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

The Phantom Victims of 911

     In a previous article ("What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?"), I presented compelling evidence that one of Flight 77's alleged passengers was still alive and had assumed a new identity.  In yet another article ("The Lion, the Witch, and the World Trade Center"), I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that some, and possibly all, of the videos of planes hitting the World Trade Center were computer-generated fakes.

     If no planes hit the World Trade Center or the Pentagon, then there were no passengers to be killed at the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.  What happened to the passengers?

     In an attempt to answer that question, at least in part, I've spent the past few weeks editing four hours of audio clips down to less than one hour.  I found them on a web site called Let's Roll Forums.  Jim Fetzer the host of a radio  program called The Real Deal interviews Phil Jayhan and Larry Williams, researchers for Let's Roll Forums.  

     In the following clip, they offer curious facts concerning alleged Flight 11 passenger (and billionaire donor to political causes) Sonia Morales Puopolo.   They repeat themselves in parts of the clips because my edited versions of the clips came from two interviews held a week apart.

     The researchers interviewed here take the position that some of the "victims" never existed, some faked their deaths and assumed new identities, some (Daniel Lewin comes to mind) were spies who were being reassigned, some had already died, and other fit other profiles.

     I believe that the researchers overstate their position by suggesting that very few people actually died in the faked 911 "attacks."  My take on their research is that at least 1,600 (out of the official count of almost 3,000) were killed that day, mostly at the World Trade Center towers and Building 7.  Jayhan and Williams seem to suggest that the actual victims number in the dozens at most.

     Regardless of the count, we agree that there were probably very many fake victims among the real ones.

     Don't accept or reject their ideas as complete packages.  Jayhan and Williams are researchers who have found something important and admit that they are still searching for answers, the same as many of the rest of us.  As likely as not, they are partly right, though they're likely mistaken in some areas. 

     Over the next few days, I intend to upload all of my edited versions of the interviews.  I encourage you to check out some of the articles on Let's Roll Forums.  If you do, do so with awareness that Let's Roll Forums is a collection of researchers who are bouncing facts and ideas around, sifting through them as well as they can, and who often disagree with one another.  They don't pretend to have definitive answers.  

     The search for truth and justice continues.  In the search for truth, skepticism is one of your most effective allies. 
Forward to "The Phantom Victims of 9/11: Part 2"

 Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog   

     

How Disinformation Specialists Hijack Freedom Movements

     You may have had this experience: You receive a feel-good email message that expresses something you’ve been feeling for years. Sure, there are one or two points that don’t quite fit your beliefs, but a few points in a two- or three-page article may be overlooked. It’s the overall, feel-good message that counts. You forward it to others on your email list and forget all about it.

     But wait. What if you re-read the message before passing it on, only this time in a more critical frame of mind? On the second reading, you may realize that, in two or three pages, none of the feel-good passages say anything new. The only new material is in the one or two points that you found disagreeable.

     Welcome to the world of idea placement advertising. It’s kind of like product placement advertising, except that ideas rather than products are being peddled.

     Our minds have a guard at the gate. Each time a message comes to the gate, the guard decides whether the message is true. If it’s considered true, the message is allowed into the short-term memory and, with good behavior, it will be allowed into the long-term memory. At that point, it’ll be hard to erase.

     Try this experiment: Find someone whose name isn’t George and start calling him George. No matter how many times you call him George, the guard at his mental gate will reject the suggestion that that his name is really George.

     The guards at gates, however, can be fooled in a variety of ways. If the guard can be fooled into thinking that it’s not really a message—that it’s really entertainment—the message goes straight to the long-term memory where it becomes one of that person’s core beliefs.

     Remember also the Russian proverb, “The best place to conceal a knife is in plain sight, with a spoon and fork.” That’s one of the ways that the corporate media and other disinformation specialists slip their messages past our brains’ guards at the gate.

     To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Allow me one example: I recently read a feel-good article supposedly written to promote a sense of national unity among Americans but containing a hidden message to support the agenda of the global elite.

     In a recent article, neoconservative propagandist Michelle Malkin wrote an article called “We, the unhyphenated Americans: Meet my people.” Right away, the title of the article makes us feel good.

     From my own perspective, it was pleasing to know that the author is a native Filipina. I lived in the Philippines for four months and formed a fondness and admiration for Filipinos that has endured for 40 years. Many Filipinos attend my church. Thus, for me, Michelle Malkin’s heritage enhances the impressiveness of her article’s title.

     After the first few paragraphs, though, I got suspicious and did a quick Internet search of her professional credentials. Here are some comments I later made concerning what I had found in the article and the Internet search:

     “Michelle Malkin, the author of the...article falls into the same trap (or more likely sets the trap) as the people she derides. In the article, she pretends to be inclusive of all Americans, but "her people," as she calls them, are exclusively Republicans. Don't forget that the Dubya Bush administration and their co-conspirators gave us 9/11, the USA PATRIOT Act, TSA groping and high-tech voyeurism, the Department of Homeland Security, torture, the end of habeas corpus, the end of posse comitatus; and endless wars against literally millions of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

     “Are those criminals "her people"? Apparently so, since she posits everyone who opposes these wars, abuses, and usurpations are people who have no argument beyond accusations of Islamophobia.

     “It's supposed to be an urban legend that people slip razor blades into Halloween candy, but Ms Malkin has given it a new twist and made it a fact. She's slipping poison into a highly agreeable concept.

     “That should not be surprising when you look at her career.

     “She worked in Washington, DC, as a journalism fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Never heard of it? They're funded by the Ford Motor Company Fund, CFR co-founder Exxon Mobile, CFR premium member Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation. The Earhart Foundation is noted for funding such neocon schemes as the American Enterprise Institute which, in turn, gave us the Project for the New American Century, which favored "a new Pearl Harbor" several months before 9/11.

     “She hasn't forgotten who has been feeding her all these years. During her career of barking for her supper, she has barked at the tables of MSNBC, the Boston Globe, and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel.

     “In 2004, when Vietnam War hero John Kerry was running for President against a selfish coward who had pulled strings and even broken a lawful contract to avoid the draft, Michelle Malkin derided Kerry for not being as big a war hero as Kerry had claimed. Through clever wording, she said that Kerry's "wounds were self inflicted." When asked by Chris Matthews whether Malkin's comment implied that Kerry had wounded himself to get a Purple Heart, she ducked the question but allowed the suggestion to stand.

     “Michelle Malkin is clearly a RINO neocon operative whose money trail leads back to the Rockefellers, Goldman Sachs, the disaster capitalists, and other threats to peace and freedom. Be very careful when--or if--you read one of her feel-good articles. Her candy is likely to be laced with arsenic or razor blades.”

     Michelle Malkin is only one of many Trojan horses in the freedom movement. I singled her out only because it was her article that was forwarded to me—not by a disinformation specialist or a paid Internet troll but by an innocent dupe. 

     Remember that the devil comes to us as an angel of light.  Pray for wisdom and freedom from manipulation; and read with care.

The Lion, the Witch, and the World Trade Center

     In the British movie The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, children are shown stepping into a wardrobe and magically finding themselves in a wondrous land called Narnia.

     In series of British movies, Harry Potter and his friends are shown walking through the wall of a train station, harming neither themselves nor the wall. Of course it was done through the magic of computer technology. They then find themselves at Hogwarts, a school for aspiring witches and wizards.

     What about Boeing 757's? Do you think that airplanes in real life can pass through walls that easily? I'll address that question later in this article.

     The most tenacious theory of events occurring on September 11, 2001, is the planes theory: the theory that commercial airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This theory comes in two species. The first is the theory that novice pilots were flying some of the most sophisticated aircraft on Earth and flawlessly executed some highly difficult maneuvers. The second version is that the planes were navigated by remote control.

     A flaw in the second theory was revealed when three professional commercial airline pilots, using computer simulation, attempted to duplicate the official version of the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only one in three was able to duplicate an attack on the World Trade Center. None of them were able to duplicate the attack on the Pentagon because it's impossible for a commercial airliner to fly 20 feet above the ground for over a mile at 530 miles per hour.

     What about the "ball" theory? At the moment that the second tower was struck, a news camera, shooting from a helicopter, on live television, showed what looked like a ball moving toward the South Tower. It was moving at a steep angle, and at a speed too slow to be a commercial airliner.

     No, I'm not going to tell you what the ball was. That's beyond my expertise.  Richard Hall, a former aerospace engineer with remarkable computer skills, has thoroughly examined the question and provided his answers. I, on the other hand, will for now stick to eliminating the impossible.

     My "eureka" moment came at the 3:26 mark of the second part of his video, "9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 2."  That's when I noticed something that Hall didn't seem to have noticed. In fact, I'm not aware that anyone has ever mentioned it.

     At that point, the video shows, in slow motion, the alleged footage of a commercial airliner passing into WTC 2. In this slow motion video, you can see that no glass shatters; no concrete pulverizes, and there are is no explosion. Even more surprising, both wings disappear into the building—supposedly crashing into steel-reinforced concrete at 590 miles per hour—without even slightly buckling. Take a look here.

     After all these years of wondering what happened to the planes—and being told by the 911 Commission that burning jet fuel (kerosene) had vaporized them—I can offer you a more reasonable conclusion: They safely landed at Hogwarts or in Narnia.

     Flight 77, which flew over—not into—the Pentagon, was not seen fading into a building. An unexpected and unrecorded tornado must have snatched it away to the land of Oz, where it suddenly landed on Nancy Pelosi's sister.

     But let's get back to the World Trade Center videos.

     At the 4:24 mark part 1 of the video ("9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 1,") Hall shows a side-by-side comparison of a live shot of the "ball" hitting WTC2 and an almost identical shot from the NBC Evening News. I say "almost" because, in the NBC footage, both the ball and the background are matted out; and the image of a commercial airliner is inserted.  (Link)

     There can be no mistake that the second video clip is a doctored version of the first.

     What about all the witnesses who claim they saw a plane crash into WTC 2?   Only 20% of the witnesses say they saw or heard a plane. Only 5% say they saw and heard a plane. In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo wrote that, if a crowd of people is told that such-and-such happened, you can always count on someone claiming that he saw it.

     Just to make sure that witnesses would claim they saw it, a D-list actor was hired for the job. He remembered his lines in spite of the unrealistic dialogue that was designed to promote the "official" version of events. (Link)

     Okay, so I've presented proof that two of the videos are fakes and that one of the witnesses is a fake. What about the others?  If the other videos and the other witnesses were legitimate, then there was no need to generate fakes—but they did generate fake videos and false witnesses. Since the powers that be saw a need to generate fake videos and false witnesses, then we must reject the theory that commercial airliners crashed into the World Trade Center.

In other articles, I presented abundant evidence against the theory that a commercial airliner had hit the Pentagon.

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/09/official-story-of-911-fairy-tale.html

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/12/world-records-that-guinness-never.html

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-easily-fooled-are-you.html

and

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-happened-to-flight-77s-passengers.html

     In one of these articles, I asked, "What happened to Flight 77's Passengers?"  If no planes hit the World Trade Center, we should ask, "What happened to the passengers of Flights 11, 175, and 77?"

     Reports vary as to how many crew members and passengers were on each of the four planes. If we take the highest number, there were 266 total. That's 233 passengers, 25 flight attendants, and 8 pilots. (Link) 

     The seating capacity (not counting seats available for crew members) for Flight 93, the only one of the planes for which substantial wreckage was found, was 182. Wikipedia gave a higher figure: 289, which I doubt. In either case, I believe that 266 prisoners and Judas goats could have been transported by that one plane.

     In a previous article ("World Records that Guinness never Mentioned") I gave evidence that Flight 93 didn’t crash; it was shot down by a missile.

     Yes, I'm getting into the theory that the planes were switched. Actually, I don't have to go that far.  My theory is that the passengers were switched.

     I'm not going to make the mistake of trying to theorize just how the switch was made. If I did, the theory would become the issue. Any flaw in the theory would give the conspiracy deniers an excuse to draw attention away from the facts.

     Other researchers have offered copious facts supporting their theories, but they were still theories. No, instead of dwelling on theory, I'll simply state the facts.

     On March 13, 1962, the CIA presented then-President Kennedy with a proposal called Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a planned false flag operation designed to blame Cuba for terrorist acts against the United States, thus providing an excuse for an American invasion of Cuba.

     There are two points to consider here. The first is that the CIA had proposed false flags similar to 911 and for the same purpose as 911: to start a war to advance government policy.

     The second point is that Operation Northwoods envisioned the switching of planes to carry out some of the terrorist acts. It isn't necessary to prove that the CIA really could switch planes on 911; it's necessary only to show that the CIA seriously believed that they could switch planes and that they had the will to do so. (Link) 

     It's not likely that all the passengers were shot out of the sky. In a time of panic and confusion, some passengers would have been needed as Judas goats to herd the innocent passengers onto Flight 93.

     I've already provided compelling evidence that at least one September 11 passenger is still alive and living under another name. ("What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?") If my theory is correct, there are likely others. Many researchers have noted that all four flights carried an unusual number of government and military insiders. Some of them may have been the Judas goats, and they may be alive somewhere.  Other researchers are already at work on this issue.

Unwholesome Entanglements

(This is the third of a three-article series. I apologize for its length. It's twice as long as I'd intended and contains half the information I have and had intended to use.)

     One of the most oft-quoted sayings of the Post-9/11 Era has been, “Any people who would give up essential liberties to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The suggestion is that, by shredding the Bill of Rights and other restraints on governmental power, the American people gained some measure of safety, however small or temporary.
Did the American people experience a net gain in safety? I’m inclined to believe that the opposite has occurred.
     Perhaps a more appropriate proverb comes from the late, great character actor Dub Taylor. Describing the work of a con man, he said, “A man with money meets a man with experience. The man with experience gets the money, and the man who had money gets experience."
     We all know that many of our freedoms moved toward Washington. At the same time, however, much of America’s sovereignty—and with it, our government’s ability to safeguard our freedoms and our security—moved toward those who had the experience (to use Dub Taylor’s word) to promise the American people (Dub Taylor’s less inexperienced “man with money”) security.
In her 2007 book, Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein wrote that, since the early 1990’s, Israel has adjusted its economy to accommodate the existence of terrorism. A whopping 60% of Israel’s exports are in the field of security and counter terrorism. As a consequence, the more fear there is of terrorism, the more terrorism boosts Israel’s GDP and the less incentive Israel has for working toward peaceful solutions.
     Pages 534 through 559 are a litany of security areas Israel dominates just in the United States. You name it; Israel is in charge of something in that area.
     For details, I’ll confine myself to things you can check for yourself in reliable sources on the Internet. I don’t want you to have to take my word for it.
Let’s take telephone records and caller ID for starters. An estimated 98% of all telephone calls in America are routed through an Israeli-owned company called AMDOCS. (Click here.)
     Then there’s the anti-virus, anti-spyware program called ZoneAlarm, said to be used by all of the Fortune 100 companies, most of the Fortune 500 companies and countless other companies and individuals throughout the world. What their web site (here) doesn’t tell you is, ZoneAlarm has been owned by the Israeli company Check Point since 2004.
     Check Point’s home page doesn’t tell you that either. (Click here.) For that information, you have to go to Check Point’s “About Us” page. (Click here.) That information begs the question, “Is your computer spying on you?
     Israel’s penchant for spying on the United States is so well known that anyone reading this article probably doesn’t need a link to be convinced of it. Anyone needing a link probably isn’t reading this article. If you haven’t clicked the link for the AMDOCS remark, please do so, and watch the entire video. (Here it is again.)
     This video of a four-part Fox News series reveals that Israeli intelligence had prior knowledge of the September 11, 2001, attacks and failed to give the United States useful information to prevent them from taking place. The most charitable way we can interpret this fact is, Israel felt that protecting their sources and methods was more important than protecting 3,000 American lives.
     Sometime since 9/11, somebody may have emailed you a video of some Middle Eastern college students celebrating the 9/11 attacks. If so, that person probably told you that the students were Arabs. No, they weren’t; they were Israelis. At that time, some 200 Israelis posed as art students as they gathered information on hundreds of sensitive American installations.
     We must consider as well that Israel profited—politically, militarily, and economically—from the 9/11 attacks. As cynical as it sounds, the Israeli government has already shown that its leaders value personal gain over human lives.
     During the 1930’s and ‘40’s, future leaders of Israel were terrorists who freely killed British, Palestinian, and American civilians. The most notorious of these groups was Irgun, whose members included Menachem Begin (future Israeli prime minister) and Benjamin Emanuel (father of de facto US President Rahm Emanuel.) For a listing of Irgun’s terrorist acts, click here. For a partial membership list, click here.
     In 1954, the Israeli Mossad conducted what became known as the Lavon Affair—a false flag operation involving the murder of British, Egyptian, and American civilians with the intent of blaming the murders on the Muslim Brotherhood. (Click here.)
     At the beginning of the Six-day War in 1967, no one could be sure that Israel would win the war in short order. The American spy ship USS Liberty was 14 miles from Israel, in international waters, when the Israeli attack on the Liberty began. It would take several pages to refute all the excuses Israel gave for the attack. To see what really happened, click here and here.
     An oversized United States flag could be clearly seen as Israeli forces bombed, strafed, and torpedoed the Liberty for three hours trying to sink it and blame the sinking on the Egyptians. On orders from U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, no help arrived. The assault stopped only when a Russian spy ship entered the area, inadvertently becoming a witness to the event.
     Israel perpetrated many other false flag attacks on Americans, but the mention of one more should suffice. Many Americans remember the terrorist group headed by a Palestinian named Abu Nadal.
     Many Americans have fairly clear recollections of the hijacking of the Mediterranean cruise ship Achille Lauro. Those of us who do remember it recall our horror and outrage when one of Nadal’s men killed Leon Klinghoffer (shown at left), a 69-year-old American Jew who was dependent on a wheel chair. At the time, Mr. and Mrs. Klinghoffer were celebrating their wedding anniversary.
     It is now known that Abu Nadal was a Mossad penetration agent. Abu Nadal may not have known, but his handlers certainly did. This information was revealed by an Iraqi Jew who had been involved in Iran Contra and other covert operations. (Click here.) The Mossad's purpose in all this was to make the Palestinians look as bad as possible. Now that we know who was really responsible, it's the Israeli government that looks as bad as possible.
     The Mossad pays unscrupulous people to troll Internet chat groups and meet-up groups. (Click here.) When concerned people object to the behavior of the Israeli government, it’s common for paid trolls or a Mossad front group to accuse the writer or speaker of being anti-Semitic. (Click here.)
     That’s one of the ways that psychopaths in the Israeli government use Jews as human shields for their criminal enterprises. If you criticize the Israeli regime and one of those professional liars accuse you of being anti-Semite, remind the liar of what Israel did to Leon Klinghoffer. The gangsters in Tel Aviv couldn’t care less about the Jews; all they desire is power.
     If the words gangster and psychopath seem a mite prickly, consider that criminal psychopaths are far more common than most people realize. Most people subscribe to the Hollywood presentation of psychopaths as dysfunctional people who don’t know what they’re doing. The really scary part of it is, most psychopaths are quite functional and know exactly what they’re doing. (Click here, here, and here.)
     Get a sheet of paper and draw a vertical line down the middle of it. On one side, write the names or sobriquets (Jack the Ripper, the Boston Strangler, etc.) of all the criminal psychopaths you can remember. The ones in government (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.) go on one side. All other criminal psychopaths go on the other. Although people in government are a tiny minority of the human race, I don’t expect that you’ll find very much difference in the lengths of the two lists.
     Now let’s add to the lists. Write the names of people who committed illegal acts (including fraud) that resulted in the deaths of five or more people. (In most U.S. states, the commission of a felony resulting in a death will earn you the death penalty.) I select the number five because that’s the number of people deliberately killed by Jack the Ripper. I’ll offer you three names for starters: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice, who repeatedly committed fraud to get the U.S. involved in a war against the people of Iraq.
     Now the list of government officials committing five or more acts of first degree murder should be much longer than the other list. The list would have to include at least ten United States Presidents.
     Are the leaders of Israel any holier than American leaders? I don’t think so.
If you need further convincing that Israel is ruled by criminal psychopaths, consider the recent Gaza flotilla massacre, a peaceful attempt to deliver necessities of life to the victims of Israel's ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Some of Israel’s victims on the Gaza flotilla were killed execution style. After they had surrendered, they were shot several times in the back of the head. One was an American teenager named Furkin Dogan, whose photo is shown at right. (Click here for autopsy news report.)
     As the world condemned this massacre, the Israelis released a video in which they sang a satirical song called “We Con the World.” Click here to see the Israelis ridiculing, caricaturing, and ethnically stereotyping the people they had murdered.
     I could go on and on with countless other Israeli atrocities, but these few examples should be enough to show that America is not any safer by placing our security in Israeli hands.
What can Americans do to make our nation safer? We as individuals can begin by making sure that we don’t use Israeli-controlled firewalls on our personal and business computers.
     Much of the solution rests in the hands of our congressmen. Under the Constitution, all appropriations must originate in the House of Representatives. Although Israel is the sixteenth richest nation in the world, their government receives the largest amount of U.S. foreign aid. (Click here.) The cost of U.S. foreign aid to Israel from 1976 to 2002 was $1.6 trillion dollars—that’s twice the cost of the Vietnam War. (Click here.) The U.S. continues to underwrite the Israeli regime at the rate of $10 billion a year. (Click here.) All that is for a country whose population is barely one tenth of one percent of the world’s population.
     It gets worse. Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act reads, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” Under section 4 of the Arms Export Control Act, it’s illegal to provide defensive weapons to nations that “abuse their use for non-defensive purposes.” (Click here.)
     The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility for oversight. We should demand that our congressmen do their job by withholding aid to Israel until they live up to international standards of civilized behavior.
     We should also demand that our nation’s security be returned to American control. While this is no panacea, it is a necessary step in reasserting the independence we declared in 1776. Any congressman whose performance in office shows that he represents a foreign nation rather than the American people should be replaced on November 2.
(To go back to part 1 of this series, click here.)
(To go back to part 2 of this series, click here.)
     "Let there be peace, and let it begin with me." The brotherhood of man transcends sovereignty of nations. May people of all religious faiths, nationalities and cultural groups pray together. Pray any day or every day. On the day before congressional elections, pray that the American people, rather than voting on the basis of political party or ideology, will vote for wise and virtuous leaders.