hijackers" to Osama bin Laden.

Further in the Zeitgeist documentary, they focus in on Osama Bin Laden. They start off with what may well have been quite a freudian slip of the tongue for George W. Bush:

"Ofcourse we're after Saddam Hussein, I mean Osama Bin Laden…"

The reason this is interesting is because George Bush's vice president was interested in Saddam's oil fields well before 9/11 even occurred. Cheney directed a task force named after him well before 9/11, as Judicial watch makes clear after obtaining information from a Freedom of Information Act request:

"These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents are dated March 2001."

(http://www.judicialw...raqi-oil-fields)

To be sure, there were commercial interests that wanted to put a pipeline through Afghanistan as well. As David Ray Griffin writes in his article, 9/11: Possible Motives Of The Bush Administration:

*******

In July 1998, the Taliban, after having failed in 1997 to take the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, finally succeeded, giving it control of most of Afghanistan, including the entire pipeline route. After this victory CentGas immediately announced that it was "ready to proceed."37 Shortly thereafter, however, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, leading the United States to launch cruse missile strikes against OBL's camps in Afghanistan. These and related developments led Unocal to withdraw from CentGas, convinced that Afghanistan under the Taliban would never have the peace and stability needed for the pipeline project.38 Rashid, finishing his book in mid-1999, wrote that the Clinton Administration had shifted its support to the pipeline route from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, adding that "by now nobody wanted to touch Afghanistan and the Taliban."39

When the Bush administration came to power, however, it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. This last chance occurred at a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001, which would need to be mentioned in any realistic account of how the US war in Afghanistan came about. According to the Pakistani representative at this meeting, Niaz Naik, US representatives, trying to convince the Taliban to share power with US-friendly factions, said: "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."40 Naik said that he was told by Americans that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead...before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."41 The US attack on Afghanistan began, in fact, on October 7, which was as soon as the US military could get ready after 9/11.42

*******

(http://www.globalres...&articleId=1391)

The documentary continues with a speech from a former LAPD police officer named Michael C. Ruppert, who made an intense investigation of the 9/11 event. On his website, fromthewilderness.com, in a timeline of the events surrounding 9/11 he created, he states:

14. January 2001 - The Bush Administration orders the FBI and intelligence agencies to "back off" investigations involving the bin Laden family, including two of Osama bin Laden's relatives (Abdullah and Omar) who were living in Falls Church, Va. -- right next to CIA headquarters. This followed previous orders dating back to 1996 that frustrated efforts to investigate the bin Laden family. [source: BBC Newsnight, Correspondent Gregg Palast, Nov. 7, 2001]

In the next entry in his timeline, he states:

****

15. Jan. 30, 2001 - Sept. 11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah was questioned in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). A number of UAE, Middle Eastern, European, and U.S. sources were cited in this CNN report, which said the CIA requested Jarrah be interrogated because he had been in Afghanistan and was suspected to have ties to terrorists. An unnamed CIA spokesman said the other sources' claims that the agency knew anything about Jarrah before Sept. 11 were "flatly untrue." Jarrah's Jan. 30 detainment at the airport in Dubai, UAE came six months after he took flying lessons in the U.S. Jarrah was released because "U.S. officials were satisfied," said the report. [source: CNN, Aug. 1, 2002 http://www.cnn.com/2...er/index.html]

****

Zeitgeist continues with a video recording of David Ray Griffin, who states:

""When he was already America's most wanted criminal, he reportedly spent two weeks in the American hospital in Dubai, was treated by an American doctor, and visited by the local CIA agent."

Next, it presents a video recording of David Von Kleist, who wrote and produced the 9/11 film, In Plane Site [http://www.911inplanesite.com/]. He states:

"We have not seen one piece of evidence that links Osama bin Laden directly to the planning stages of September 11th."

Switching back to David Ray Griffin:

"…this failure to provide proof, was later said to be unnecessary because bin Laden, in a video allegedly found in Afghanistan admitted responsibility for the attacks. This confession now is widely cited as proof, but the man in this video has darker skin, fuller cheeks and a broader nose than Osama bin Laden in all other videos. We again seem to have planted evidence."

Switching back to Michael Rupert, Zeitgeist continues:

In 1976, Osama's older brother Salim bin Laden, hired a man in Texas by the name of Jim Bath to handle all the investments in the United States for the bin Ladin family. Jim Bath also happens to be a personal, almost a lifelong friend and former national guard pilot with George W. Bush. The connections between the Bushes and bin Ladins become much more clear (…) when George Herbert Walker Bush made trips to Saudi Arabia in 1998 and 2000 to meet with the bin Ladin family on behalf of the company the Carlyle Group.

Zeitgeist continues:

George H.W. Bush was meeting with Osama's older brother, Shafig bin Laden, on the morning of 9/11 in a Carlyle Group function. The Carlyle Group is one of the world's largest defense contractors, which continue to reap massive profits off of the post 911 "War on Terrorism" and Afghan/Iraq Wars.

Bibliography

911proof.com. Retrieved March 31 from http://www.911proof.com/9.html

Fainaru, S., & Grivaldi, J. (2001). FBI Knew Terrorists Were Using Flight Schools. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 31 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10840-2001Sep22

Ganser, D. (2005). Able Danger adds twist to 9/11. Global Research. Retrieved March 31 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=867

Gupta, S., & Mehkri, I. A. (2001). Pakistan: Islamic Backlash. India Today. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/indiatoday101501.html

Joseph, P. (Producer/Director). (2007). Zeitgeist [Motion picture]. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Joshi, M. (2001). India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links. The Times of India. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://timesofindia..../1454238160.cms

Komarow, S., & Squitieri, T. (2004). NORAD had drills of jets as weapons. USA Today. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TK0001

Scott, I got halfway through that and was so thoroughly confused that I gave up on it.

Again, can you just summarize what exactly you believe?

This whole exercise is testimony to Occam's Razor, which states "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." Present something that is more plausible than what I posted. You don't have to immediately get bogged down in details, just present an overview and we can work from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.