The 11 Most Compelling 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

     I was fortunate to have found the time to write and post four 9/11 articles and one other article in the space of five days.  Chinese New Year is coming up in a couple of days, and I won't have time to write anything anytime soon.

     I would, however, like to share with y'all a superb site called The 11 Most Compelling 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.  It consists of eleven short video clips from sources ranging from moderately reliable to highly reliable.  

     Some of the information presented contradicts things I wrote in my series on boundary conditions for the 9/11 hijackers, but I'm not the least bit embarrassed about that.  I'm still looking for the truth, as many of y'all are, and I believe that humility and uncertainty are two of our most valuable allies in that search.  The truth is out there, but so are lies.

     The sixth video clip is somewhat mislabeled.  The heading suggests that it's mainly about the miraculously surviving passports of which you're already familiar.  Most of it, in fact, is about the conflict of interest between some of the congressmen on the 9/11 Commission and the business interests of the same congressmen.  I hadn't heard that one before.

     One of the videos was deleted "due to third party claims."  I'll try to replace that video with another.  Another video, related to the claim that the Israeli regime did 9/11, is really nothing but a lot of name calling with no presentation of evidence.  I'm replacing that wretched specimen with the video All the Proof in the World: Israel did 9/11.

The 11 Most Compelling 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

     When I return to my laptop, I intend to write other articles concerning boundary conditions such as, "What are Boeing 757's capable of doing and what are they incapable of doing?"  As before, I don't intend to limit my writing to 9/11-oriented articles.  I hope you read them.

     (For more 9/11-related articles in the American Action Report, see the links on the stand-alone page, September 11, 2001.)

     Here's the article, with my comments added:

     Many 9 11 conspiracy theories surfaced shortly after the September 11th attacks, some bringing compelling arguments, and some not holding up at all. Theorists believe that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished by bombs, phone calls from the planes were made up, and the former President George W. Bush secretly profited from the attacks.

     I have compiled a list of the 11 most compelling 9 11 conspiracy theories that exist:

1. Inside Traders Knew About Attacks Before They Happened

     Right before the September 11th attacks some fishy business happened within the stock market and insurance firms. An “extraordinary” amount of put options were placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks, the same airlines that were hijacked during the attacks. Many speculate that traders were tipped off about the attacks, and profited from the tragedy. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation in which Osama Bin Laden was a suspect after receiving information from at least one Wall Street Firm.

2. Air Defense Was Told To “Stand Down”

     In the event that a airplane were to be hijacked, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), is prepared to send out fighter jets which can debilitate or shoot down an airplane. On 9/11/01, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. Some skeptics believe NORAD commanded defense systems to “Stand-down”, because of their lack of presence during the attacks.

3. Planes Didn’t Make Twin Towers Collapse, Bombs Did

     The World Trade Center collapse appeared similar to a controlled demolition. Many speculate that the towers were in fact blown down with explosives placed in selected locations. Some witnesses accounted hearing explosions inside the building as they attempted to escape. Many architects and scientists even maintain that a planes fuel cannot produce enough heat to melt the steel frame of the two buildings that collapsed.

4. The Pentagon Attack Scientifically Doesn’t Hold Up

     The Pentagon crash may be the most puzzling event of the day. Theorists maintain that the impact holes in the pentagon were much smaller then a commercial American Airlines plane. They also question why the plane was not shot down prior to impact, as well as why the plane impacted into a section of the Pentagon that was vacant due to renovations.

5. Flight 93 Was Completely Staged

     The fourth hijacked plane, Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It is believed that the passengers fought back, and crashed the plane into a field. Skeptics believe that Flight 93 landed safely, while a substitute plane was shot out of the sky. Other theorists believe that the passengers were murdered or relocated, and will never be found.

6. Hijackers Are Alive. How Did Their Passports Survive Explosion?

     After the September 11th attacks, the “Loose Change” documentary stated that all of the hijackers were in fact alive in other countries. Rather presumptuous since it is possible for two different people to have identical names. But they did raise a good point; how did the passports of the terrorists survive the explosion? In the aftermath of the attacks, passports and identification were found as evidence. Many skeptics question how identification made out of paper survived an explosion, which destroyed buildings.

7. Cell Phone Calls Made From Plane Were Faked

     In-flight calls were made from cell phones in hi-jacked airplanes. Scientists and skeptics maintain that cell phones could not receive reception from the altitude the planes typically fly. Other skeptics questioned a phone call from a son to his mother, in which he referred to himself by his own first and last name.
     [American Action Report note: The reader should take into account three types of phones: air phones that may have been available to airline attendants, seat phones which some models of 757's made available to passengers, and cell phones.  In 2001, it was impossible to make a cell phone call from that altitude.  Flight 77, the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon, did not have seat phones, though I don't know about the other planes. See the American Action Report article "What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?"]

8. Jewish People [Correction by the American Action Report: Israeli apostates and their cronies in the United States] Knew Attack Was Going To Happen, Took Off Work On September 11th.

     Theorists noticed that 4,000 Jewish employees took off from work on September 11th 2001. Some of the first people to record the attacks on camera were Jewish [American Action Report correction: They were Israeli Mossad agents.] also. Many became suspicious of there actions, and put them on the radar as suspects in the wake of the attack.

     [American Action Report note: As a companion piece to this video, see the article Israel did 9/11: All the Proof in the World]

     [American Action Report note: The writer refers to Israeli agents recording the attacks on the World Trade Center.  I've posted a video concerning this fact.]

9. Black Boxes Found By Search Crew Kept Secret

During the ensuing weeks after the attacks, the Black boxes were one of the most important items to find. They were the only evidence into what happened inside the cockpits of the plane. 3 of 4 black boxes were found, and only one was in good enough condition to listen to. The tape was not initially released, but was shared with the families in 2002. Skeptics believe the tapes were not disclosed in order to support the secret scheme.

     [American Action Report note: This is the video that's no longer available.  I'll keep looking for a substitute.]

10. The Bin Laden Tapes Are Fake

     Initially, Osama Bid Laden denied any responsibility or involvement with the attacks. Soon afterwards, numerous tapes came out claiming that he took full responsibility on the attacks. Many skeptics believe that Bin Laden was targeted because of his stakes in the stocks as well as former President George W. Bush’s personal business ventures in the Middle East.

11. Aluminum Planes Can’t Penetrate Steel Structure Of World Trade Center

     Commercial airplanes’ frames are constructed with a very light aluminum material, in order to make it easier to fly. Theorists maintain that there is no possible way an airplane can do as much damage as it did to the Twin Towers as it did. Theorists believe that missiles or explosives were used to ensure the buildings collapsed.

END

    For more 9/11-related articles in the American Action Report, see the links on the stand-alone page, September 11, 2001.

Boundary Conditions for the 9/11 Hijackers, Part 4: Aftermath

     In the first three parts of this series, I described the boundary conditions for the tasks laid out for the September 11, 2001, hijackers.  This, brief as it is, is the aftermath.
     Within hours of the terror attacks of that day, Florida Governor Jeb Bush had Huffman Aviation's records confiscated and sent to Washington, D. C.  (link) In case you're wondering whether Jeb Bush was related to someone whose name you've seen in the papers, the answer is, "Yes."  

     Jeb Bush is the brother of George W. Bush, who was President of the United States at the time of the 9/11 terror attacks.  He was also the man responsible for the way the votes for the 2000 presidential election were counted in Florida.  That particular vote count, and how it was carried out, decided who would be elected President in 2000.  George W. Bush was also responsible for stonewalling the creation of a congressional investigation of 9/11 for fourteen months.  (link) (link)
     Jeb Bush is also the brother of Marvin Bush, who was in charge of security at the World Trade Center from the day after George W. Bush was inaugurated President until the day before the planes crashed into the twin towers.  (Source: Yahoo Answers)
     Jeb Bush is also the son of former President George H. W. Bush, a business partner of the bin Laden family. (transcript of BBC expose)
     In investigating the events of September 11, 2001, you may not find a terrorist behind every bush, but isn't it odd that you seem to find a Bush behind every terrorist?

     *          *          *

     You've probably seen the cartoons in which someone has deliberately left a clear trail for rescuers to follow.  The September 11 terror attacks were possibly the only criminal case in history in which the criminals were extremely generous in leaving evidence for investigators to follow.  By my count, there were at least fourteen stories featuring different treasure troves of evidence incriminating the 9/11 hijackers, most of which was left in plain sight on the day of the hijackings.  (Source: History Commons)

     To give one example, one hijacker's luggage was left at the airport when he went aboard the plane.  The luggage included the hijacker's identification, a copy of the Koran, and a videotape on how to fly a Boeing 757.  

     Why did he need luggage?  Why did he need the videotape on the way to the airport?  There was no way to watch it on the way to the airport.  Or was he hoping that whoever found it would return it to Blockbuster for him to avoid a late fee?  I hope he was thoughtful enough to rewind it first.

     You're probably already aware of some of the September 11 miracles.  In one, the plane completely evaporated from the heat of jet fuel, yet the hijacker's passport somehow survived in legible condition.  Just hours after the attack, a passerby happened to spot it among several thousand tons of rubble and several hundred thousand scraps of paper.  The passerby immediately recognized it as the passport of one of the hijackers and reported it to the proper authorities.

    *          *          *

     Much has been written about the seven alleged hijackers who turned up alive after the attacks, and of the fact that CNN failed to mention Arabs in its lists of people aboard the four hijacked planes.  Both errors have the same origins.

     Within hours of the attacks, the four passenger lists were broken down into two lists: four lists of hijackers and four victims' lists. CNN published what they called a victims' list, which bloggers immediately assumed were flight manifests.  That there were no Arabic names on the supposed manifests led people to believe that there had been no Arabs on the planes.  

     As for the list of hijackers, the FBI was highly scientific in its methods.  If the passenger had an Arabic-sounding name, he was initially assumed to be a hijacker; otherwise, he was a victim.

     If former basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols, and mass murderer Charles Manson had been on those planes, Kareem would have been listed as a hijacker, while Terry and Chuck would have been listed as victims.

     Mohamed, which has multiple spellings in the Roman alphabet, is the most common given name in the world, and there are a lot of Arabic family names that sound as similar as Smith and Schmidt.  The FBI, with the same adroitness that they had previously used when dealing with pre-9/11 warnings, compared their lists of Arabs on the planes with lists of suspected terrorists that they'd been keeping for no apparent reason.  When they found a near match, they assumed it was a match.  That method is about as useful as the spell checker when you key in the name Nancy Pelosi; it suggests that maybe the name should be Plosive, Peloponnese, Pelvic, or Pelagic.   

     Anyone who tells you we shouldn't question the official story should be made informed of the unscientific methods by which the official story came about. 

*          *          *

      In 2002 and 2003, the owners of both flight schools in Florida attended by 9/11 hijackers were involved in suspicious airplane crashes.  Here's a quote from History Commons:

     "Within the space of seven months, the owners of two Venice, Florida flight schools attended by several of the alleged 9/11 suicide pilots are separately in serious air accidents. On June 26, 2002, Arne Kruithof, whose Florida Flight Training Center was attended by Ziad Jarrah, survives a crash at the Venice Municipal Airport. He is a passenger in a twin-engine plane, which suddenly pulls to the left when about 50 feet off the runway and the pilot is unable to regain control. All the passengers are uninjured, but the plane is damaged extensively. [VENICE GONDOLIER SUN, 6/29/2002] On January 24, 2003, Rudi Dekkers, whose Huffman Aviation was attended by Marwan Alshehhi and Mohamed Atta, crashes his helicopter. He is flying to work early in the morning for a meeting with a competitor, to sell his flight school to them. Ten minutes after takeoff, his engine cuts out and he crashes into a river. He is rescued from the ice-cold water by a friend and fellow helicopter pilot who pulls him to shore. He arrives in Venice later in the day, and is able to proceed with the sale of Huffman Aviation. Two days earlier, the Associated Press had announced that Dekkers was to be arrested on felony fraud charges (see August 23, 2001-April 2004). [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 1/22/2003; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 1/24/2003; VENICE GONDOLIER SUN, 1/25/2003; NAPLES DAILY NEWS, 1/25/2003; SARASOTA HERALD-TRIBUNE, 1/28/2003] In 2011, Dekkers will say that he is convinced someone tried to kill him, although he doesn’t know who. 'The fuel lines were cut.'"

*          *           *

     As I pointed out in a previous article in this series, the plan described in the official version of 9/11 events did not meet the boundary conditions for Osama bin Laden.  In fact, many of the boundary conditions were completely outside bin Laden's control.  We must therefore conclude that events must have been conducted according to a different plan.  

     Identify the people who had control over 9/11's boundary conditions, and you have identified the perpetrators.     
Boundary Conditions, Part 1: Overview
Boundary Conditions, Part 2: The Pilot Hijackers
Boundary Conditions, Part 3: The Muscle Hijackers
Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog

Boundary Conditions for the 9/11 Hijackers, Part 3: the Muscle Hijackers

     As far as I know, no one has attempted to ask what qualifications the 9/11 muscle hijackers had for doing the grunt work on the hijacked planes.  Let's look into it.
       In the first part of this series, we discussed the concept of boundary conditions.  A strategic planner doesn't just "make do with what he has" and hope for the best.  He determines what conditions must exist for his project to succeed.  If even one condition fails to exist, or is outside his control, he either alters his plan or abandons it altogether.
     In the second part of this series, we examined the boundary conditions needed for the pilot hijackers to succeed in their respective missions.  The boundary conditions simply did not exist, but we're expected to believe that the 9/11 planner(s) went ahead anyway and the plan succeeded by dint of a series of highly unlikely accidents.
     Now let's turn our attention to the muscle hijackers.  A muscle hijacker was someone who, as the term suggests, provided the muscle for the hijacking.  A muscle hijacker's job was to scare the bejeebers out of the passengers and flight attendants and keep them in line. 
     What qualifications would be most reasonable for muscle hijackers?  Let us return to the image of Osama bin Laden pecking away at his laptop, making decisions that would bring about the most sophisticated terrorist act in history.

     Hmm, he thinks, I've already picked terrorists who'd make good pilots for a Boeing 757: four guys, none of whom has ever sat at the controls of an airplane—not even a Cessna. Now who would make good muscle hijackers?
      Consistent with his earlier decision to recruit pilot hijackers who weren't pilots, Osama bin Laden decided to recruit muscle hijackers who weren't muscular.   Far from filling the role of muscle hijackers, those fifteen young men would have been better qualified to play Munchkins in a remake of The Wizard of Oz.  Even Newsweek reporter Fareed Zakaria, actors Art Malik and James Belushi; and CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour would have been more intimidating than those guys.
     Would you have picked puny runts with boyish faces, of whom the 9/11 Commission Report would say, “Despite the phrase widely used to describe them, the so-called muscle hijackers were not at all physically imposing; most were between 5' 5" and 5' 7" in height”? Would you have picked men so lacking in English skills that they needed to be taught “a few basic words and phrases”?  (link to 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 7)

     Remember that English skills were required for a wide variety of tasks needed to make the plan a success.  To give just one example, how did they make reservations on four planes that would be leaving three different airports, hundreds of miles apart, within 47 minutes of each other (two from Boston, and one each from Washington and Newark)?
     Oh, and let's not forget that the ironically termed "muscle" hijackers needed weapons to supplement their scrawny frames.  They were supplied with plastic serving knives and box cutters.
     I mentioned boyish faces.  I realize that Audie Murphy, of World War II fame, had a boyish face, but he also had a machine gun.  A boyish face and a machine gun will get you more respect than just a boyish face.  
     In bold type below, I've emphasized the ages of the muscle hijackers:

      Mohamed Mohamed el-Amir Awad el-Sayed Atta (alleged hijacker pilot AA11 WTC North Tower, age 33) Muscle hijackers: Waleed al-Shehri (22), Abdulaziz al-Omari (22), Satam al-Suqami (25) Wail al-Shehri (28)

     Marwan al-Shehhi (alleged hijacker pilot of UA175, WTC2, age 23) Muscle hijackers: Fayez Banihammad (24), Mohand al-Shehri (22), Hamza al-Ghamdi (20), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (22)

     Hani Hanjour (alleged hijacker pilot of AA77, Pentagon, age 29) Muscle hijackers: Khalid al-Mihdhar (26), Majed Moqed (24), Nawaf al-Hazmi (25), Salem al-Hazmi (20).

     Ziad Samir Jarrah (alleged hijacker pilot of UA93, Shanksville, age 26) Muscle hijackers: Ahmed al-Haznawi (20), Ahmed al-Nami (23), Saeed al-Ghamdi (21).    
     They ranged in age from 20 to 26.  The average age of a 9/11 muscle hijacker was between 22 and 23.  Nine out of the fifteen muscle hijackers were 22 years old or younger.  Four of them were 20.
     How do we explain the curious behavior of muscle hijacker Khalid al-Mindar (age 26)? Chapter 7 of the 9/11 Commission Report says, “The last muscle hijacker to arrive was Khalid al Mihdhar. As mentioned earlier, he had abandoned Hazmi in San Diego in June 2000 and returned to his family in Yemen. Mihdhar reportedly stayed in Yemen for about a month before Khallad persuaded him to return to Afghanistan. Mihdhar complained about life in the United States. He met with KSM, who remained annoyed at his decision to go AWOL. But KSM's desire to drop him from the operation yielded to Bin Ladin's insistence to keep him.” 

     How’s that again? He abandoned the project because he disliked “life in the United States.” (How long did he think he'd be living in the United States?)  Then he fled to the bosom of his family before being coaxed into going back to the United States and getting killed. In a nutshell, just because he got a case of culture shock, he ran home to his mama.  Then he was coaxed into going back and deliberately getting himself killed.  Ruminate on that one for a moment.

     Just as the pilot hijackers were allowed to wait until they'd arrived in the United States to take basic flying lessons, the muscle hijackers were allowed to start building muscles after they'd arrived in the U.S.  That is, they were sent even before they were qualified.
     The more closely a person looks at the terror attacks of 9/11, the more impressed he is with how meticulously planned almost everything was.  No matter how careful the planning was, though, the success or failure of the plan—assuming that it went according to the official story—depended on the hijackers.  
     Everything about the recruitment, training, and equipping of the hijackers, however, seemed astonishingly slipshod.  They seemed to be little more than props.  That's the weakest link in the chain.
     Further, the weakest link in the hijacker story was that these unimpressive-looking young naïfs  were provided with "weapons" that are commonly used as children's toys. The only source of information for the story that the hijackers used cardboard box cutters and plastic serving knives was the word of Theodore Olson, the lawyer involved in the Florida vote count that helped secure the presidency for George W. Bush.  His wife Barbara was a neo-conservative commentator and another Bush operative. (link)
     Olson claimed that his wife had made a cell phone call from Flight 77 and said that the hijackers had used plastic serving knives and box cutters.  Olson's word was discredited by phone company records, cell phone technologists, and the testimony of FBI agents in open court. (link)  If that one point in the 9/11 story is discredited, then we must question everything else in official story of 9/11.
     Everything I’ve read about the alleged 9/11 hijackers indicates that they were patsies who didn’t know they were going to get killed. Not one of them had any special qualifications. Everything about them suggests that they were naïve cannon fodder who were recruited only because they were expendable. 

     As Lewis Carroll wrote in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, "It just gets curiouser and curiouser."  Next, we'll look at the curious aftermath in the fourth and final article of this series.

Part 1: Boundary Conditions, Overview
Part 2: Boundary Conditions for the Pilot Hijackers
Part 4: Boundary Conditions, Aftermath
Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog

Boundary Conditions for the 9/11 Hijackers, Part 2: The Pilot Hijackers

     In the first part of this four-part series, I mentioned the boundary conditions faced by the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.  The plan called for four pilots when not even one pilot was available.  Instead of altering the plan, which is what most strategists would do, this strategist recruited four young men who had never sat at the cockpit of even the smallest of airplanes.

     What follows is the training they received, supposedly in hopes that it would be enough to qualify them to fly complex and difficult maneuvers from the cockpits of Boeing 757 airliners.  Judge for yourself whether Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Hani Hanjour, and Ziad Samir Jarrah met the boundary conditions for a successful completion of their respective operations.  Bear in mind that, unless stated otherwise, all the information in this article came either from 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 7, from Wikipedia articles, or from other established sources.

     Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi (the alleged pilot hijackers of AA11 and UA175, respectively) arrived in the United States in June 2000 and took flight training on small airplanes at Huffman Aviation from July 6 through August 7, 2000, as part of Huffman's "Accelerated Pilot Program."   The term is misleading, because their training was exclusively on a Cessna 172, for which they received instrument ratings in November.  On December 29, they went to Opa-Locka Airport, also in Florida, and practiced on a Boeing 727—not 757—simulator. That, apparently, was the extent of their flight training.

     Between the two of them, Atta was clearly the pilot. Huffman Aviation witnesses told the 9/11 Commission that they’d never seen Marwan al-Shehhi at the controls of an airplane. Huffman Aviation employee Anne Greaves said in an interview, “It was always Atta.”

     Here’s what Wikipedia, the Readers Digest of the dot-com generation, says about Hani Hanjour, the alleged hijacker pilot of UA77:

     “[I]n January 2001, Arizona JetTech flight school managers reported him to the FAA at least five times because his English was inadequate for the commercial pilot’s certificate he had already obtained. It took him five hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours, said Peggy Chevrette. Hanjour failed UA English classes with a 0.26 GPA and a JetTech manager said “He could not fly at all.” His FAA certificate had become invalid late in 1999 when he failed to take a mandatory medical examination. In February, Hanjour began advanced simulator training (for a Boeing 737) in Mesa, Arizona.” 

     Here's what History Commons has to say of Hani Hanjour's training on the 737-200 simulator:

     "9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour practices on a Boeing 737-200 simulator for a total of 21 hours at the JetTech International flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. Hanjour also attends ground school and pays just under $7,500 for the training. Despite only completing 21 of his originally scheduled 34 hours of simulator training, according to the FBI this is the best-trained of the four hijacker pilots (see Spring-Summer 2001). However, an instructor comments: 'Student made numerous errors during performance… including a lack of understanding of some basic concepts… Some of the concepts involved in large jet systems cannot be fully comprehended by someone with only small prop plane experience.' [US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA; ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006 ] The school contacts the FAA to warn it of Hanjour’s poor English and flying skills (see January-February 2001)." (emphasis added) (link)

     In August 2001, only a few weeks before the 9/11 hijackings, Hanjour tried to rent a single engine Cessna 172 from Freeway Airport in Maryland. He was declined when they saw that he had difficulty controlling and landing the plane. (link to source)  Bear in mind that Hani Hanjour was alleged to have executed a perfect 380-degree turn during a steep dive and flown a Boeing 757-200 barely twenty feet above the ground for over a mile before crashing into the first floor of the Pentagon without messing up the neatly manicured lawn.

     Ziad Samir Jarrah didn’t require any flying skills to crash a plane into a few square miles of open field in Pennsylvania. I could have done that myself, and probably would have, though not intentionally. Still, let’s not leave out his pilot training.

     Jarrah took flying lessons at Florida Fight Training, not far from Huffman Aviation, from June 2000 until January 2001. Even today, Florida Flight Training’s fleet of airplanes range from the Cessna 152 to the Piper Turbo Seneca II.  

     Now I ask you the question I asked in the first part of this series, and ask you one more question:

1. If you were planning the most sophisticated terrorist act in history—one that required superb abilities in piloting a Boeing 757—would you have picked as your pilots people who didn’t know how to fly, and try to train them to fly a Boeing 757 in time for the operation to succeed?

2. Given what you now know about the alleged 9/11 hijacker pilots, do you think they had the skill to handle Boeing 757s as described in the official version of events?

     If your answer to either of those questions is, “No,” then the official version of events is a lie. The terror attacks on September 11, 2001, were an inside job.

     A person looking back on historical events tends to see them as though they were inevitable. One may therefore argue that Osama bin Laden had to "make do with what he had."  In reality, though, that's not the way successful projects are planned and carried out. Every successful project takes boundary conditions into account.

  As I pointed out in the previous article in this series, boundary conditions are conditions that must exist for a project to succeed. Boundary conditions may also be seen as the conditions that influence whether a project can succeed.  If your resources fail to meet even one of the boundary conditions, you must either alter your plan or abandon it altogether.

     In the official version of 9/11, Osama bin Laden needed pilots for the project to succeed. He didn't have pilots. In fact, many of the boundary conditions for the official version of the 9/11 attacks simply did not exist. Most of the boundary conditions for events that we know of that day, such as NORAD standing down for over an hour, were completely outside bin Laden's control.

     In any area of research into the events of 9/11, ask yourself two questions:

1. What were the boundary conditions?

2. Who had control over the boundary conditions?

     Answer those two questions and you'll know who was responsible for the events of September 11, 2001.

Part 1: Boundary Conditions, Overview
Part 3: Boundary Conditions for the Muscle Hijackers
Part 4: Boundary Conditions, Aftermath
Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog

Boundary Conditions for the 9/11 Hijackers, Part 1: An Overview

     Every article about the qualifications of the September 11 hijackers I’ve ever seen has been an attempt to answer the question, “Could they have done everything they were accused of doing?” In this article, I take the position of a strategist and ask, “How could anyone with their lack of qualifications have been trusted to do it?”

     In the process of developing a successful strategy, the strategist always considers the boundary conditions.  Boundary conditions are conditions that must be present in order for a strategy to become successful.
     If, for example, you wanted to make lemonade, you'd need water, lemon juice, a sweetener, a container, and a means of mixing the ingredients.  If you lacked even one of those conditions, you'd have to alter your plans or abandon them altogether.  When plans for the September 11, 2001, terror attacks were being formulated, this principle could not have been ignored.

     In this four-part series, we'll examine the boundary conditions for just one aspect of the 9/11 terror attacks: the hijackers themselves.  What were the boundary conditions for how the hijackers were recruited?  What qualifications did they have when they were recruited?  How were they trained to meet the boundary conditions necessary for carrying out their respective tasks?  Finally, did they in fact meet those boundary conditions?
     (Except where otherwise noted, most of the information for this articles came from 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 7 or from Wikipedia articles on 9/11 or the biographies of the alleged hijackers.  I've chosen not to reference specifications for planes, tour buses, or Volkswagens.)
      Discussion of the pilot hijackers' qualifications, can be confusing because only a small minority of the people on Earth are pilots. Fewer still are commercial airline pilots. As such, we have little frame of reference for comprehending what the alleged 9/11 hijackers were said to have done. It’s like the saying, “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” For that reason, let me start with an analogy that should make this mind-boggling question more manageable. 

     Suppose you were starting a tour guide service to be officially launched in less than two years. The tour bus will need a driver. Whom would you hire? Would you hire someone who has never been behind the steering wheel of a car and hope that, within two years, he’d be skillful enough to operate a tour bus?  If the answer to that question is, “Yes,” how would you train him to operate a tour bus—by sending him to a driving school to practice with a Volkswagen?

     Now put yourself in the position of Osama bin Laden, the supposed mastermind of the 9/11 conspiracy. You’re sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, hunched over your laptop, planning the most sophisticated terrorist act in history.

     It’s not an easy feat, especially considering the distractions. The most skillful intelligence agency the world has ever known, the CIA, is looking everywhere for you. Luckily for you, CIA agents never consider that, since you regularly need dialysis treatment, they could be monitoring area hospitals that are properly equipped to perform dialysis treatment. Meanwhile, a CNN reporter just saunters into your cave, sees you concentrating on your work (with knitted eyebrows and tongue sticking out, no doubt) and says, “Whatcha doin’?” You give him a scoop, send him on his way without disemboweling him, and go back to your laptop.

     Hmm, you think, who would make good pilots for a Boeing 757? Would you pick four guys, none of whom has ever sat at the controls of an airplane—not even a Cessna? Would you have them trained exclusively on light aircraft and flight simulators for light aircraft?  Then would you just hope for the best?  Is that how you would plan the most complex terrorist operation in history?
     Who would be suitable as muscle hijackers?  Would you have chosen scrawny, boyish-looking men with an average age of 22, most of whose heights were in the range of 5' 5" to 5'7", and who spoke no English?  Would you have let them wait until they'd arrived in the United States to begin their language training and weight training?
      In the second article of this series, we’ll examine the pilot hijackers—that is, the hijackers who were given responsibility for flying the Boeing 757s. In the third article, we’ll examine the muscle hijackers—the ones whose job was to cow the passengers and flight crew into submission. In the fourth and final article in this series, we’ll look at some post-9/11 events regarding the hijackers.     
Part 2: Boundary Conditions for the Pilot Hijackers
Part 3: Boundary Conditions for the Muscle Hijackers
Part 4: Aftermath
Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog

Why Would Reporters Lie about 9/11 if the Truth is Worth a Pulitzer Prize?

     A 9/11 fact denier named Jonathan Kay recently came up with an age-old counter-conspiracy theory for denying the facts of 9/11: When the facts are against you, keep your opponent’s attention fixed on theories. Here’s how it works:

     Instead of addressing the facts your opponent has presented, insist that he come up with a theory for you to debate. If your opponent fails to come up with a theory and prove it to your satisfaction—of course you should continue to profess yourself unsatisfied—then use that failure to “prove” that his facts are incorrect. Once you’ve found real or imagined weaknesses in your opponent’s theory, you then claim that the weaknesses in his theory, by default, prove your own theory. By that time, innocent bystanders have completely forgotten that all the facts are against you.

     Specifically, Mr. Kay has written something like the following: If the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an abandoned mineshaft in rural Pennsylvania were an inside job, our thoroughly professional and honest corporate media would be clambering for the chance to win a Pulitzer Prize by telling us the truth. That no one in the corporate media has done so, in Kay’s mind, proves that the corporate-owned media’s conspiracy theory is correct.

     Below, I present a simple diagram of how to prove an assertion or find the answer to a question. Then you use reason or agreed-upon premises to determine how or whether those facts support the belief or theory, or answer the question. If they don’t completely answer the question, this is a limitation. You adjust your theory accordingly.

     Nowhere in that graph do you see that you can prove a theory by disproving someone else’s theory. To prove your theory, you must use facts and reason.

This doesn’t mean, though, that Mr. Kay wouldn’t have a point if everything he said were true. In fact, he’s wrong on two points:

1. He’s assuming that no reporters for the corporate-owned media observed any anomalies.

2. He’s also assuming that reporters for the corporate-owned media are answerable to no power other than their individual convictions.

     Here’s where the rubber meets the road. There have been numerous instances when corporate-owned reporters expressed doubts, only to backpeddle after learning that their questions were verboten by their corporate bosses.

     Let’s take the alleged crash into the Pentagon. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre was on the scene. McIntyre was visibly mystified. He claimed that he had inspected the grounds and even the hole and had found no indication that a plane had crashed “anywhere near the Pentagon.” (video)

     In a later broadcast, McIntyre claimed that his inspection had yielded the opposite results. He said he had seen “the wreckage,” and he scoffed at “conspiracy theorists” who questioned whether a plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. He also made excuses for the federal government’s confiscation of the 84 security tapes around the Pentagon. He claimed that the tapes were withheld from the public only because they were evidence in the trial of alleged “20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. McIntyre expressed confidence that the tapes would be released in their “full and unedited form” once the trial was over. (video) The trial ended five years ago, and we’re still waiting.

     Another reporter quoted an eyewitness as saying that he’d seen a “US Air 737” at the Pentagon. The instant the words left the reporter’s lips, his microphone was cut off.

Reporter's mic cut off after saying a "US Air 737" at Pentagon on 9/11.  (video)

     Mike Walter, a reporter for USA Today (another corporate-owned media source) went on camera for CNN and claimed to have seen a commercial airliner crash into the Pentagon. When an independent investigator checked his story and proved that he could not have seen anything from his alleged vantage point, he went on camera for a second time. That time, he was obviously embarrassed to stand before the camera telling a story that no one in his right mind could believe.

     Chew on that one for a moment. Here we have someone doing the exact opposite of what Jonathan Kay says that every reporter would be eager to do. Far from running down a story that might get him a Pulitzer Prize he actually stood there making a fool and a liar of himself in front of millions of people by spinning a yarn that’s more risible than the claim that cookies are baked by elves in hollow trees.  

(First video, confidently lying)

(Later video, uncomfortably lying)

     What about the commercial airliner that allegedly crashed straight down into a ten-foot by twenty-foot abandoned mine shaft in rural Pennsylvania?  The mayor of Shanksville inspected the site and, on local television, announced that there was no airplane there. (video)

    A reporter for Channel 5 News, and another reporter for Fox News (sic) were on the scene. The first reporter said that it’s shocking “how little debris” could be found at the site of the supposed crash—nothing larger than a phone book. The Fox News (sic) reporter said, “[B]asically, there’s nothing there—just a hole in the ground.”  (video)

9 11 Flight 93 crash site no plane

     For comments on the collapse of WTC buildings 1 and 2, we go to the legendary Dan Rather himself. CBS talking head Dan Rather, I hasten to add, was the heir to Walter Cronkite, acclaimed as “the most trusted man in America.”

     Dan Rather said that the collapse of the World Trade Center—including, apparently, WTC building 7—looked like “controlled demolitions.” (video)

     For hours, Dan Rather harped (no, that’s not a play on words) on the probability that an attack of that “sophistication” strongly suggested “the involvement of a state.” He said it at least three times. (video) (video) I haven’t been able to locate the third video, in which a high-level source squelched further talk of that possibility, though I did see the video a few months ago.

     Oh, let’s not forget the report on WTC7, although the 9/11 Commission Report never mentioned it. In case you’ve been living in Plato’s cave for the past ten years, WTC7 was a 47-story building reinforced with over 40 tons of steel specifically designed to withstand collapse. No plane hit WTC7, and the only damage done to it was when a piece of one of the WTC towers broke off 12 feet of parapet.  In spite of all these facts, WTC7 collapsed an nearly free-fall speed.

     BBC had all the proof they needed that 9/11 was an inside job. Instead of spilling the beans in hopes of posthumously receiving a Pulitzer Prize, they had a reporter announce that WTC7 (a.k.a. the Salomon Brothers building) had already collapsed. The problem was, they made this announcement twenty minutes before the collapse occurred. The entire time the reporter talked about the collapse already having occurred, viewers could see WTC7 standing proudly in the background. Five minutes before WTC7 really did collapse, the BBC conveniently lost contact with the reporter. Otherwise, viewers would see the event take place twenty minutes after it had been reported.  (video)

     It isn’t necessary for me to come up with a theory as to why world-famous journalists would choose to tell transparent lies than receive a Pulitzer Prize. The facts speak for themselves.

     I would like to ask a question, though: Would they really receive a Pulitzer Prize; or would they, like dozens of truthful eyewitnesses, receive a tombstone? (video) 

     Or would they prefer to follow the example of Dan Rather in November 1963? When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Dan Rather was just another reporter on the scene in Dallas. Apparently not realizing that the Zapruder film of the assassination would be made public, Rather appeared on television and claimed to have seen on the film that the fatal shot caused JFK’s head to jerk forward. This lie supported the "official" story that Kennedy had been shot from behind. We all now know that Kennedy fell back and to the left, indicating that the fatal bullet had been fired from the grassy knoll. (video)

     Was Dan Rather disgraced as a result of this lie? No, far from it. He went on to New York and rose to the top of his profession. He won seven Peabody awards, several Emmys, and a slew of honorary awards. For a false witness, a successful career like that beats a tombstone any day.

     I had intended for the previous paragraph to be the final paragraph of this article.  Then I ran across the video clip Psychologists Help 9/11 Truth Deniers Accept the Facts.  At first, I thought it was a spoof, but it's not.  It's the real deal, and it's important for people who want to understand the paradigm that causes people to resist the evidence that our government (and, as many of us believe, the Israelis) was involved.

     Please watch it.
For more articles on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Tha Phantom Victims of 911, Part 2

     In the first part of this series, I presented an edited version of an interview with Phil Jayhan and Larry Williams.  On those audio clips, Jayhan and Williams point out that there were an inordinate number of millionaires, billionaires, and other politically well-connected individuals on the that allegedly were hijacked on September 11, 2001.   I pointed out that they made errors in logic in that they assumed that, if the deaths on the airliners were faked, the deaths at the Pentagon and the World Trade Center must also have been faked.  

     From what I've read of the Let's Roll Forums since then, there's reason to suspect that Let's Roll Forums is part of an MSM disinformation campaign.   Whether the suspicion is correct, however, doesn't disqualify information that they present.  Most of what disinformation agents present is true because an abundance of true statements tends to give credibility to the lies they tell.  Even Hitler was quoted as saying, "Tell the truth as often as you can; so that, when you lie, you're more likely to be believed."

     Regardless of whether Let's Roll Forums is a disinfo site or a sincere effort to uncover the truth, it's the reader who bears responsibility for assigning credibility.  When I presented the first part of this series, I admitted that I hadn't investigated their claims but saw their claims as important enough to pass along to you for your consideration.

     Today, I'm presenting the rest of the clips I developed from their four-hour-long, two interviews.  In the first of these, they suggest that flight attendants Carolyn Mayer Beug and Barbara Arestegui did not exist. 

      In the next clip, they point to several anomalies concerning Mark Bingham and Todd Beamer, supposedly on Flight 93.  You're probably familiar with several.  Jayhan and Williams point to yet another: the peculiar behavior of Bingham's "mother" on Good Morning, America.  They way they put it, she smiled all the way through the interview, "looking more like a nervous actress than a grieving mother."  Here's a link so you can judge for yourself. (link)

     Jayhan and Williams also point to facial similarities among many of the supposed 911 victims.  In the absence of other evidence, physical similarities prove nothing, but they do tend to support other evidence.  I checked the photos in a lot of sources other than Let's Roll Forums and found the similarities fascinating.

     The following audio clip is particularly compelling.  Gwendolyn Briley Strand, who claimed in a "documentary" called The Falling Man that her brother was killed at the World Trade Center, was in fact a paid actress.   I checked her web site and verified Jayhan's claims concerning her.
     It's surprising just how many people in the acting profession, and how many false witnesses (such as the "Harley Guy") have been wheeled out to support the official conspiracy theory concerning 911.

     Finally, there's the "911 Memorial Wall," as it is called.  That's the curious event of more than a thousand people spontaneously attaching "lost dog" style, have-you-seen-my-relative posters, contrary to common sense.  Oddly enough, most of them used the same kind of tape.
     From this observation, Jayhan and Williams take the position that very few people actually died at the World Trade Center that day.  That's where I definitely part company with their conclusions.  
     They present compelling evidence that fewer people died than was stated.  It doesn't naturally follow that no more than a few dozen people (my take on their remarks) died.  Judging from what evidence had to be presented for 1,600 of the death certificates issued that day, I'm convinced that at least that many people died in the attacks, mostly at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

     That's the last of the audio clips I've edited from four hours of interviews, but it's not likely to be the last of my remarks concerning the phantom victims of 911.  

     As far as justice is concerned, we blew it on the Kennedy Assassination.  Over the last 47 years, it has faded from a criminal case to a historical curiosity.  In those days, though, there was no Internet, and communication was slower.  

     Let's Roll Forums tends to steer clear of certain lines of inquiry that may be productive.  We shouldn't.  As long as the Internet remains free, and the citizens remain active and interested, we have the prospect of bringing the 911 criminals to justice.
Back to "The Phantom Victims of 9/11: Part 1"

 Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog