July 31, 2007

No Speculation Required: 9/11 Was an Inside Job

No Speculation Required: 9/11 Was an Inside Job

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” - Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

By Arabesque

Speculation is one of the favorite pastimes among those who like to play “armchair conspiracy theorists”.  This is especially true when it comes to 9/11.

As seen in the Scientific Method, speculation is indispensable,[1] and is always valuable when used in the right context.  Indeed, theory would be impossible.  

If Dr. Steven Jones had never speculated about the use of thermate in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers he would never have found the incriminating evidence of thermate proving beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.[2]

Here’s how speculation should work, as it does in the Scientific Method:

·        Observation: Molten Metal for months at Ground Zero

·        Speculation/Hypothesis: This is characteristic of a Thermite reaction—not Jet Fuel Fires

·        Validation: Samples from ground zero tested for thermite—a variant called thermate is found.[3]

If there is no way to validate speculation it is impossible to get definitive answers. 

Truthmod, an activist/moderator on the website TruthMove.org sums it up:

Speculation gets us nowhere. Go with the sourced and confirmed facts and we can't be denied. Plane swapping, DEW, pods, no-planes, etc. all put us into the category of speculators and theorists while established facts give us credibility as true researchers and journalists.[4]

Speculating about what happened on 9/11, examining the credible facts that show 9/11 was an inside job,[5] and examining the contradictory facts that demonstrate that the 9/11 official story is false[6] are all completely different things.

There are situations where speculation is the only option when evidence is being deliberately withheld. In such situations we can’t finalize or jump to conclusions—we can only speculate.  When forced into this situation we should instead call for the release of more evidence and ultimately, a new investigation.

The withholding of 9/11 evidence serves two functions:

1. To hide the truth
2. To encourage speculation and distract attention away from verifiable facts

Encouraging speculation is part of an intentional diversion that plays on the psychological understanding that humans crave mysteries, and not what they know.  The government is smart enough to understand that speculation frequently occurs when there is a lack of evidence, and that "conspiracy facts" are consequently ignored in favor of "conspiracy theories". 

There are 9/11 “researchers” who make speculation the entire basis of their existence, and they are among the least credible “activists” within the 9/11 truth movement.  ‘Truthmover’ at truthmove.org observes:

This is one important reason to reject the 'big tent' mentality. The core of this movement, its facts and priorities have not changed. We have established probable cause to suspect government complicity. Anything detracting from this case or its promotion is not a part of the truth movement. In other words, the movement hasn't ever really split. There is another movement, adopting our themes, that has no particular dedication to the truth. I'll call them the 9/11 speculation movement.[7]

Why stick to what we know when we can guess about what we don't?

Similarly, Dr. Steven Jones suggests that a weak approach to examining evidence can turn people off from seriously examining the real anomalies of 9/11:

Watching the ‘In Plane Site’ video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially—until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.[8]

Anyone even slightly paying attention to the Mainstream media in relation to criticism of the official 9/11 narrative would notice that there is a deliberate focus on only the 9/11 theories that are supported by “tenuous speculations” or even deliberate disinformation—mostly under the propagandist and wearily clichéd banner of "conspiracy theory"; completely ignoring the confirmed and embarrassing “conspiracy” facts.[9] Dan Abrahamson asks of those who speculate at the expense of the confirmed facts:

Does their speculation get us any closer toward building a nationwide political movement and arresting the 9-11 plotters? Or is it a divisive strawman that will isolate us from the mainstream media and average Americans?Suddenly it appears the controlled demolition, WTC 7, NORAD stand down, hijacking drills, war games, ‘Angel is Next’ call to Bush, living hijackers, double-agent hijackers, CIA insider put options, and ‘al-Qaeda’ links to Anglo-American intelligence are not enough.  Now every researcher has their own pet theory about no planes, no hijackers, no phone calls, no Pentagon Boeing, and no flight 93 crash (they claim it landed it Cleveland and the wreckage in Shanksville was, you guessed it, planted).[10]

9/11 Commission: Insider Stock Trading had “No Conceivable ties to Al Qaeda”.  Michael Ruppert agrees: he investigated and found ties to the CIA.[11]

As Abrahamson says, our speculations are highlighted and our facts are ignored by the Media.  This is exactly how speculation is used as a weapon against the cause of 9/11 Truth.  

Alex Jones similarily asks:

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein? Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down? Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.[12]

Given the fact that there is no real debate or speculation about the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, what is the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement?  Endless debates over tenuous speculation or justice over the many proven facts?[13]

As Jon Gold has said, “the time for debate is over.”[14]

How does unsubstantiatable and never-ending speculation bring us closer to Justice?  How will it force another investigation?   

In the information war, we are never going to be victorious or have a powerful effect by debating weak arguments that can’t be proven endlessly.  It is self-defeating if we support true (or even false) conclusions with false, misleading, uncertain, unconvincing, or biased arguments.  Unverified speculation is the entire basis of a Trojan Horse Straw-man exploited unmercifully by Popular Mechanics, the Mainstream Media, the left gatekeepers, and many others.

While the facts speak for themselves, they are sometimes not enough to convince everyone, which is why the best evidence must be consistently presented.  As Oilempire says:

If there is any hope for the ‘9/11 truth’ movement, it will involve refocusing on the evidence that has the strongest proof, and excluding the hoaxes and those who push the hoaxes.[15] 

While at first glance the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job is unthinkable, those who believe any government is incapable of killing its own citizens have not seen the Northwoods document,[16] paid attention to the fact that the government lied about the air quality at ground zero which will outrageously result in more deaths than 9/11,[17] or observed historically documentedfalse-flags” resulting in the deaths of civilians to justify wars.[18]

There are many who believe that corrupt elements within the US administration could unload the next 9/11 at any time to justify war with Iran, further destroy civil liberties, and even enable a dictatorship.[19]

Speculating while proving nothing when we have real evidence to prove an inside job and show that the 9/11 official story is ludicrously false is a diversion that suits the perpetrators just fine:

"Speculate, while we continue our wars of aggression planned long before 9/11, kill innocent civilians indiscriminately, steal oil, plan additional synthetic terror attacks under the guise of war-game exercises, make billions for war profiteers, destroy the constitution because the ‘terrorists’ hate our freedoms, terrorize the world with blatantly and stunningly fake propaganda,[20] commit impeachable offenses including treason, engage in other illegal/unethical activities, illegal wars, and our neo-conservative ‘project for a new American Century’."

The sooner that the many fighting for the truth about 9/11  figure this out the better:

The time for speculation is over—9/11 has been proven to be an inside job.  The time for justice is at hand.

[1] The Scientific Method, http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

[2] Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? http://www.journalof911studies.com/ See also:

Steven Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method

[3] Ibid.

[4] Truthmod, TruthMod Forum, Sudden rise in "TV Fakery" topics... http://www.truthmove.org/

[5] http://www.911proof.com/ “9/11 Proof… See the Facts for Yourself”

[6] Dvaid Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie, http://www.911truth.org/

[7] Truthmover, Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements, http://www.truthmove.org/forum  

[8] Jim Hoffman, Hoax-Promoting Videos: In Plane Site, http://www.911review.com/ 

[9] Joseph P. Firmage, Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11

Dr. Frank Legge, 9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions

Dr. Frank Legge, NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire

[10] Dan. L. Abrahamson, 9-11 Truth Movement: Focus or Die, http://falseflagnews.com/

[11] Michael Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks, http://www.globalresearch.ca/    

[12] Alex Jones, and Paul Watson, Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them, http://www.infowars.com/

[13] Steven Jones, "What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?" (Updated Mar 7, 2007)

[14] Jon Gold, The Time For Debate Is Over, http://visibility911.com/ 

[15] Oilempire.com, the rise and fall of 9/11 truth, http://www.oilempire.us/

[16] What Really Happened, US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ 

[17] Laurie Garrett, EPA Misled Public on 9/11 Pollution: White House ordered false assurances on air quality, report says, http://www.commondreams.org/ 

[18] Alex Jones, TerrorStorm Deluxe High Quality (Alex Jones), Google Video, http://video.google.com/

[19] Arabesque, The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[20] YouTube, How to Create an Angry American, http://www.youtube.com/ 

Keith Olberman, Keith Olbermann Updates The Nexus Of Terror And Politics - Creating Terror, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

July 30, 2007

The Pentagon Honey Pot

The Pentagon Honey Pot

A collection of quotes on the Pentagon Controversy

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.

Few people have direct experience with the results of high-speed collisions of aircraft into strong barriers. Most aircraft accidents occur shortly after takeoff or during attempted landings, and do not completely destroy the aircraft. In contrast, uncontrolled crashes into terrain usually reduce aircraft into fine debris, leaving little if any parts identifiable by casual visual inspection. The debris fields of several jetliner crashes pictured here show the surprising paucity of apparent debris many crashes produce.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

The aircraft impact punctured the facade over a contiguous area measuring approximately 96 feet wide on the first floor, and 18 feet wide on the second floor. Damage to the facade extended beyond the punctured areas.

Alex Jones and Paul Watson of Prison Planet:

Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them:

For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.  The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.  At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.  The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon.  The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein?  Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand downBecause none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.

What Really Happened

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact, and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web.  But if you think about it, common sense tells you their claims are just plain silly. After all, if the passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go? And since the people behind 9-11 had to get rid of the passenger jet and its contents anyway, there was no reason for them NOT to ram it into the Pentagon. Why risk a swap? Why complicate matters even further?



3) Pentagon Strike

How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?


".... if you think that the "no plane at the Pentagon" claim, even if it is wrong, is harmless... or if you think perhaps even it is beneficial because it converts a lot of people into 9/11 skeptics (and it certainly does), please think again. John Judge and Mark Robinowitz and others are correct that its intention was to alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals. It succeeded."
-- Emanuel Sferios, 9/11 Visibility Campaign

If this was all a government conspiracy, why go to the bother of using a missile or fighter to hit the Pentagon when a 757 would do just fine, make a bigger bang, and there would be no need for a cover-up?

There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings.Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon 23 October 2002, by John Judge

The ‘no plane’ theories don't make sense—why would they bother to substitute? Why risk being caught in the act, if someone got a clear photo? Why not just remote control a 757 into the empty part of the building? The area around the Pentagon is densely populated, and a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation.

I think there's a grave problem of ‘sexing up’ the truth with spectacular yet specious arguments. For instance, some of the splashiest and attractive 9/11 material is devoted to supporting the ‘Pentagon Missile.’ Sure, it gets people's attention - in fact, it dominates the public perception of alternative theories of the attacks - but is it right? Well, no; as I've said, I don't think so. And truth will suffer again and again when those who fell for the missile ‘hook’ come to the same conclusion and chuck the whole thing, and those who were turned off the ‘missile’ refuse to look any further.” -- Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition, http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/no-way-and-yeah-so-what.html


The “no plane at the Pentagon” theory has been called a hoax or disinfo by many within the movement. At TruthMove, we believe that most of the strongest points behind this argument have been effectively countered by honest skeptics within the movement.

Pentagon Research

Some of the observations here support the ‘official’ story. I can only say I've been diligent and honest in my approach. Whatever I found is what I found. I considered both the official story and the alternative theories every step of the way… There are photos of aircraft debris outside and inside the Pentagon. There are no large aircraft structures that one would intuitively expect from an aircraft the size of a 757-200. Some of the debris can be specifically identified with a 757 aircraft. I personally believe the amount of debris exceeds what could be planted without detection... I find it as hard to believe that a Cessna 172 unqualified hijacker could fly a 757 for the first time with military precision as I do aircraft override theories.

Joël van der Reijden

Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself

The one thing that I think is important with conspiracy theories, is that they are not based on false assumptions, or on the selective gathering of evidence. The problem is that this is exactly what has been done with the Pentagon crash. And not just a little, it has been taken to the extreme. And that's a problem, because now that more and more people have been getting involved with the alternative 9/11 movement it's getting harder for them by the month to escape the pointless ‘yes 757’ vs ‘no 757’ debates (update: lately, the tide has been turning).

Caustic Logic

Author of The Frustrating Fraud

It is my opinion that these arguments have swelled the movement for all the wrong reasons. The “hard proof” crowd have claimed to find literally hundreds of “smoking gun” clues left laying out in the open. While some have real validity, many, on closer inspection, are fraudulent. Yet somehow the worst arguments get more air play and capture more attention and so the “Truth” movement has become dominated by the desire not to provide the most rational explanation but the one most opposite to the official story.  Beyond providing endless distraction and requiring endless de-bunking (and they keep coming back!), this approach alienates intelligent skeptics, whom we need on our side… Through careful research, I have found almost all evidence points clearly to a 757 as the attack vehicle, piloted by whatever means, and in the process have exposed a long thread of apparent disinformation running from 9/11 to the present and continuing despite all evidence to the current day.

Michael Ruppert

Some of the more outlandish theories—like French writer Thierry Meyssan’s claim that a cruise missile, not an airplane, hit the Pentagon—are only diluting the waters, Ruppert said. There are other theories, too: that there were no planes at all, only holographic projections of planes (used in conjunction with explosives planted by some shadowy group); or that one of the planes that hit the WTC had some sort of anomalous “pod” attached to it that caused extra damage. But this is all “bullshit,” Ruppert said, and is either intentional disinformation or sheer stupidity.

July 27, 2007

Keith Olbermann Updates The Nexus Of Terror And Politics - Creating Terror

From Crooks and Liars:

On “Countdown” Keith Olbermann talked with Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News about President Bush’s use of trumped up terror alerts to drown out the roar of scandals plaguing his administration. As the heat was turning up on Alberto Gonzales and contempt of Congress charges being brought against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, the Bush gang ratcheted up the fear mongering — again.

video_wmv Download (2347) | Play (2658) video_mov Download (840) | Play (1473)

Bunch points out that the press went nuts covering the recent wired cheese dry run terror warnings leaked by the DHS, but as it turns out, the evidence didn’t show any kind of terrorist dry run whatsoever. He also points out that it was completely unnecessary to do this right at the height of the summer travel season, although I imagine that’s exactly why they timed it that way.

read more | digg story

More Olbermann on Terrorism Propaganda:

video_wmv Download (3651) | Play (2752) video_mov Download (1562) | Play (1382)

Keith Olbermann and terrorism analyst Roger Cressey knocks down the lies and spin of Bush’s increasingly delusional assertions of al Qaeda in Iraq.

…it’s completely misleading. The organization that attacked us on 9/11 is still trying to attack us. That is the group that is primarily on the Afghan/Pakistan border that you’ve seen all the intelligence community assessments about in the past few days. The group inside Iraq is very indigenous. It’s a function of what happened in Iraq after Saddam was overthrown. In effect, we’ve actually helped create the conditions that allowed al Qaeda to take root in Iraq. It’s clear that al Qaeda in Iraq has ideological sympathies with al Qaeda Central that clued there’s been some communication between the two, but it is false and misleading for the president to make that direct linkage that he did.


On Monday night's "Countdown" Keith Olbermann updates his disturbing timeline of how the Bush Administration has strategically used terrorism and fear to counter bad publicity, starting in 2002 all the way up to the most recent terrorist plot to blow up JFK airport. This is a long segment so we've broken it down into two files. This is stunning, and dramatic analysis, make sure to watch both parts.

Part one: video_wmv Download (12169) | Play (13146) video_mov Download (7206) | Play (9588)

Part two: video_wmv Download (9935) | Play (8843) video_mov Download (3344) | Play (3447)

…from the mind-bending idea that four guys dressed as Pizza Delivery men were going to out-gun all the soldiers at Fort Dix…to the not-too-thought-out plan to blow-up J-F-K Airport… here we go again. Time for an update of our segment "The Nexus of Politics and Terror".


We covered President Bush's painful presser yesterday, but nobody breaks it down like Keith Olbermann. On last night's "Countdown", Keith and Newsweek's Senior White House Correspondent Richard Wolffe discussed the President's misguided statements about al Qaeda, terrorism and certain jouralist's children. They also touched on the Democrats, war funding and of course, the bird that clearly hates our freedoms

video_wmv Download (7441) | Play (7431) video_mov Download (3260) | Play (4532) (file fixed)

September 11th Advocates: Uphold the Constitution of the United States of America

September 11th Advocates
For Immediate Release
July 27, 2007

Watching Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testify before Congress on July 24, 2007, for the third time, was excruciatingly painful.

During Gonzales’ testimony, it became abundantly clear that Americans were witnessing the unraveling of the fabric of America. We do not feel that this is an overstatement.

The Attorney General, a man who supposedly personifies America's rule of law, obfuscated, committed perjury, and belittled the very institution, the Congress, which makes America a great Democracy. Over and over, we publicly witnessed Gonzales’ refusal to answer the questions posed by you – a Committee authorized to conduct oversight duties. You were made to look frustrated and foolish as your attempts at Executive Branch oversight were thwarted by the bizarre, circular non-answers of Attorney General Gonzales. For the third time, you were unable to penetrate his stonewalling.

We want to know, is it not a crime to mislead and outright lie to the Congress? How many more opportunities will you give Attorney General Gonzales to make a farce of our system by denying Congress information that would allow you to do your job and properly perform your oversight role?

The Bush Administration has repeatedly told us that American troops are fighting to spread democracy in Iraq. Ironically, here in America we seem to be losing the core principles that make us one. Mr. Gonzales’ testimony and the Administration’s refusal to have key people testify at the hearings, without any accountability, make a mockery of our system of checks and balances. We are supposed to have three equal branches of government: the Executive, Judicial and Legislative. While they are often on opposite sides of an issue, the three branches are to be unified in the maintenance of American civil liberties, not working in concert to covertly undermine and rescind them. Again, no one branch is supposed to have absolute power, nor should any combination of the other two be cowed or manipulated into consensus against the interests of the American people.

And, while we support these inquiries and applaud your patience and attempts to solicit truthful and substantive answers to your questions during all of the Gonzales hearings, it was disconcerting to watch the disdainful contempt that the Attorney General exhibited for the entire process.

Sadder still, it appears that you are becoming unwittingly complicit in your own undoing. It is evident that what we are watching is the U.S. Congress in the process of making itself irrelevant. When the Executive Branch alone is allowed to act without any oversight, or any accountability, then what we will become is a dictatorship. And once all Americans realize that Congress is unable to perform any oversight, whether it is due to lack of will or complicity, you will no longer be needed. Once it becomes apparent that the Executive Branch is not only making the laws but also deciding which laws to follow, the Congress will be just a quaint, unnecessary and useless artifact.

This Administration, aided and abetted by some members of Congress, has repeatedly deceived the American people by allowing the Executive Branch to ignore the rule of law and divisions of power specifically stated in the Constitution. This Administration’s “constitutionally and legally challenged” activities include, but are certainly not limited to: taking America into a pre-emptive war on false pretenses, warrantless wiretapping, illegal torture, and the political firing of attorneys. Where are those who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and are supposed to represent us in our government … our Congress?

While we understand that you only have limited tools in your arsenal to address these matters, what we don't understand is why you have yet to use them. We also understand that using these tools may involve a lengthy and highly contentious process that we will all have to endure. Yet in the annals of history, the only thing that will count is whether or not you upheld the rule of law and fulfilled your Constitutional responsibilities. The mere countenance of argument and eventual capitulation will only ensure our collective demise, and the continued abuse of power by others in the future. But by seeking the truth and reestablishing the balance of power you can negate the current Administration’s unilateral quest for domination, and hopefully, begin to restore the United States’ international and regional standing in the world.

Thus, all options for achieving these goals should be put back on the table.

Show the American public and the world that our democracy has been reinstated. That the system put in place by our forefathers, the system that this Administration says it wants to spread throughout the world is once again viable and indeed worth saving. Fight with all that you have to save our democracy here in America. You owe it to every American, but most of all you owe it to the men and women in the military that have been repeatedly put in harm’s way attempting to establish a democracy overseas.

The future of our Democracy is in grave danger. It is imperative that you act immediately.

September 11th Advocates

Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

July 25, 2007

Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?

Why Did the World’s Most Advanced Electronics Warfare Plane Circle Over The White House on 9/11?

By Mark H. Gaffney

On September 11 2001, as the eyes of the nation were focused on the gruesome events at the World Trade Center, the networks interrupted their television coverage in New York with a breaking story from Washington. A large plane had just been sighted over the White House. Exactly when it first appeared is not certain, but the reports aired at about the time of the Pentagon strike, or soon after. Witnesses who saw the plane say it circled over Washington. CNN’s Senior White House correspondent John King observed it while standing in Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House. King reported live that “about 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky.”


CNN photographed the mystery plane as it flew over the Capitol. Unfortunately, the craft was too far away to identify.

Area P-56

The strange sighting of a large white plane above the White House on September 11, 2001 was noteworthy, because, as mentioned by John King and Peter Jennings, the airspace over Washington is very tightly restricted. In fact, it’s probably the most restricted airspace on the planet. On September 11, 2001 the prohibited area, known as area P-56, extended out seventeen miles in all directions from the Washington Monument.vi This zone included the Pentagon and virtually the entire Washington metropolitan area. It was more restricted than standard restricted FAA commercial air space, and was closely monitored by FAA radar. Every plane entering this area would have been detected immediately, and if not identified should have activated Washington’s air defenses. The Secret Service would have been alerted also, because, according to multiple sources the Secret Service has a direct feed to FAA radar. This was reported by the Washington Post,vii and by Richard A. Clark in his 9/11 memoir, Against All Enemies.viii The core of P-56 is the most restricted zone of all, and is centered around the White House, stretching from the Potomac River to downtown Washington. A separate area known as P-56B surrounds the Vice Presidential mansion on the grounds of the Naval Observatory, located near Wisconsin Avenue. Other than approved flights, no aircraft is allowed to fly through these areas.

One of Washington’s perennial security problems has been the close proximity of the capital to Reagan National Airport, which is located in Arlington, just west of the Potomac. Reagan’s flight corridors follow the river, hence, adjoin the most stringently prohibited area. After a series of violations in the 1990s the FAA and Secret Service jointly conducted a security review and arrived at a memorandum of understanding. In 1996 a “P-56 Work Group” was also set up to review procedures and make recommendations, some of which were implemented. Incidents continued, however. In July 1998 a scheduled American Airlines flight accidentally passed over the White House en route to Reagan Airport, prompting the airport manager to issue a stern warning to his flight controllers to “treat this area as a ‘Granite Mountain’ to be avoided in every possible way.” A similar letter was sent to pilots. Nevertheless, incidents continued in the period before the September 11 attack.

Given this history, it’s hardly surprising that the sudden appearance of an unidentified low-flying plane over the White House on 9/11 set off alarms. Let us remember, by this time the World Trade Center was in flames. Hundreds of people had already perished. Multiple hijackings were known to be in progress. The only planes that should have been in the sky over Washington were fighters for the purpose of protecting the nation’s capital. Yet, as we know, Washington lay completely undefended. Scrambled F-16 fighters from Langley AFB, near Norfolk, Virginia, did not establish a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the city until shortly before 10 AM–––much too late. And subsequently, the 911 Commission absolved the Joint Chiefs of all responsibility for the security breach. The panel put the blame squarely on the FAA, for failing to notify NORAD about the hijackings. But what about the mysterious plane that circled over the White House? The fact that it penetrated to the very core of P-56 raises obvious questions that the 9/11 Commission should have investigated. Yet, incredibly, the panel never once broached the issue. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the white plane, not even a passing remark in a footnote. Nor does it mention the news reports cited above. The question that every American should be asking is: Why not?

In short, the 9/11 Commission conformed to the pattern of selective denial, operative since the period shortly after September 11, when the official narrative was born. I would add: this was only possible because the compliant US media played along by censoring itself. The US press dropped all mention of the mysterious white plane, which quietly disappeared from history. To this day the Pentagon says it has no knowledge about any plane circling over the White House on 9/11.

The evidence I will now present, however, clearly refutes the Pentagon.

The Evidence

In March 2007, after I posted an article on the internet about 9/11,x I received a email from an independent 9/11 investigator, who directed me to some stunning evidence of which I was unaware. (This individual chooses to remain anonymous because he is pursuing several FOIA requests, which he doesn’t want to place in jeopardy. Hereafter, I will refer to him by his screen name: Pinnacle.) I was surprised to learn that the evidence was not new. In fact, it had been around for quite some time. It seems that during the evacuation of the White House on 9/11 a woman captured an amazing photo of the mystery plane. Linda Brookhart, at the time Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois, was in Washington attending a National Taxpayers Conference in the old Executive Office Building (located immediately next to the White House) when she and many others were told to vacate the building. Linda explained to me that after she walked outside she was standing in the street talking to a security guard when she just happened to look up and see the plane.xi At that point, she snapped this excellent photo with her Pentax. The photo refutes both the 9/11 Commission and the Pentagon. Fortunately, it also enables us to identify the mystery plane–––as we will see.

I learned, later, that the BBC also captured a video of the mysterious plane as it circled over Washington. The BBC aired the footage in a live report on the day of the attack. Unfortunately, the BBC footage is of poor quality. However, the Spanish Telemundo network also filmed the plane, and they too aired a live report. The following excellent still-shot was taken from this footage. Notice, the caption explains in Spanish that a third plane flew over the Pentagon. Presumably, the first plane was Flight 77. The second was the C-130H mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The third was the mystery plane, which apparently made a pass over Arlington after (or possibly before?) flying near the White House.

Pinnacle also informed me about another startling piece of evidence. As it happened, a reporter at the White House also filmed the mystery plane as it made a banking turn; and this short video segment even appeared in a made-for-TV docudrama about Flight 93. The two-hour movie, titled The Flight that Fought Back, aired on the Discovery Channel in August 2005. Once alerted to its existence, I had no difficulty locating this short clip on the internet. A 9/11 investigator named Chris Bornag had long since pulled it from the film and posted it at You-Tube as part of a short melange of video footage about 9/11. Anyone with access to cyberspace may view it on line.xii The following still-shot was taken from this footage.

A DVD of the original Discovery Channel program is also available for purchase at Amazon.com. The crucial segment appears 47 minutes into the film (in scene four). It is not a part of the dramatic production itself, but is a short segment of raw documentary footage embedded in the film. The crucial segment is very brief, only about three-to-four seconds long, which may help to explain why this remarkable footage did not attract more attention.

At that time I had seen no reference to it in any of the published literature about 9/11, nor on any of the many 9/11 web sites. However, I now realize I simply missed it. As early as October 2006 Pilots for 9/11 Truth posted an excellent forum discussion about this important evidence.xiii Although the cameraman has not yet been identified, there is every reason to believe the footage is bona fide.

As I’ve noted, in the video the plane makes a banking turn. The angle was fortunate, because it brought the plane’s unique features and markings into plain view, easily establishing its identity. The aircraft belonged to the US Air Force. Indeed, this was no ordinary plane. It was an E-4B, the US military’s most advanced electronics platform. Even a casual comparison shows that the still-shot from the docudrama matches an official photo (see below) of the E-4B, from a USAF web site.xiv There is no mistake.

The plane is a modified Boeing 747-200. Notice the white color, the US flag painted on the vertical stabilizer (i.e, the tail), and the blue stripe and insignia on the fuselage. The clincher, however, is the “bump” directly behind the bulging 747 cockpit. It is clearly discernible in both photos. No other plane has this piggy-backed appendage. It is unique to the E-4B and is integral to the plane’s military role as an airborne command center. The appendage contains a communication satellite-dish and perhaps other advanced electronic hardware. In fact, this is the same plane that Linda Brookhart photographed outside the White House. How can we tell? Although her vantage point was not ideal–––Linda was standing in the street looking almost straight up when she snapped the shot–––nonetheless, a careful inspection shows that the plane is an E-4B. Notice, the aircraft in her photo has four engines and all of the characteristics of a Boeing 747. In addition to the white color, which is also a match, another crucial detail positively identifies the airplane. Notice the tiny blue spot near the rear of the aircraft. Several close-ups of an E-4B clearly show that this blue spot is simply the place on the fuselage where the blue stripes painted on the side of the plane come together at the rear of the aircraft. This same blue spot can also be seen in the still-shot from the Telemundo network. No mistake. It’s the same plane.

The spot is the only place on the 747 fuselage where the E-4B’s otherwise conspicuous blue stripes are visible, from beneath. This establishes a positive ID, as no other airplane has this unique combination of features. Linda explained to me that at the time of the evacuation she believed the White House was under attack, an impression confirmed by White House officials. On September 12, 2001 Air Fleischer told the press that “We have specific and credible information that the White House and Air Force One were intended targets of these attacks.”xv Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council (NSC), made a similar statement, as did Attorney General John Ashcroft.xvi

The Raw CNN Footage

Fortunately, it is not necessary to place undue weight on the Discovery Channel clip, because powerful additional evidence has now emerged. Recently, we learned that a CNN cameraman also captured the E-4B on film as it flew over the White House on September 11, 2001. Pinnacle deserves credit for discovering this amazing video evidence in the CNN archive, where it apparently gathered dust for nearly six years. As far as we know, it has never aired on US television, nor appeared on the internet–––until now.xix

The video is 18 minutes long and documents in detail the White House evacuation on September 11, 2001. As the video begins the CNN cameraman and other members of the press are within the White House compound. A guard can be heard instructing everyone to leave. The film continues to roll as the cameraman joins the exodus of journalists and staffers walking down the White House driveway. At this point, a voice can be heard talking about “an explosion at the Pentagon.” The cameraman leaves through the White House gate. In other scenes, familiar Washington landmarks, including the old Executive Office Building, Lafayette Park and Jackson Place, are plainly in evidence. Suddenly, sirens are heard and two red fire engines appear in front of the old Executive Office Building, apparently in response to the fire alarm reported by the Washington Post.xx At 6:20 minutes into the video the camera pans up over Jackson Place and catches the E-4B against a backdrop of blue sky. We pulled the following three still-shots from the video. As the camera zooms in the four engines, white color, even the blue spot on the fuselage, are plainly visible.

The E-4B, moving north, banks to the east and makes another even lower pass, filling about a fourth of the screen until it passes out of sight behind a tree. This footage is similar to the Discovery Channel clip, however, the CNN video is steadier and generally of better quality. In the bright sunlight the blue stripe on the side of the plane and the “bump” behind the cockpit

are clearly discernible. The total length of the E- 4B segment is about twenty-nine seconds. Later in the video, Secret Service agents can be seen moving around on the roof of the White House. About 8:40-8:45 minutes into the film smoke is suddenly visible behind the White House. At this point the camera shifts to several men with cell phones talking on the sidewalk. Apparently, they have just learned about the Pentagon strike. One says:

“Did it actually hit the Pentagon?” Another voice says: “It’s unclear. There’s a fire over there.” This stunning CNN footage eliminates any remaining shred of doubt. It proves that an E-4B circled over Washington at approximately the time of the Pentagon attack. (Required disclaimer: “Usage of the above CNN material does not constitute an implied or express endorsement by CNN.”)

“We See All”

Again, I must emphasize: the E-4B is no ordinary plane. Its official designation is the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC), although in former years it was also known as the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP), pronounced “knee-cap.” It is more commonly referred to as the “doomsday plane,” because the E-4B’s premier function is to serve as a flying command, control and communications (C3) center in a national emergency, or in the event of nuclear war. When the president travels on Air Force One, an E-4B normally follows behind the presidential entourage, in order to be near-at-hand. Strangely, however, this usual protocol was not followed on September 11, 2001. For some reason, no E-4B accompanied the president to Florida on the morning of the attack. In Air War Over America, the official US Air Force account of the events of 9/11, author Leslie Filson mentions that an AWACS plane, which happened to be on a training mission off the coast of Florida, was ordered to stand in and fulfill the E-4B’s usual role.xxi The AWACS plane followed Bush when he departed Sarasota-Bradenton airport en route to Barksdale AFB, in Louisiana. To date, the US government has never explained why an E-4B failed to accompany the president on 9/11.

Unlike Air Force One, the E-4B can be refueled in flight and so has considerably greater range. For this reason, when the president goes abroad on long trips he occasionally flies on an E-4B to save travel time. The plane also doubles as a mobile office for the Secretary of Defense. Recently, for example, when the newly appointed Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled to London for talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair, he rode on an E- 4B.xxii According to various reports, his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, also frequently used the plane.

A recent article in the Air Force Civil Engineer describes the E-4B as “a truly amazing” aircraft, and provides more details about its impressive specs.xxiii The $800 million dollar plane has all of the advanced electronics needed for world-wide communication. If Air Force One can accurately be described as a flying White House, the E-4B is a substitute Pentagon. The plane’s electronics cover the full radio spectrum, from extremely low frequency (ELF) to ultra high frequency (UHF), enabling the E-4B to communicate with all US military commands, world-wide, including tactical and strategic forces, naval ships, planes, nuclear-armed missiles, even submarines. One of the plane’s antennas is a long wire mounted on a spool at the rear of the plane. When in use, the wire unreels, dragging a small cone at the end of the antenna hundreds of feet behind the plane. In short, the E-4B is a fully equipped communications platform and can serve as an airborne command center for all US military forces in a national or world crisis. The plane carries its own electrical-generating plant to power its electronic hardware, which is also shielded against the damaging electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects generated by nuclear explosions. Even the plane’s white color is a design feature, not simply cosmetic. Its purpose is to help the E-4B survive in a nuclear battlefield by reflecting heat away from the plane.

The Air Force has a fleet of four E-4Bs, one of which is always on alert.


The spacious 747 fuselage includes command and work areas, conference and briefing rooms, as well as an operations center or battle station. In addition, the plane reportedly has a rest area, bunks for sleeping, even a galley stocked with a week’s provisions. In 2005 the US Air Force awarded Boeing Corporation a $2 billion contract to upgrade the Nightwatch fleet, an enormous amount of money, considering that the fleet includes only four planes. The goal of the five-year agreement was “increased readiness.”xxvi

Practicing Armageddon

According to one report, on September 11, 2001 three of the E-4Bs were participating in a live command-level exercise known as Global Guardian.xxvii The exercise is an annual event, and is staged to test the readiness of the US military’s command and control procedures involved in waging thermonuclear war. The 2001 exercise started the week before September 11 under the directorship of Admiral Richard Mies, commander-in-chief of STRATCOM. The drill was reportedly in “full swing” at the time of the 9/11 attack. Numerous other military commands also participated, including NORAD. While few details about the 2001 exercise have been released, in previous years Global Guardian involved the US Space Command, the Air Combat Command, and the US Atlantic and Pacific Fleets.xxviii

The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of Global Guardian, but it does mention another 9/11 exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which also apparently involved NORAD.xxix It is now known that at least ten and as many as fifteen security drills were in progress on September 11, 2001,xxx and Global Guardian was probably the umbrella for at least several of these, including Vigilant Guardian. Even the name points to this. One of the E-4B’s secondary roles is to provide a mobile command center for use by FEMA during national emergencies.xxxi This raises additional questions, because as we know, a FEMA drill, named Tripod, was also in progress in New York City on September 11, 2001. Tripod involved hundreds of government employees and its purpose, according to NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, was to defend against a hypothetical biochemical attack.xxxii

Starting in the 1990s, Global Guardian included pre-planned mock attacks upon the military’s computer and information systems. For example, during the 1998 exercise “terrorists” attempted to disrupt STRATCOM’s internal communications by hacking into its computers, and also by tying up its phone/FAX lines with phony messages.xxxiii Evidently, these “terrorist attacks” were at least partly successful, although the details have never been released. In recent years, the military has incorporated similar “attacks” into Global Guardian exercises. However, it is not known whether these were a part of the 2001 drill. We do know that on 9/11 one of the E-4Bs was en route to Offutt AFB with a high-level military advisory panel on board, including its chairman, retired Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, evidently for the purpose of observing the exercise. The role of this panel, whose official name is the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (FIAB), is to monitor US intelligence agencies. STRATCOM reportedly terminated the 2001 exercise at 9:03 AM, when Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.xxxiv However, the E-4Bs remained aloft.xxxv As I have shown, one of them circled over Washington.

Schedule Change in 2001

In previous years the military always staged Global Guardian in October or November and, according to various reports, the 2001 exercise was likewise originally scheduled for October.xxxvi However, for reasons that have never been disclosed, the Joint Chiefs changed the plan and conducted the 2001 exercise during the week of September 11. The following year the date reverted back. The 2002 Global Guardian came off in October, as in revious years, and this has continued to be the case.xxxvii All of which raises a number of disturbing questions. Why did the Joint Chiefs change the date of Global Guardian in 2001? Even more importantly, why was the world’s most sophisticated electronics warfare plane slowly circling over Washington at the time of the September 11 attack? The E-4B command and control platform normally flies at high altitude. Moreover, its cruising speed is just under 600 mph. Why was an E-4B flying at slow speed and low elevation over Washington on 9/11? Was it flying low to evade FAA radar?

Some months ago Pinnacle filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In it he requested two types of data: identification data, if any, from transponders, as well as the images of all radar tracks for Washington between 9:30-10:00 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001. The FAA completely ignored his request for radar images, and merely responded that they had “no identification records.” Pinnacle then filed an appeal; however, as of this writing he has received no final decision. Pinnacle also filed a FOIA request with the Secret Service for all relevant information, including radar data, and was told the Secret Service has “no records or documents of any kind relating to any aircraft whatsoever flying near or circling above the White House on 9/11 in the 9:30-10 AM time frame.”xxxviii

Pinnacle also sent the basic information in this article to his Congressman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) along with a request that Schiff look into the matter. His congressman complied by making an inquiry through official channels about “a four-engine white jet” observed and photographed near the White House on 9/11. Soon after, Rep. Schiff received a letter from the US Air Force, which read: “This is in reply…. to your request for information relating to an unidentified aircraft that may have been in restricted airspace near the White House on September 11, 2001 between the hours of 9:30 ad 10:00 AM. Air Force officials have no knowledge of the aircraft in question.”xxxix It would appear the US Air Force is lying. Given the evidence presented above, there can be no doubt about the plane’s presence and identity. The only remaining question is: Why was an E-4B circling the White House on 9/11?

In a retrospective 2002 article in the Washington Post, reporter Bob Woodward wrote that on September 11 “Pentagon officials ordered up the airborne command post [i.e., the E-4B] used only in national emergencies.”xl The context of his story implies that the order was issued after the Pentagon strike. But the compelling evidence I have just presented confirms that at least one of the E-4Bs was already aloft at the time of the 9/11 attack. Woodward, no doubt, based his story on information provided by sources at the White House. Obviously, they fed him a fairy tale. If the E-4B command and control platform that circled over Washington on 9/11 was on a legitimate mission, then why this obfuscation? And why the denials by the US military, FAA and Secret Service? If the E-4B was responding to a terrorist attack, acknowledging the basic facts in the case surely would have helped to restore public confidence in our government and the US military.

Then, why lie? When people engage in deception it is usually because they have something to hide. What is our government hiding?

Catch-22: The Need for a New Investigation

Pinnacle and I have continued to vet the video evidence. According to the credits for The Flight that Fought Back, the Discovery Channel docudrama was produced by a London-based company called Brook Lapping. When I contacted Brook Lapping I was told they used the E-4B segment under license from FOX News, which holds the copyright. Brook Lapping also informed me they could provide no further assistance in the matter. After numerous phone calls I was led to a company called ITN Source, which handles all of FOX’s licensing contracts. A cordial individual at their Burbank office assisted me. However, a search failed to locate the short segment in the FOX News archive, at which point I was informed that there was nothing more that they could do. My repeated attempts to contact the FOX legal department were fruitless. FOX never responded to my queries.

In this way my investigation reached a blind alley. Shades of Catch-22. All of this underscores the urgent need for a new 9/11 investigation: It must be independent, nonpartisan, adequately funded, and empowered with the authority to subpoena witnesses. Representatives of FOX News must be brought before a genuine panel and made to testify under oath about the whereabouts of this important evidence; and why it was made to disappear. Bob Woodward should also be subpoenaed and asked to identify the source of his misinformation. Without a genuine investigation, we will probably never learn the true role that the E-4B played on September 11.

Mark H. Gaffney's first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a pioneering study of the Israeli nuclear weapons program. His latest, Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes, was a finalist for the 2004 Narcissus Book Award. Mark can be reached for comment at markhgaffney@earthlink.net

Also visit Mark's web site at http://www.gnosticsecrets.com/

Note by Arabesque: by coincidence, I had just written a blog that discussed this plane and referenced previous articles by this author before this new article came out in the Journal of 9/11 studies. Read it here: The Pentagon Flight Path Misinformation, Stand-Down, War Games, and the Three Mysterious Planes

July 23, 2007

The 9/11 Plane Theories and the “Conspiracy Theory Method”

The 9/11 Plane Theories and the “Conspiracy Theory Method”

By Arabesque

Theories about the planes on 9/11 are among the most popular, divisive, and contested within the 9/11 Truth movement. 

Some are more controversial than others, and it is notable that some of the theorists who promote them are frequently forced to rely on what I call the “conspiracy theory method”.

Conspiracy Theory Method:

·        Predetermined Conclusion.  Start with a conclusion and “research” the “anomalies”.    

·        Misinformation/Disinformation replaces legitimate evidence.[1]

·        Eyewitness Testimony: doesn’t count by default. The government controls all witnesses to the point of preventing a single one from coming forward with the truth. 

·        Special Pleading: ignore contradictory evidence or explanations no matter how compelling or reasonable.

·        Ignore Motive: Invent convoluted theories so complicated that there would be no motive to attempt it in broad daylight in full view of witnesses and any potential photos or recordings.

·        Assume all other evidence is faked.  All contradictory evidence, no matter how overwhelming or compelling is dismissed as fake without corroborating proof of its fabrication.  “Smoking gun” anomalies (in reality, misinformation/disinformation) disprove all other evidence.

·        When all else fails rely on the tried and trusted ad-hominems along with accusations of being an “agent” for daring to question the theory—even if it is widely disagreed upon within the movement. 

The Conspiracy Theory Method often results in disinformation.  The subject of disinformation is complex and controversial, but works like this:

1.      X, Y, Z are evidence for the ‘A’ Theory

2.      X, Y, Z are (misleading explanations, misinterpretations, or omissions of) evidence for the ‘A’ Theory

3.      Therefore, the ‘A’ Theory is “true”.

So for example, if I say: “no planes hit the twin towers because there are no photographs of it” I am promoting disinformation since the conclusion (no planes hit the towers) is supported by a false argument (there are no photographs of the planes).  Disinformation can be much more subtle than this and fool even mostly reasonable people.  A conclusion is not disinformation unless it is supported with false evidence.[2]

The conspiracy method uses a kind of circular logic where:

1.      The conclusion is true

2.      All evidence that contradicts it is “false”/”fake”/”disinformation” because the conclusion (relying exclusively on disinformation) is true. 

My theory is that a conclusion is disinformation ONLY when the evidence supporting it is disinformation—not the other way around.  In other words, if you always assume a conclusion is true, and that any evidence that contradicts it is “disinformation”, you are engaging in circular logic!

Those who use the conspiracy method are frustrating to deal with because their views are essentially non-falsifiable.  What does that mean?  It means that their theory can’t be proven false to their satisfaction because they refuse to reasonably consider contradictory evidence.  Anything that contradicts the sacred theory is labeled by default as “fake”.  Of the most ardent of these theorists, no evidence can ever be offered to convince them that they are wrong. 

Never mind the absurdly poor record of the government in faking evidence!  Remember, we are talking about the same government that couldn’t even fake a list of hijackers properly, with several turning up alive and complaining about stolen passports.[3] One of the central points of the 9/11 official story is the story about the hijackers; one would assume that the government would take the necessary time to fake this properly—if anything; and yet this is not a rare example of how bad the government is at faking evidence.  The main strategy of the 9/11 commission report was to simply ignore all evidence that contradicted their predetermined narrative; one of the most common and effective disinformation techniques.  Anyone who has read Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline can see that the media has frequently reported devastating facts that the government can only ignore to keep their myth alive.[4]

The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.[5] Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst

Clearly, evaluating evidence is critical to understanding what really happened on 9/11: 

·        Evidence that is corroborated by a large number and variety of sources is the most credible. 

·        Evidence that is weakly supported, not supported at all, or only speculation is not credible. 

·        Physical Evidence is only worth something if it is being interpreted correctly.  Disinformation and misinformation does not constitute legitimate evidence to support a theory.[6] Arguments only count when they are true.

·        Sources are only to be trusted when each and every fact they offer is corroborated by other credible evidence

One of the most controversial 9/11 “theories” is that there were no planes at the World Trade Center, and that the footage was faked.  I find it hard to believe that people actually “believe” this “theory”, and Eric Salter provides a pretty good reason why:

The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used for blackmail.[7]

Clearly, this shows just how little merit the TV fakery arguments have.  There are many photos, videos, and eyewitness statements of the planes approaching and impacting the World Trade Center[8]—not to mention the gaping impact holes that closely correspond to the size of the aircraft alleged to have been used.[9]  Arguments that rely on plane deceleration are based on misunderstandings of the laws of physics as a pre-9/11 crash test shows for comparison.[10] The argument that planes can’t penetrate buildings is also similarly without merit as this crash in 2005 showed:[11]

It is often claimed that eyewitness statements are “unreliable”, or “can’t be trusted since the government controls witnesses”. 

Jim Fetzer, who supports no-plane theories at the Pentagon and the TV fakery theories at the WTC says:

I suspect many witnesses had to sign a non-disclosure document/military witnesses gave fake testimonies"[12]

Morgan Reynolds, who supports no-planes used on 9/11 says:

“…people lie… the perps probably hired actors, readily available in Manhattan, along with the script delivered to complicit media moguls).”[13]

What do you think the mainstream media focuses on when 9/11 skeptics are interviewed?  The no plane theories!  It’s an old trick—guilt by association.  Discrediting, dividing, and distracting movements are part of historical FBI CoIntelPro operations.[14]

Did you notice the “conspiracy theory method” in action here?  Reynolds and Fetzer are among the least credible 9/11 researchers around,[15] and yet their view that all eyewitness testimony can be controlled and manipulated is widely believed by plane theorists.   

If the government could “control” witnesses, why is it that many witnesses contradict the 9/11 official story?  Witnesses have often contradicted the government:

·        explosions in the basements of the WTC[16]

·        witnesses hurt by these explosions on the basements[17]

·        multiple explosions on other floors separate from the plane impacts[18]

·        explosions just before the WTC towers began to collapse and demolition like features[19]

·        explosions in the WTC 7 lobby before the WTC towers collapsed[20]

·        explosions during the WTC 7 collapse[21]

·        statements of molten metal at ground zero for more than a month which is impossible to create with jet fuel fires and suggests the use of explosives[22]

·        explosive devices seen being taken out of the Oklahoma City Building, as well as multiple explosions heard after it was attacked by a “single truck bomb” by a “terrorist” in 1993[23]

If the government could control witnesses, what the heck is going on here?   These literally hundreds of statements destroy the argument that the government can control eyewitnesses.  What makes these statements credible is not merely that witnesses report them; it is that they are corroborated by other eyewitness statements and corroborating evidence

Why can theorists pick and choose when to ignore an entire body of eyewitness statements?  Answer: the “conspiracy theory method”.    

Others argue plane substitution in the attacks.  But then, what to make of these reports of DNA identification at the WTC?[24]

DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person.  Of the 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.

Although about half of the victims at the WTC have not been accounted for,[25] reports continue to surface to this day in which passengers from the flights that hit the World Trade Center Towers are identified:

March 19, 2002:

A hand found in the rubble at ground zero was matched through DNA testing to Trentini, a 65-year-old retired schoolteacher from Everett, Mass., it was reported. Trentini and his wife, Mary, 67, were flying to Los Angeles Sept. 11 on Flight 11 to visit their grandchildren. It is the first time DNA has been able to verify the identity of any victims aboard the two planes that were flown into the World Trade Center, according to the report. The fingerprints matched Trentini’s, and his college ring, believed to be his Wofford ring, was still on his finger.[26]

November 2, 2006:

DNA tests have identified the remains of three more people who died in the attacks on World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.  They were American Airlines Flight 11 stewardess Karen Ann Martin, passenger Douglas Joel Stone, and a man whose relatives have requested anonymity.

April 11, 2007:

For the 6th time in a week, the city has identified another victim from the 9/11 attacks. DNA analysis identified 66-year old Alberto Dominguez, from Australia.  He was visiting family in the US and was onboard American Airlines flight 11, which hijackers crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. His remains were discovered during the original recovery effort. A spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office says remains found at that time are being re-tested.[27]

Are these reports faked too? 

The passengers on flights 11[28] and 175[29] included fairly well known people such as:

  • David Angell, and his wife, American television producer of the TV series Frasier[30]
  • Berry Berenson, American actress and photographer
  • Carolyn Beug, music video producer
  • Charles Edward Jones, a military astronaut
  • Daniel Lewin, co-founder and CTO of Akamai
  • Garnet Edward "Ace" Bailey, director of pro scouting for the Los Angeles Kings NHL hockey team and former player
  • Mark Bavis, 31, of West Newton, Massachusetts, was entering his second season as an amateur scout for the Los Angeles Kings.
  • Klaus Bothe, 31, of Germany was on a business trip with BCT Technology AG's chief executive officer and another executive. Bothe joined the company in 1994 and was its director of development.
  • Heinrich Kimmig, 43, chairman and chief executive officer of BCT Technology Ag, of Germany was on a business trip involving contract negotiations with U.S. partners along with two other BCT execs, the company said in a statement. Kimmig studied mechanical engineering in college.

Seth MacFarlane, creator of the animated TV series Family Guy apparently was booked for flight 11 on 9/11, but missed it.[31] Actor Mark Wahlberg also claims that he had a reservation for one of the 9/11 flights that crashed into the WTC, but changed his plans and missed the flight.[32]

Did these well known people from diverse backgrounds all decide to fake their deaths in a plot pre-arranged with the government?  If so, why were government officials like John Ashcraft, Willie Brown and others “warned” not to fly?[33]

One of the worst pieces of misinformation floating around as gospel is that there were no hijacker names on the flight manifests.[34]  Unfortunately, even David Ray Griffin has made this unsubstantiated claim, and it is widely believed within the 9/11 truth movement.[35]  Even I believed it until I decided to look more carefully.  The news reports commonly cited have the title “list of victims (read: not perpetrators):[36]

·        cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

·        cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

·        cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

·        cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

Even the website address has the word “victims” in it.  As Jim Hoffman noted, another page explained that “those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included.[37]

The official flight manifests finally released during the Moussaoui trial do have the alleged terrorist names on them:[38]

Flight 11,[39] See here for confirmation of these names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11#Hijackers

·        1. “Alshehri, Wail”

·        2. “Alshehri, Walee”[40] [see note]

·        13. “Atta, Moham”[41]

·        14. “Alomari, Abdul”

·        20. “Al Suqami, Satam”

Flight 175,[42] See here for confirmation of these names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175#Hijackers 

·        1. “Ahmed”

·        2. “Alghamdi”

·        3. “Alghamdi”

·        4. “Alshehhi”

·        5. “Alshehri”

The other flights similarly have hijacker names on them.[43]

Even if you believe that there were no hijackings on 9/11, or that some of the hijackers are still alive,[44] or that the hijackers were poor pilots who have never even flown the actual planes before, [45] and that even professional pilots would have had difficulty hitting the buildings on 9/11,[46] the claim that the names of these alleged hijackers do not show up on the flight manifests is false.  As seen with the no-plane theories, false claims spread as “gospel” truth are discrediting to the 9/11 truth movement.  I have not carefully researched the passengers on the flights, but the official flight manifests released in this trial should be used to confirm who was and was not on them.  If there is a discrepancy there, the government would have to explain it.   

The Northwoods document is offered as evidence for this sort of a plan to switch planes.[47]  While this document is clear evidence that the US government would kill American citizens to justify wars, the motive for switching planes in this document is clear; the people on these planes were going to be agents, and switching the planes would save their lives.  Given the noteworthy people on the planes in question, what reason would the government be motivated to save the lives of those who were not agents?  Why would there be motive to switch planes and kill the passengers elsewhere?  Why would warnings not to fly be sent out to government officials if there was no danger of boarding one of these doomed flights as Seth McFarlane and Mark Wahlberg nearly did?[48]  Granted these are speculative questions, but worth asking since motive is not an irrelevant consideration.

As you can see, there is a lot of fakery involved in the “TV Fakery” theory—and a lot of it has nothing to do with “TV fakery”.  A more appropriate name for it would be the “9/11 total fakery theory”.  The other theories remain extremely controversial, and will remain so until another investigation can answer the unanswerable questions.  We can only prove what happened on 9/11 with the available evidence, and speculation without evidence will never help force a new investigation.

[1] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

[4] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

[5] http://www.911pressfortruth.com/ watch the movie here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250 see 30:00 mark for quote by McGovern.

[6] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html

[7] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

[8] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-trade-center-eyewitness-testimony.html

[9] http://images.indymedia.org/imc/brisbaneimc/wtc_hole.jpg

[10] Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity

[11] http://www.pentagonresearch.com/029.html

[12] http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/no_757_supporters.htm

[13] http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=exploding_the_airliner_crash_myth

[14] http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

[15] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html

[16] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/heroism-of-william-rodriguez-amazing.html

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm

[20] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300407wtc7explosions.htm

[21] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm

[22] Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?

[23] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/bombs/bombs.html

[24] DNA Identifications After the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack, Science Magazine, 18 November 2005 “The OCME cataloged 19,913 putative victim tissue fragments from 2749 individuals reported missing.”

[25] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html

[26] http://wofford.info/newsroom/newsRelease.asp?id=142

[27] http://www.nypost.com/seven/04112007/news/regionalnews/9_11_plane_passenger_idd_regionalnews_stephanie_gaskell.htm See here for a Photo.

[28] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/A11pass.html

[29] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/U175pass.html

[30] http://www.tv.com/frasier/odd-man-out/episode/17048/summary.html

[31] http://www.tv.com/seth-macfarlane/person/57171/biography.html

[32] http://www.myclassiclyrics.com/artist_biographies/Mark_Wahlberg_Biography.htm

[33] http://www.prisonplanet.com/911/warned.htm

[34] http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/those-passenger-lists.html

[35] http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

[36] http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html

[37] http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

[38] Ibid.

[39] http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight11Manifest_a.jpg

[40] First names on this manifest appear to be shortened after 5 Letters.  His first name is according to the official story, Waleed.

[41] First names on this manifest appear to be shortened after 5 Letters.  Atta’s first name is Mohammed

[42] http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/Flight175Manifest_a.jpg

[43] http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

[44] http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html

[45] http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html

[46] JohndoeX, Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks, http://www.911blogger.com/

[47] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

[48] http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/topanomalies.html and http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/warnings.html