In October 2001, just one month after 9/11, two articles appeared on the web which provided the first clues to what really happened. One was Carol Valentine's "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS". This article drew attention to the possibility of remote control of a large jet aircraft. That this technology exists is public knowledge. It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet with the wingspan of a Boeing 737. (For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.) Since it is possible to control a Boeing 757 or 767 by means of remote control, might not the jets which hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon have been remotely controlled? In which case there would be no need to maintain the improbable hypothesis that the four jets were simultaneously hijacked by nineteen on-board Arab terrorists.
The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
4. What Actually Happened on 9/11?
The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing aircraft was Joe Vialls's "Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft".In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced [Research] Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. [This technology] ... allowed specialist ground controllers to ... take absolute control of [a hijacked plane's] computerized flight control system by remote means. From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. ... [This was] the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001. — Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
Remote control technology is also used with the Predator system (shown at right).
But there's a problem with this theory: Although the technology for the remote control of a Boeing jetliner certainly exists, and could be installed (if it is not already standard) on four Boeings, their hijacking by remote control could not be rehearsed in advance, and there was always the possibility that the pilots might find some way to regain manual control. Considering the stakes involved in an operation which was intended to kill thousands of U.S. citizens, there could be no room for error. What was needed was a fool-proof plan, and the remote hijacking of four planes is a scenario with too many possibilities for something to go wrong. But this does not mean that remote-controlled planes were not involved, only that the hijacking by remote control of four commercial jetliners is not the most likely explanation of what happened.
As regards the Pentagon, although it has been obvious since the French website appeared in February 2002 that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757, no adequate explanation of that attack was provided until two-and-a-half years after it occurred. The evidence was contradictory. Many witnesses claim to have seen a large plane (which, under the influence of the official story) they later claimed was an American Airlines passenger jet. And lamp poles were knocked over by whatever it was that flew at nearly ground level. But, as the photographic evidence shows, whatever hit the Pentagon was definitely not a Boeing 757.
In March 2004 Leonard Spencer published an article, The Attack on The Pentagon, which finally provided an explanation consistent with witness accounts, air traffic controller reports and photographic evidence.
Only those who planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 know for sure what actually happened. But as in any forensic investigation one has to frame theories as to what actually happened and then test those theories against the available evidence (in this case principally the photographic evidence, but also evidence from other sources).
One theory is that given in the official story. In Section 2 and in Section 3 this theory was shown to be completely inconsistent with the available evidence. So we must look for an alternative theory. It should be clearly understood that theorizing about what happened on 9/11 is entirely reasonable, and theories considered cannot be dismissed as "conspiracy theories", since the formulation of theories is what any investigator does when trying to solve a crime. Unfortunately the Bush administration has done everything it can possibly do to prevent any theory from being considered except its own ridiculous story.
A theory consistent with the evidence was revealed in March 2002 to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes). A plot was hatched, not by Arabs, but by so-called Americans (agents of the civilian "state security and intelligence" agencies and bureaus such as the CIA, top-ranking officers within the U.S. Air Force and high-level officials within the U.S. administration), perhaps with Israeli (Mossad) involvement:
- to take control of four civilian airliners
- to carry out attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon causing huge loss of life
- to make it appear that these airliners were used to carry out the attacks
- to eliminate the passengers on the airliners who would not be involved in the operation except as reluctant witnesses
- to blame these attacks on "Arab terrorists" and to use this as a pretext to launch military campaigns against "enemies of America" in the Middle East and in Asia, the real aim being to get control of their oil and mineral resources.
This plot, of course, was not hatched in a day (it may have been years in preparation). In September 2002 a congressional report
cited no less than 12 examples of intelligence information on the possible use of airliners as weapons. They stretch from 1994 to August 2001, when word came of a plot by Osama bin Laden to fly a plane into the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. — America had 12 warnings of aircraft attack
Sometime during the late 90s the U.S. state security agencies realized that certain foreign terrorists were thinking of hijacking planes and crashing them into significant buildings (naturally the Twin Towers would come first to mind). They might even have recruited these would-be terrorists. In any case, they helped them along (covertly, of course), providing money (transmitted via Pakistani ISI operatives), U.S. visas, introductions to U.S. flying schools and useful tips. The plan was not for these would-be terrorists to do the job (since their predecessors had demonstrated their limitations by botching the 1993 attack on the WTC) but rather to be "useful idiots" who could plausibly be blamed (just as Timothy McVeigh was the "useful idiot" blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing). The actual operation was far more elaborate than the would-be hijackers were capable of carrying out, and required equipment which they did not have and prior access to the Twin Towers which was not possible for them.
The only people who know for sure what actually happened on September 11th are those who planned it and carried it out (though probably the lower-level participants have long ago been terminated to ensure that they would never reveal what they knew). But we can say for sure that what happened was not what the Bush administration said happened. So we need to construct some explanatory hypothesis which takes into account what is known, that is, which explains what happened without being inconsistent with anything we know. What follows is such a hypothesis. It may not be true, but it is a lot more plausible than the official story. If anyone has a better hypothesis (say, simpler, more plausible) which is also consistent with what is known then they are free to present it.
- Three planes had been made ready by U.S. military personnel, capable of being controlled remotely, with no-one on board:
- A military jet either loaded with high explosives or carrying missiles or both (call this "Pseudo Flight 11").
- A Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet (call this "Pseudo Flight 175").
- A small plane (or perhaps some kind of missile) around which was constructed a shell so that from a distance it appeared to be a Boeing 757, this being designed so that the shell could be destroyed completely by means of explosives (call this "Pseudo Flight 77").
In addition two or three cruise missiles are needed, such as the AGM-86C cruise missile capable of being fired from a B-52 and of flying to its target under GPS-guidance (and able upon impact to generate heat of over 2,000°C).
- Early on the morning of September 11th, according to the official story, four American Airlines and United Airlines jet airliners take off:
- UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757, departs from Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco, taking off with between 26 and 38 passengers (about 16% of capacity) and seven crew members on board. (This is the jet which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania at about 10 a.m.)
- UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767, departs from Logan Airport, Boston, at 7:58 a.m. for Los Angeles with between 47 and 56 passengers (about 26% of capacity) and nine crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.)
- AA Flight 11, a Boeing 767, leaves Logan Airport, Boston at about 7:45 a.m. headed for Los Angeles, with between 76 and 81 passengers (about 39% of capacity) and 11 crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the North Tower at 8:45 a.m.)
- AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, leaves Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. at about 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, taking off with between 50 and 58 passengers (about 27% of capacity) and six crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon at about 9:35 a.m.)
- Pseudo Flights 11 and 175 take off from some military base, flying under remote control (there is no-one onboard at the controls), and fly so as to intercept the flight paths of AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175.
- A half-hour or so after taking off the pilots of the four civilian airliners are informed by some means of a real or potential terrorist attack and that they are to shut down their transponders and land their planes at one military base or another in some north-eastern U.S. state (directions to the base are given). The pilots obey this order and change course accordingly.
- Shortly after the real Flights 11 and 175 cease transmitting their transponder signals the pseudo Flights 11 and 175 begin to transmit the same signals. They fly toward New York and, if they are visible on the air traffic controllers' screens, they appear to be AA 11 and UA 175, now flying toward Manhattan.
- Pseudo Flight 11, under remote control, approaches the North Tower at 8:45 a.m., fires missiles into it then crashes into it, detonating explosives already planted in the building. (George W. Bush watches the impact on a private transmission to the TV in his limousine while travelling to a school in Florida.)
- Pseudo Flight 175 approaches Manhattan, also under remote control, and crashes into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. Its controllers, not used to remotely controlling the 100+ tons of a Boeing 767, almost miss the tower, but manage to hit it toward one corner. Just before the plane hits the building an incendiary missile is fired to create a temperature within the building high enough to ensure ignition of the jet fuel which is about to be released by the impact. Most of the jet fuel passes through the corner of the tower and explodes in a huge fireball outside the building. (The approach of the Boeing 767 and the impact and the awesome fireball are recorded by many cameras for repeated viewing all around the world.)
- After being advised of the second impact George W. Bush continues listening to children read a story about a pet goat for another quarter of an hour, then finally announces to the nation that he has made some phone calls but fails to order defensive action by ordering U.S. Air Force jets from bases near Washington to scramble to intercept the other two (allegedly hijacked) planes still in the air. No other Air Force officer orders jets to intercept the planes (despite this being standard practice whenever a commercial airliner strays from its flight path). Interceptors are finally scrambled an hour after the first of the commercial jets has gone off course and 45 minutes after the impact at the North Tower.
- By sometime around 9:15 a.m. all four AA and UA jets have landed at the military base to which they were directed. The 199 (later listed) passengers and crew from AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 are herded onto UA Flight 93, where they join the 33 (later listed) passengers and crew, for a total of 232 people. Explosives are loaded on board.
- Pseudo Flight 77, under remote control, flies at high speed toward Washington D.C., performs a spiral descent at high speed to near ground level, and (at about 9:30 a.m.) looking to observers like a Boeing 757, makes a horizontal approach to the Pentagon, knocking over several lamp posts on the way. Just before impact it is completely destroyed by onboard explosives, producing the minor amount of debris later observed on the Pentagon lawn.
- Timed to coincide with this event, two or three high-speed cruise missiles arrive from slightly different directions (travelling so fast as to be mostly unnoticed by witnesses, whose attention is focused on Pseudo Flight 77) and penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon, producing three exit holes in the 'C' ring of the building. One of the missiles fails to explode, causing less damage than intended. (The unexploded missile will later be carried away covered by a tarpaulin.)
- Sometime around 9:45 a.m. UA Flight 93 takes off from the military base (either under remote control or under the control of a military pilot unaware of his fate) and flies toward Washington in a fake "terrorist attack".
- The South Tower collapses (at 9:59 a.m.) in a controlled demolition, 56 minutes after impact.
- Either explosives on board UA Flight 93 are detonated, or the jet is blown apart by a missile fired by a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet, over Pennsylvania (at 10:06 a.m., almost an hour and a half after it took off from Newark Airport).Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area [this was the F-16] and burning debris falling from the sky. — Reuters, Sept. 13, as quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes, perhaps or perhaps not including those 34 (later unlisted) passengers (including Mohammad Atta) who are part of the operation, are in this way eliminated.
- The North Tower collapses (at 10:29 a.m.) also in a controlled demolition, 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.
- The outer wall of the impact site at the Pentagon is caused to collapse (so that the small size of the hole in the wall produced by the missiles would no longer be visible).
- Around midday the media whores begin to disseminate the story that this "terrorist attack" was masterminded by Usama bin Laden.
- Around 5 p.m.the building known as WTC 7 collapses in a controlled demolition.
- Misled by the White House and the mainstream media a shocked and outraged American public demands revenge against the perpetrators, whom they assume to be Arab Muslim fundamentalists.
- George W. Bush announces his "War on Terrorism" and the Pentagon swings into action to implement its previously-prepared plans to bomb Afghanistan (into submission to U.S. oil interests).
Of course, some of the details of this account may turn out to be incorrect, but it is a plausible explanation of the events of September 11th and (in contrast to the official story) is consistent with all the evidence and is contradicted by none. [Note added 2006-01-24: A more recent hypothesis is given at A Possible 9/11 Scenario.] Only a full and impartial investigation of what happened on September 11th will reveal the truth, but the Bush administration (fearing the consequences when the American people find out what actually happened and who was behind it) has done everything it can to prevent such an inquiry from taking place.
In March 2003 Leonard Spencer examined the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis, basically confirming it, but suggesting a significant modification with respect to Flight 93, and tentatively identifying the airport at which the airliners were instructed to land as Yeager Airport near Charleston, W. Virginia.:
What Really Happened? A Critical Analysis of Carol Valentine's "Flight of The Bumble Planes" Hypothesis
In August 2003 the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis was refined further by Prof. A. K. Dewdney in his Operation Pearl, where he provides a more detailed theory as to what happened on September 11th and a timeline of events consistent with the evidence ("X" in flight numbers refers to planes substituted for the original planes):
As in the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis, all innocent passengers on board flights UA 175, AA 11 and AA 77 were placed on board Flight UA 93, which was then shot down by a U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt over Pennsylvania.
Time Event 7:59 am AA11 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport 8:14 am UA175 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport 8:16 am First deviation of AA11 north of Albany, NY 8:20 am AA77 takes off from Washington's Dulles Airport 8:20 am AA11 transponder turned off 8:30 am First swap: Flight AA11-X takes over, transponder off 8:35 am Beginning of NY ATC transcript 8:40 am UA175 transponder is turned off 8:42 am UA93 takes off from Newark, NJ First deviation of UA175 over northern NJ 8:46 am Second swap: Flight AA77X takes over, same t-code 8:46 am AA11-X strikes north tower of WTC Nationwide alert begins 8:53 am Third swap: Flight UA175X takes over, transponder off AA11 lands at Harrisburg 8:54 am End of NY ATC transcript 8:55 am AA77X transponder is turned off 9:02 am UA175X strikes south tower of WTC UA175 lands at Harrisburg Fourth swap: Flight UA93X replaces UA93 9:07 am UA93 lands at Harrisburg 9:09 am AA77 lands at Harrisburg 9:37 am AA77X overflies the Pentagon, aircraft or explosion at Wedge 1 9:45 am UA93 takes off from Harrisburg 10:06 am UA93 crashes near Shanksville, PA
It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van ... Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. ... [It] was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down. There's no way I imagined this plane — it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. — Susan Mcelwain, quoted in What did happen to Flight 93? [Page deleted, also at the Wayback Machine.]
For a detailed analysis (posted 2005-01-08) of witness reports connected with the crash of UA 93 see:
Some people have said that this account of the events of September 11th 2001 is "too convoluted to understand". Actually it's quite simple:
- Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.
- Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.
- These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.
- A mock 757, destroyed just before impact, and two or three cruise missiles, hit the Pentagon.
- The people on three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).
- This plane takes off and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.
- Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.
Prof. Dewdney concludes his Operation Pearl article thus:
Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the most likely perpetrator would be Mossad, Israel's spy agency. An arm's-length relationship with the Bush administration, with neocon elements acting as go-betweens, would enable Rumsfeld, Bush and other members of the US administration to disclaim any "specific" knowledge of a forthcoming attack.
So it appears that the Bush clique (including neocons Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz) collaborated with the Israeli government to stage the September 11th attacks, with Mossad providing the hands-on direction of the operation. But it is unlikely that Operation Pearl could be carried out entirely by Mossad agents — Americans within the U.S. Air Force and the state security and intelligence agencies had to be involved.
The CIA has always maintained as a matter of historical record that it has never murdered an American citizen on American soil. If, as a result of Eric Olson's persistence in trying to uncover what really happened to his father [Dr Frank Olson, a U.S. Army scientist], and the investigating skills of public prosecutor Saracco, this turns out to be a lie, it could well be the beginning of the end of the Agency.
— THE OLSON FILE: A secret that could destroy the CIA
Similarly if the CIA can be shown to have been involved in the murder of the 200 or so passengers (most of them American citizens) on the four Boeing jets, who died when UA Flight 93 exploded in the sky over Pennsylvania, then the Agency will be finished (and none too soon either).
Those Fabricated Cellphone CallsAs for the tale which appeared in Newsweek, etc., about plucky passengers on UA Flight 93 jumping the hijackers ("OK, let's roll!") — this was entirely fictitious, fabricated by some psy-war operative with training as a two-bit Hollywood scriptwriter and disseminated with the help of some willing media whore.
The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"
Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.
But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess has people, not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air ...
She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."
But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things.— Tall Tales of the Wag Movie
If cellphones work from a plane flying at 30,000 feet and at a speed of hundreds of miles an hour then the Newsweek story about the passengers making calls might contain some truth (they were told to call so as to provide support for the soon-to-be-released official story) — but not that part of the story which has one of the passengers, Mark Bingham, calling his mother, saying "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham."
In fact there is no evidence, except anecdotal, that any of the doomed passengers made any cellphone call. For the view that the alleged call by Barbara Olson (who was on Flight AA 77) to her husband (Ted Olson, the US Solicitor General) was a fabrication, as were the other stories, see Joe Vialls's Mother of All Lies About 9/11.
And in fact research by Prof. A. K. Dewdney and others (try this yourself) has shown that it is practically impossible that multiple calls from a plane flying at the normal cruising height and speed of a commercial airliner could be made.
As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible." — 'Project Achilles' — Final (Third) Report and Summary of Findings
So there were no cellphone calls from UA Flight 93 or any of the other planes. The story was a hoax.
From 9/11 and CellPhone Calls (continued in Part 2):
Jane Pauley did a televised interview with the Glick family, whom Jeremy Glick phoned from Flight 93. ... Glick's family are the only relatives [who] actually say on national television — repeatedly — that they had spoken directly to a passenger. So we need only one voice mimicry setup. Glick worked for Vividence, which is an internet marketing research firm. ... Vividence tracks web users' individual surfing habits for marketing predictions. ... You can imagine intelligence services being interested in such technology. Maybe Vividence wasn't all a front, but had in place, coincidentally, a person who was connected to the intelligence community. This person would have been Glick's superior in the organization.
I am taking a flying leap here. Glick was a pawn from the git go. 9-11 had been scripted, including hero passengers attacking the hijackers. Flight 93 was never meant to hit anything but the ground. The plot needed a believable attacker. Glick, a collegiate judo champion, a big tough guy, was believable. His pretty wife would be a sympathetic widow. At Vividence his job required him to travel, so when the time came, he could be booked onto a flight, and take it, no questions asked. With months or weeks of lead time, voice mimicry of one person is easy. There would be opportunities to learn biographical details for the fakeout. There would be ample opportunity to test Glick's captured voice on his business contacts to see if it played.
From Michel Chossudovsky's More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls:
The 9/11 Commission's Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes.
In the absence of surviving passengers, this "corroborating evidence", was based on passengers' cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. ...
Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission has built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them "into large guided missiles" ...
[But] what this carefully drafted script, fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet ...
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal.
In other words, at least part of the Commission's script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.
The media whores cannot be unaware that several companies (starting in 2004) have been working on making in-flight cellphone calls possible. And surely at least some of the media whores are sufficiently bright to understand that this implies that inflight cellphone calls were not possible on September 11, 2001. But none of the media whores mention this.
Ted Twietmeyer drew the obvious conclusion, already in 2004: 911 Cell Phone Calls From Planes? Not Likely
- Dan Reed, USA Today, 2004-07-19: In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test
The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.
- 2005-04-05: Inflight Mobile Phone Use — A Step Closer to RealityOnAir has partnered with the Airbus facility at Buxtehude to develop and seek certification for an airborne system for the commercial use of mobile phones on board aircraft.
"This airborne system is fundamental to OnAir's business objective of making mobile phone use a reality on short and long haul flights for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft," said OnAir CEO, George Cooper, speaking at the opening of Aircraft Interiors Expo 2005 in Hamburg today.
- ABC News, 2010-10-05: Airline to Make Cell Phone Calls Possible on FlightsSingapore Airlines announced today [October 5, 2010] that it will soon allow wireless connections -- for text messages, Blackberrys and perhaps cell phone calls -- on its medium- and long-haul flights. ...
Details are still being worked out, but when the airline implements the system early next year, it could be the first carrier to allow passengers to make and receive voice calls on their personal cell phones.
"The first?" Er ... what about Flight 93? Didn't those "plucky passengers" call their relatives on their cell phones? But how could they, if such calls are just starting to become possible in 2010?
Two from David Ray Griffin:
- Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials (2008-04-20)
- Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners (2010-01-15)
Without the widespread assumption that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been possible. With regard to the war in Afghanistan in particular, Michel Chossudovsky has recently emphasized the fact that NATO's decision to support this US-led war was based on a briefing by Frank Taylor of the US State Department, in which he provided what was called conclusive evidence of al-Qaeda's responsibility for the attacks. Although the contents of Taylor's briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners. But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.
And finally one from the late, great, Dave McGowan:
- What Really Happened to Flight 93? (2001-11-07)
Of all the questions that remain unanswered concerning the events of September 11, many of them concern the fate of United Airlines flight 93 — the only hijacked aircraft that appears to have not completed its 'mission.' As everyone knows, the official story holds that heroic passengers aboard that flight wrested control of the plane away from the 'terrorists,' resulting in a crash into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. ...
What if we were to take the point of view that the events of September 11 were essentially an inside job — with U.S. military and intelligence services either directly complicit or, at the very least, turning a blind but knowing eye? Then the shooting down of flight 93 raises another rather obvious question: why would the U.S. national security apparatus shoot down any of the four flights?
Assuming that some General somewhere didn't get the hare-brained notion that it was actually his duty to defend the country against these attacks, why would a plane be shot down that was for all intents and purposes on a covert mission for the very people who would have ordered the downing of the aircraft?
If this were the case, then there would be only one reason for shooting the flight down: to destroy any and all evidence in the event that the mission became compromised for any reason. And how, you may wonder, might the mission be compromised? One possible scenario could be if, say, the passengers were able to disarm the hijackers and take control of the plane.
That would conceivably leave dozens of eyewitnesses to what really happened on those planes that fateful day. The contents of 'black boxes' can be suppressed quite easily; a parade of eyewitnesses, particularly eyewitnesses rightly viewed as American heroes, is another matter entirely.
As disturbing as it may be to contemplate, the answer to the question of what really happened to flight 93 could be that it was shot down precisely because the passengers were able to overpower the hijackers, or at least were making an attempt to do so. It could be that the very heroism for which they have been cynically praised by the Bush regime may have earned them a summary execution.
Previous section Contents Next section The CIA Serendipity home page