911: Govt-Media Suspends Laws of Physics
    by J. McMICHAEL

I tried to be patriotic.

I tried to believe. I watched those quarter mile high buildings fall
through their jaw-dropping catastrophes over and over again. I
listened to the announcer and the experts explain what had happened.
And I worked at my pitiful lack of faith, pounding my skull with the
remote control and staring on the flickering images on the TV screen.

But poor mental peasant that I am, I could not escape the teachings of
my forefathers. I fear I am trapped in my time, walled off from
further scientific understanding by my inability to abandon the Second
Millennium mindset.

But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of
the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the
official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your
ignorance.

Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:
North tower struck 8:45, collapsed 10:29;
South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50;
(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html)

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is
also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work,
and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers
fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from
generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what
did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents
a gallon on the open market.

Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at
8:45 AM, and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and
black smoke. We can see pictures of the smoke and flames shooting
from the windows.

Then by 9:03 (which time was marked by the second plane's collision
with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke
continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would 
indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still
burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire
with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen 
-- or
both.
http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58_4591-9F50-5976D2
BE2E04.jpg

But by 10:29 AM, the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat
that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building,
causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the
building to the ground.

And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47
minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction.
This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum
fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it
reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel
(steel is about 99% iron; for melting point of iron, see

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html). 

I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled
oxygen or forced air can produce.

And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building
-- 200,000 tons of it (see

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html

for stats). I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup
onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out
to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying
to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can
get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat
brought on very fast, you can heat up the one part of the object, but
the heat will quickly spread out and the part will cool off the moment
you stop.

When the heat source warms the last cold part of the object, the heat
stops escaping and the point of attention can be warmed.
If the north tower collapse was due to heated steel, why did it take
104 minutes to reach the critical temperature? 

(See http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html). 

Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting 
constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel were heated molten - on one plane load of jet fuel? (Quantity of steel in WTC:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html)

Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm)
:
"Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C - hot enough to melt steel floor
supports." That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th
Century, steel melted at 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 F, see

http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html),

but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).

This might be explained as a reporter's mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the
temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of
course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark
skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, and steel and
relevant temperatures discussed at

http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm).

But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold,
and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise,
"Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit
himself to be misquoted in a global publication?

I feel it coming on again -- that horrible cynicism that causes me to
doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. Please just think of this
essay as a plea for help, and do NOT let it interfere with your own
righteous faith. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must
not become another casualty on America's skyline.

In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack
of LP (33 1/3 RPM) records, only they were square instead of circular.
They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple
steel columns stationed in a square around the 103 elevator shafts.(See
 

http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm and
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm)

With this core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were
tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the
outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure.
This resulting structure was so stable that the top of the towers
swayed only three feet in a high wind. The architects called it a
"tube-within-a-tube design."

The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central
columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the
exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor
to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the joints
for the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below,
and so on. Like dominos (see

http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html).

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the
WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history
of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers,
builders, and city inspectors in the job, we can imagine they would be
very careful to over-build every aspect of the building. If one bolt
was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If
there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you
can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract
the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a
reputation for that kind of stupidity -- particularly if there are
casualties.

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many
trades (and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically
capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of
it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength). Given that none of those
floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that
day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum.
Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more
than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC
was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and
the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength.
The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial
trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns,
and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming
a pattern like a spider web (see

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure3
00.gif).

Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine
the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a
bridge -- inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

The experts tell us that the heat of the fire melted the steel,
causing the joints to fail. In order to weaken those joints, a fire
would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the
bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing
that gives me problems -- all the joints between the platter and the
central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to
collapse at the same time -- and at the same rate as the joints with
the outer rim columns on all sides -- else one side of the platter
would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in
the skin of the building, or throwing the top of tower off balance and
to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of the main structure of
those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in
the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

This is particularly worrisome since the first plane struck one side
of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side
where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on
that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near
the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel
to spew out the windows on the adjacent side (see

http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/southtowerpath.jpg).

Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry, spewing dust
in all directions like a Fourth of July sparkler burning to the
ground.

Oh, wait. Here is a picture showing the top 25 floors of one tower
(probably south) toppling over sideways
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg)
.
Why are there no reports of this cube of concrete and steel (measuring
200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 200 ft high), falling from a 1000 feet
into the street below?

But implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition
Inc. in Phoenix, MD is of the opinion that it happened:

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the
1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor,
failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree

(http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm).

I have seen a videotaped rerun of the south tower falling. In that
take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit. All the way, the
upper-floor unit was canted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding
down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery.

That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were
not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the
platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower
floors as a platter WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter
without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where
would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper
floors as they fell?

The only model I can find for the situation would be this: If the fire
melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor
downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported
only by the central columns. This situation would soon become
unstable and the top 40 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's
image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1300 ft. tree.

This model would hold also hold for the north tower. According to
Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor
with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floor
simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of
thousands of tons of concrete and steel?

The amazing thing is that no one (but Loizeaux) even mentions this
phenomenon, much less describing the seismic event it must have
caused.

Where is the ruin where the 200ft x 200ft x 50 story- object struck?
Forty floors should have caused a ray of devastation 500 ft. into the
surrounding cityscape.

In trying to reconstruct and understand this event, we have to know
whether the scenes we are watching are edited or simply shown raw as
they were recorded.

But let us return to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for
long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor
burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the flash
point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an
explosion that consumes the fuel.

Jet fuel boils at temperatures above 176 degrees Celsius (350 F) and
the vapor flashes into flame at 250 degrees Celsius (482 F). In an
environment of 1500 degrees, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor,
and ceiling would boil off very quickly. And then it would either
burn, or run out of oxygen and smother itself. Or it would simply
disperse out the open windows (some New Yorkers claimed they could
smelled the spilled fuel).

In no case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a
fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) for 104 minutes -- unless it was fed
bottled oxygen, forced air, or something else atypical of a fire in a
high-rise office building. Certainly, the carpets, wallpaper,
occasional desks -- nothing else in that office would produce that
temperature. What was burning?

OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of

concrete dust (see

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why). 

No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. 

My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble
under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to
powder. 

But look at the pictures -- it is truly a fine dust in great
billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.
And the people on the ground see little more than an opaque wall of
dust -- with inches of dust filling the streets and the lungs
afterward.

(http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/thirdexplosion.jpg)

What has happened here?

I need a faith booster shot here. 

I would like to find a pictures of all those platters piled up on each other on the ground, just as they fell -- has anyone seen a picture like that? 

I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters pilled up liked flapjacks on the ground floor.

Instead, the satellite pictures show the WTC ruins like an ash pit:
 

http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg
http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/wtcaerial.jpg

I am told by a friend that a Dr. Robert Schuller was on television
telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview
that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From
the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the
building, all was dust. How did that happen?

I have just one other point I need help with -- the steel columns in
the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central
steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have
been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they
should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below,
clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant
trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing
those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I
heard of damage caused by them.

Now I know those terrorist must have been much better at these things
than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with
commercial jets and I would reject it as -- spectacular maybe, but not
significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic military target.

But if I were a kamikaze terrorist, I would try to hit the towers low
in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers
with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the
people in last 20 stories were trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze
pilots aimed for the water line.

But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would
magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a
spot just 20 floors from the top.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html

And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower -- despite a
relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories.

http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nat
ion/graphics/rubble_ny091101.htm

The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario -- the fuel
fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse
of the building - phenomena that the architects and the NY civil
engineering approval committees never dreamed of.

Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for
their genius.

Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events
-- apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but
almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter
catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and
circumlocutions would make a politician blush:

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials
resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage,
would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a
floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal
core, or some combination."

(http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why)

In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has
never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the
experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has
happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.

Is this civil engineering in the Third Millennium -- a galloping case
of perfect hindsight?

Only one I have found candidly admitted his surprise:

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the
1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor,
failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree. That is what was
expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower,
similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says
Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling
over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of
the telescoping. 

(http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm)

There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the
collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and
he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly. But then he
recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly
natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to
make him so smart on the subject so quickly.

Both articles at the Albuquerque Journal:

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm

And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building
collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed,"
too:

"Other buildings - including the 47-story Salomon Brothers
building [WTC 7] - caved in later, weakened by the earlier
collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say
engineers."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm
 

and

http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg)

It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to
galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century,
but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.

Pardon me, but this recitation has not given me the relief I hoped
for. I must get back to work.

I believe in the president, the flag, and the Statue of Liberty. 

I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. 

I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the
truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to the audience.

And I believe all of America is so well educated in the basic physics
discussed above, they would rise up in fury if anyone tried to pull a
cheap Hollywood trick on them.

Hand me that remote, will you? 

I believe . I believe . I believe ...

* * *

J. McMichael

(Celsius/Fahrenheit conversion tool at
http://www.vaxxine.com/mgdsite/celcon.htm)

Edited by Carol A. Valentine
President, Public Action, Inc.
Copyright, October, 2001. May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes.

Wag the WTC: The Blockbuster
    by FINTAN DUNNE (PSYOPNEWS.COM)

What you will discover here will shatter any illusions you have about the reasons behind the World Trade Center attack. 

This 'Wag the WTC' blockbuster is making a pile of money for some.

FACT: The contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene --to cart away the rubble that remains-- is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! Their WTC cleanup contract is worth over $7 Billion. Are you getting the picture?

FACT: The expert widely reported as certain the WTC was demolished --who later changed his mind-- is a demolition explosives specialist from New Mexico Tech Institute. That's precisely where the people first on the Pentagon crash scene were trained. Tech was also a hot tip to get the contract for training the new Federal Air Marshals. Are you getting the picture?

FACT: Most of the World Trade Center changed hands in a $3.
2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance covering buildings and rents -payable to new beneficiaries. Are you getting the picture?

TALL TALES OF THE WAG MOVIE

Let's all hold on to our emotional hats. Let's stop reacting and stop overreacting. 

We are MEANT to react in shock. The whole purpose of the audacious World Trade Center attack was to psych us out.

Does the WTC attack feel like a movie? It does? Well of course it does! It has been specifically written as a movie script. Are you getting the picture? 

Having studied for years how Americans react in movie theaters, the game planners have decided we are now ready for movie spectaculars in real life. 

You are witnessing a cathartic and intense psychological operation. It is designed to alter your perceptions and hence your politics. It's a classic PsyOp. Its a made-for-TV movie with all the cliché blockbuster elements. 

It has mayhem, evil warlords and subtle hints of a military coup. It has terrorists who wrestle for control of Flight 93 with Die Hard have-a-go Bruce Willis clones.

It has final deranged exhortations from a terrorist leader. His last letter is found bundled with a "You Too Can Fly a Plane!" instruction manual and some autographed photos of the great enemy --the legendary Osama Bin Gadaffi Bin Saddam-Laden.

It has whispered good-byes: the departure of the American sailors for war, was portrayed in 'Titanic' style on network TV and in print media coverage.

It has poignant last moments: the raising of the flag on the pile of WTC rubble is a director's steal of the classic Iwo Jima flag scene from W.W.II. They have turned the scenes of this devastation in New York into a movie lot to construct a cultural iconography of war.

This entire sequence of: hijack; first plane; second plane; Pentagon ;WTC collapse; phone calls from the planes; copy of the Koran; more attempted hijackings; arrests; plucky passengers; etc., etc., has been scripted by a crew of cynical planners who could care less that REAL people died in the Twin Towers --not political extras on the international stage of military-industrial machinations.

The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"

Well hold my emotional hat, but I don't see buildings or water. I see a barrage of flimsy plot-bolstering fabrications.

So does award-winning British journalist Robert Fisk -if you read between the lines of his doubts about the authenticity of Mohammed Atta's last letter. In the London Independent, 29 Sept 2001 he questions the "weird references in the note," as he wonders if there is "something more mysterious" going on.

Indeed. Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue. 

But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess, has people are not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air, and Duluth and Vancouver too. Duh! 

But in this "WAG THE WTC II" movie script, nobody knows they are flying over a city for the last ten minutes. And nobody knows what New York looks like. And the stewardess can't tell when an aircraft is descending, so is totally surprised to see buildings and water. Totally.

She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan." 

But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause is in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things.

So let's us also pause, now. Let's jam our emotional hats down firmly and take a look at the MONEY. Let's take a good HARD look at the money. Let's follow the MONEY. Because, there is a mountain of blood-soaked money riding on all this.

VAN THE MAN CHANGES HIS TUNE

No, not Van Morrisson the singer. But, Van 'the man' Romero. The man in the right place, at the right time.

Van Romero is vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMTech). The Socorro university has levered itself into one of the elite sites in the world for the study of explosives and terrorism, attracting nearly $10 million a year in federal money for programs that test explosives for US and foreign agencies. On the morning of the attacks, Romero and Tech's finance vice president Denny Peterson, were near the Pentagon. 

They had come to Washington to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech, leaving them very conveniently located to grab NMTech's slice of the imminent cleanup operation. Because New Mexico Tech offers counter-terrorism training of police and fire first responders to terrorism attacks in the United States!

Within hours Romero was telling the Albuquerque Journal that the collapse of the twin towers could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers. 

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. 

And Romero should know. After all Van is a demolition expert and a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies the effects of explosions on buildings.

Nevertheless, ten days later Romero had changed his mind. Not only that, but the Albuquerque Journal changed their story too. They altered the original web page about Romero's views. It now shows his revised views first. Check it here. 

GREEN CHILI STEW AT THE PENTAGON

New Mexico Tech's success is due in no small part to the advocacy of local Republican representative Joe Skeen, who has lobbied relentlessly on Tech's behalf to lucrative effect. 

Skeen has contacted Israeli representatives about the prospect of having a detachment of fighter aircraft stationed in New Mexico. Israel’s request is under review by the U.S. Department of Defense. 

Meanwhile, Tech's terrorism first responder training is under the auspices of the public /private National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (i.e. military-industrial complex). 

You can find Tech-trained first responders right now at the Pentagon scene. They are busy cleaning-up, in every sense of the word. Skeen has 'hung out with the guys' back at their training camp in the NMTech counter-terrorism facility. So naturally he soon followed Romero to Washington, where he called by the Pentagon crash scene to encourage the NMTech crew. 

Skeen asked if there was anything he could do to make their task easier and the crew responded by asking if there was any green chili in the D.C. area. Skeen said yes and had New Mexico green chili stew delivered to the hotel where the crew is staying. 

"These are the people who have the toughest duty in cleaning up the devastation left by the barbaric acts of terrorists last week," Skeen said. "We owe the people involved in the clean up... a great deal of thanks and gratitude." Indeed. We owe them a great deal of money also.

Tech will gain substantially from domestic counter-terrorism if Joe Skeen has his way. He wrote to President George Bush and relevant federal government agency officials thus: "Guarding against terrorist attacks must be the centerpiece of our plan and New Mexico, particularly New Mexico Tech University, has excellent technical resources in counter-terrorism."

Skeen proposed that the university triple within 60 days its domestic preparedness first responder training. Skeen said New Mexico Tech is prepared to initiate training for Sky Marshals at Roswell Airpark which has a variety of commercial jet liners ranging from 737 to 747 for hands-on training purposes.

"Dr. Dan Lopez, the President of New Mexico Tech has assured me, that all of these resources and any others identified by the government can be made available immediately to our government and I will do all in my power to help you and our country in managing this crisis,'' Skeen noted in his letter to the president. 

Are you getting the picture?

BOOMING BUSINESS IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION 

Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble left by the destruction of the World Trade Center could take up to a year and cost $7 billion, according to Associated Press, 28th September, 2001.

"The New York cleanup will be a gargantuan undertaking, whose scale and magnitude will go beyond the customary types of disasters," said J. Mark Loizeaux, president of Maryland-based Controlled Demolition, who brought down the remains of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Controlled Demolition Group, specializes in building demolition worldwide. They are one of a handful with the expertise to demolish a structure like the World Trade Center. 

"We probably have more experience than anyone on the planet about how to handle this type of debris, and I will tell you right now we don't have all the answers," said Loizeaux. "It is going to be a learning curve for all of those involved, and it is going to take a very long time." 

Given the public's suspicions about the World Trade Center collapse, the presence of Controlled Demolition at the site will hardly assuage their concern. Quite the reverse.

A company with vast demolition smarts has handled the cleanup of the two greatest terror bombings in the US to date.

In the case of Oklahoma building, Controlled Demolition carted off the remains and buried them in a hole in the desert before the smoke had stopped rising from the ruins. Then the rubble was covered over, surrounded by a security fence and guarded.

That was an investigative fiasco -given that there is no way an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil ('ANFO') bomb could have blown away a third of the structure. Furthermore, according to retired blast expert General Ben Partin, the blast velocity of ANFO bombs is incapable of the specific damage observed in the Murrah Building. Military explosive ten times more powerful would be needed to rip concrete away and leave steel reinforcing rods exposed.

A report written by an investigative committee was released earlier this year by the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee. Leading member Charles Key, a former Oklahoma state representative, said the report contains volumes of evidence citing inconsistencies and omissions in the government's official version of events. 

"There is sufficient evidence to confirm that law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma City, as well as Washington, DC, had sufficient prior knowledge of the impending disaster, yet took minimum measures to avert the bombing," the report said. "Documents and witnesses support this conclusion." 

The committee's report also documents "at least four sightings of [additional] bombs inside the [Murrah] building," said Key.

THE PLOT THICKENS

As evidence has mounted, our concerns about the events at the WTC have grown. Yet, at this time there is no credible investigation by any official U. S. agency of the possibility of additional bombs in the World Trade Center. Neither has there been a call by any leading U. S. politician for an official inquiry into these events. 

President Kennedy's death in Dallas at least spawned the Warren Commission investigation. But, so far the only examination of the WTC incidents is taking place on alternative web sites such as this.

WESTFIELD, SILVERSTEIN AND THE WTC GOLDEN GOOSE 

The World Trade Center is a gold mine. And Larry Silverstein knows it. 

Silverstein already owned number Seven WTC, but he led a consortium that just months ago signed a new $3.2 billion US, 99-year lease on the WTC complex. That was the first time the WTC had changed hands in its thirty year history. 

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the 26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and Silverstein the office portion. 

The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July -just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy.

Silverstein was ecstatic at that time. "This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect.

The leased buildings included Numbers One and Two (the Twin Towers), Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (3WTC), U.S. Customs building (6WTC) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building were already under lease. 

Despite the transfer to private hands, the tax payments would still come from the Port Authority -who had been making yearly $25 million payments in lieu of taxes to New York City. The proper figure should be more like $100 million according to city administrators. 

Silverstein is undeterred by the demolition of the complex. He already has somewhat insensitive plans to rebuild. Four towers this time. Although the complex was not insured against an act of war, new policies insured against terrorist damage. 

Which leaves everybody financially consoled, even if not emotionally so. The vendors still have the $3.2 billion they made on the sale. The purchasers lease deal had spanking new insurance --with new beneficiaries-- for capital value and loss of income. 

Silverstein has insurance money to rebuild and get the $110 million of annual rental income flowing again. Or double that with his planned four towers. Nice money if you can get it. Can he?

Not if the insurers could help it. They are the big losers. And they detest having to pay a claim on a policy taken out only weeks before. Indeed, they often delay payment to investigate cases where immediate claims are made against brand new policies. 

YOUR FEEDBACK, 
COMMENTS, TIPS: news@psyopnews.com 

WAG THE WTC PART II
by Fintan Dunne,
coEditor, PsyOpNews.com
Research Kathy McMahon
4th October 2001
news@psyopnews.com

Copyright reserved 2001 www.wagthewtc.com
www.psyopnews.com 
by Fintan Dunne & Kathy McMahon 
Reproduce freely on noncommercial / alternative media.

Operation 911: No Suicide Pilots
    by CAROL VALENTINE

October 6, 2001--There were no "suicide" hijackers aboard those jets 
on September 11. Advanced robotics technology, not the hijackers, 
was controlling the jets when they crashed. Fantastic? Before I 
explain, read about the history-making robot jet plane.

Global Hawk--Here You Have It ...

The Northrop Grumman Global Hawk is a robotized American military jet 
that has a wingspan of a Boeing 737. 

The excerpts below were taken from an article entitled: "Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned," which appeared in the April 24, 2001 edition of Britain's International Television News:

"'The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right 
through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway,' according to 
the Global Hawk's Australian manager Rod Smith.

===

"A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first 
unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean. 

"The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane made flew (sic) 
across the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.
 

"The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent 
to a Boeing 737 [NOTE: two of the aircraft involved in the 911 
crashes were Boeing 757s, two were Boeing 767s] flew from Edwards Air 
Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal 
Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state. 
. . .

"It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors 
the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides 
infra-red and visual images. "

The article is available on the ITN website at this URL:

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm

...Now You Don't

Then, on September 20, 2001, The Economist published comments from a 
former boss of British Airways, Robert Ayling: 

"On autopilot into the future
"Robert Ayling, a former boss of British Airways, suggested in the 
Financial Times this week that aircraft could be commandeered from 
the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack ..."

(as quoted by KC (kettererkey@home.com) on alt.current-events.wtc explosion).

So, even though the ITN article was published on April 24, in 
September, after the 911 crashes, Mr. Ayling is pretending Global 
Hawk technology is a thing of the future. 

Then the New York Times ran this:

". . . In addition, the president [President Bush] said he would give 
grants to airlines to allow them to develop stronger cockpit doors 
and transponders that cannot be switched off from the cockpit. 
Government grants would also be available to pay for video monitors 
that would be placed in the cockpit to alert pilots to trouble in the 
cabin; *** and new technology, probably far in the future, allowing 
air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control.' 
" *** ("Bush to Increase Federal Role in Security at Airports," New 
York Times, Sept. 28, 2001; emphasis added.)

So, then, right after Operation 911 was pulled off, two men of world 
influence were pretending such technology had not yet been perfected. 
That was dishonest. And revealing. 

Run a Google Advanced Search on the phrase "Global Hawk," and you 
will find additional information. Meanwhile, I have attached the 
text of the ITN article at the end of this piece.

America And Its Allies Would Never Attack America!

Now, hold it there! This is US military technology. We all surely 
know that the US and its allies would not conspire to attack America! 
Or do we?

The Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS ) thinks Israel 
is capable of doing exactly that. On September 10, 2001, The 
Washington Times ran a front page story which quoted SAMS officers:

"Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers 
say: 'Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US 
forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.'" ("US troops 
would enforce peace under Army study," Washington Times, Sept.. 10, 
2001, pg. A1, 9.) Just 24 hours after this story appeared, the 
Pentagon was hit and the Arabs were being blamed.

These SAMS officers are obviously interested in protecting their 
country, but not all Americans are. Some are traitors and pay 
allegiance to Israel. Recall the June 8, 1967, Israeli attack on the 
USS Liberty, and American complicity in the attack.

During the Six Day War, the Liberty, an American intelligence 
gathering ship, was sailing in international waters. Israeli 
aircraft and torpedo boats attacked it for 75 minutes. 

http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/

When four US fighter jets from a nearby aircraft carrier came to 
protect the Liberty, US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara ordered the 
jets NOT to come to the Liberty's aid, and allowed the Israeli attack 
to continue. Thirty-four Americans were killed and 171 wounded. 

http://ennes.org/jim/ussliberty/chapter6.htm

Now consider Operation Northwoods: In 1962, US military leaders 
designed a plan to conduct terrorist acts against Americans and blame 
Cuba, to create popular sentiment for invasion of that country. 
Operation Northwoods included:

* Plans to shoot down a CIA plane designed to replicate a passenger 
flight and announce that Cuban forces shot it down. 

* Creation of military casualties by blowing up a US ship in 
Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba: "....casualty lists in the US 
newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation," and

* Development of a terror campaign in the Miami and Washington, DC.

Information on Operation Northwoods can be found in James Bamford's 
"Body of Secrets," (Doubleday, 2001), and at the following URLs.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.md.nsa24apr24.story
http://www.earlham.edu/archive/opf-l/May-2001/msg00062.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

In other words, US allies and people within the US military 
establishment are not opposed to killing American servicemen and 
civilians, given the right goal.

Why Take Chances?

Put yourself in the shoes of the masterminds of Operation 911. 

The attacks had to be tightly coordinated. Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it was over. The masterminds couldn't afford to take needless chances. 

Years ago I saw a local TV news reporter interview a New York mugger 
about the occupational hazards of his trade. "It's a very, very 
dangerous trade," the mugger informed the interviewer. "Some of 
these people are crazy! They fight back! You can get hurt!"

If a freelance New York mugger realized the unpredictable nature of 
human behavior, surely the pros who pulled this job off must have 
known the same truth. Yet we are asked to believe that the culprits 
took four jet airliners, with four sets of crew and four sets of 
passengers -- armed with (depending on the news reports you read) 
"knives," "plastic knives" and box cutters. 

Given the crazy and unpredictable nature of humans, why would they try this bold plan when they were so poorly armed?

A lady's handbag -- given the weight of the contents most women 
insist on packing -- is an awesome weapon. I know, I have used mine 
in self defense. 

Are we to believe that none of the women had the testosterone to knock those flimsy little weapons out of the hijackers' hands? And what of the briefcases most men carry? Thrown, those briefcase can be potent weapons. Your ordinary every-day New York mugger would never take the chances that our culprits took. 

Flight attendant Michelle Heidenberger was on board Flight 77. She 
had been "trained to handle a hijacking. She knew not to let anyone 
in the cockpit. She knew to tell the hijacker that she didn't have a 
key and would have to call the pilots. None of her training 
mattered." (Washington Post, "On flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being 
Hijacked." September 12, 2001, pgs. A 1, 11.)

That's right, The Washington Post for once is telling the whole 
truth. Heidenberger's training didn't matter, the pilots' training 
didn't matter, the ladies handbags didn't matter, the mens' 
briefcases didn't matter. 

The masterminds of Operation 911 knew that whatever happened aboard those flights, the control of the planes was in their hands. Even if the crew and passengers fought back, my hypothesis is that they *could not* have regained control of the planes, for the planes were being controlled by Global Hawk technology.

Flight 77: "The Plane Was Flown With Extraordinary Skill"

Once again: Operation 911 demanded that the attacks be tightly 
coordinated. Four jets took off within 15 minutes of each other at 
Boston, Dulles, and Newark airports, and roughly two hours later, it 
was over. If we are to believe the story we are being told, the 
masterminds needed, at an absolute minimum, pilots who could actually 
fly the planes and who could arrive at the right place at the right 
time. 

American Airlines Flight 77, Boeing 757, took off from Dulles Airport 
in Northern virginia at 8:10 a.m. and crashed into the Pentagon at 
9:40 a.m. The Washington Post's September 12 says this: "Aviation 
sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, 
making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, 
possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the 
transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious." 

According to the article, the air traffic controllers "had time to 
warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the 
president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed--full 
throttle. 

"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the 
White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it 
reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 
degrees from the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, 
whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from 
controller's screens, the sources said," (pg. 11). (Washington Post, 
September 12, 2001, "On Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked., 
pgs. 1 & 11. )

Meet Ace Suicide Pilot Hani Hanjour

Let's look at what we know about the alleged suicide pilot of 
American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour. According to press 
reports, Hanjour had used Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport three 
times since mid-August as he attempted to get permission to use one 
of the airport's planes. This from The Prince George's [Maryland] 
Journal September 18, 2001: 

"Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said 
the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with 
instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of 
August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport.

"According to published reports, law enforcement sources say Hanjour, 
in his mid-twenties, is suspected of crashing the American Airlines 
Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
. . .

"Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed what is 
called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills 
before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which 
runs parallel to Route 50.

"Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the 
air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour 
seemed disappointed.

. . .

"Published reports said Hanjour obtained his pilot's license in April 
of 1999, but it expired six months later because he did not complete 
a required medical exam. He also was trained for a few months at a 
private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the 
course because instructors felt he was not capable.

"Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and 
instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the 
amount of experience .Š Pete Goulatta, a special agent and spokesman 
for the FBI, said it is an on-going criminal investigation and he 
could not comment." (pg. 1.)

If you were the mastermind who planned this breathtaking terrorist 
attack, would you trust a man who took 600 hours of flying time and 
still could not do the job? Who was paying for Hanjour's lessons, 
and why?

Yet this is the man the FBI would have us believe flew Flight 77 into 
the Pentagon "with extraordinary skill." He could not even fly a 
Cessna 172! 

Yes, maneuvering a Boeing 757 into a 270 degree turn under tense 
conditions (remember, the culprits were outmanned and had crude, non 
lethal weapons) demanded the skill of a fighter pilot. But why would 
those bad, bad, Muslims want to do such a thing? 

By shifting the plane's position so radically, Flight 77 managed to 
hit the side of the Pentagon *directly opposite* the side on which 
the offices of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chief of Staff were 
located. (Coincidentally, Flight 77 hit the offices of Army 
operations (US News and World Report, Sept. 14, 2001, pg. 25. 
Recall, it was the Army that warned of the possibility that Israel's 
Mossad might make a terror attack against the US.) The masterminds 
of Operation 911 were prepared to sacrifice the rank and file, but 
carefully avoided touching a hair on the head of the brass. 

It reminds one of Operation Northwoods, doesn't it? Remember the 
rank and file sailors who were to be sacrificed on a US Naval vessel 
in Guantanamo Bay, in order to justify war with Cuba? No, neither 
Hanjour nor any other Muslim suicide pilot was at the controls of 
this plane. It had been fitted with Global Hawk technology and was 
being remotely controlled.

Let's Meet The Other Aces

According to The Washington Post (September 19, 2001, "Hijack 
Suspects Tried Many Flight Schools," Mohammed Atta, alleged hijacker 
of Flight 11, and Marwanal-Al-Shehhi, alleged hijacker of Flight 175, 
both of which crashed into the World Trade Center, attended hundreds 
of hours of lessons at Huffman Aviation, a flight school in Venice, 
Florida. They also took lessons at Jones Aviation Flying Service 
Inc., which operates from the Sarasota Bradenton International 
Airport. According to the Post, neither experience "worked out."

"A flight instructor at Jones who asked not be identified said Atta 
and Al Shehhi arrived in September or October" and asked to be given 
flight training. Atta, the instructor said, was particularly 
difficult. "He would not look at your face," the instructor said. 
'When you talked to him, he could not look you in the eye. His 
attention span was very short."

The instructor said neither man was able to pass a Stage I rating 
test to track and intercept. After offering some harsh words, the 
instructor said, the two moved on .... "We didn't kick them out, but 
they didn't live up to our standards." (page A 15.)

Or try the Washington Post: Alleged hijackers Nawaq Alhazmi (Flight 
77), Khaid Al-Midhar (Flight 77) and Hani Hanjour (Flight 77) all 
spent time in San Diego. "Two of the men, Alhazmi and Al-Midhar, 
also briefly attended a local fight school, but they were dropped 
because of their limited English and incompetence at the controls....

"Last spring, two of the men visited Montgomery Field, a community 
airport ... and sought flying lessons. They spoke to instructors at 
Sorbi's Flying Club, which allowed them to take only two lessons 
before advising them to quit.

"'Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even 
worse,' said an instructor, who asked not to be named. 'It was like 
they had hardly even ever driven a car .....'

"'They seemed like nice guys,' the instructor said, 'but in the 
plane, they were dumb and dumber.'" ("San Diegans See Area as Likely 
Target," Washington Post, September 24, 2001, pg. A7.)

But the masterminds would not need competent pilots -- if they had 
Global Hawk technology.

Missing: Air Traffic Control Conversations

Now, let's look at the contemporaneous media coverage of Operation 
911. Did you notice that during the event and for weeks after, we 
heard no excerpts from the conversations between the air traffic 
control centers and the pilots of the four aircraft?

Those conversations are recorded by the air traffic control centers. 
Surely those conversations were newsworthy. They should have been 
available to the media immediately. Why didn't we hear them? I 
believe the answer to this question is simple:

If we could hear the conversations that took place, we would hear the 
airline pilots telling air traffic control that the controls of their 
airplanes would not respond. The pilots, of course, would have no 
way of knowing that their craft had been fitted with Global Hawk 
technology programmed to take over their planes. 

But no, we MUST believe the crashes were the work of Muslim 
terrorists. Therefore we were not permitted to hear the news as it 
happened. We will have to wait for the FBI/military intelligence 
people to cook up doctored and fictional conversations. They will 
then serve them to the public through the complicitous mass media and 
strategically placed "investigative reporters," and we will be asked 
to swallow them. Many of us will. (See Christian Science Monitor 
story discussed below, in "Conversations with Flight 11.")

Yassaboss

That the airlines cooperated and did whatever the FBI told them to do 
is no secret. The Washington Post of September 12, 2001, says this: 
"Details about who was on Flight 77, when it took off and what 
happened on board were tightly held by airline, airport and security 
officials last night. All said that the FBI had asked them not to 
divulge details." 

Think back to Operation Northwoods in which the Pentagon considered 
reporting a bogus passenger airplane being shot down by a 
non-existent Cuban fighter jet. The Pentagon was obviously confident 
that some airline would go along with the deception. Not 
surprising, considering many commercial airline pilots and executives 
are former military pilots, and the government controls the airline 
industry in many ways. These pilots and executives were trained to 
do as they are told, and would be out of a job if they broke the 
rules.

Why would the take-off time and the passenger list be held secret? 
The passengers, crew, and culprits were all dead. The relatives must 
have known that when they heard the news of the crashes. Flight 
departure and arrival times had been public knowledge. The 
masterminds knew the details of their own plans. 

No, it was the PUBLIC that was being denied information, and the 
significant information being denied was the conversations between 
the air traffic controllers and the pilots. Recall that during the 
Vietnam War, the US "secretly" bombed Cambodia. The bombing was no 
secret to the Cambodians. It was only a secret from the American 
public, who were paying for the war and may have objected to the 
slaughter. And that's the only purpose of the Operation 911 secrecy: 
To keep the information from the public.

Communication With Flight 11

American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767, left Boston at 7:59 a.m. 
on its way to Los Angeles. It was allegedly piloted by Mohamed Atta, 
one of the pilots who couldn't fly, discussed above. Flight 11 
crashed into the north tower of the WTC at 8:45 a.m.

"Boston airport officials said they did not spot the plane's course 
until it had crashed, and said the control tower had no unusual 
communications with the pilots or any crew member." (Washington Post, 
September 12, 2001, "At Logan Airport, Nobody Saw Plane's Sharp Turn 
South," pg. A 10.) 

Sorry, this report is not credible. Airplanes are tracked 
constantly. The skies over the US are for too busy for us to have a 
lackadaisical attitude. 

Note the date of the Washington Post story: September 12. Now 
compare it to the very different story that appeared a day later, in 
the Christian Science Monitor:

"An American Airlines pilot stayed at the helm of hijacked Flight 11 
much of the way from Boston to New York, sending surreptitious radio 
transmissions to authorities on the ground as he flew. 

"Because the pilot's voice was seldom heard in these covert 
transmissions, it was not clear to the listening air-traffic 
controllers which of the two pilots was flying the Boeing 767. What 
is clear is that the pilot was secretly trying to convey to 
authorities the flight's desperate situation, according to 
controllers familiar with the tense minutes after Flight 11 was 
hijacked.

The story goes on to say that the conversations were overheard by the 
controllers because the pilot had pushed a "push-to-talk" button. 
"When he [the pilot] pushed the button and the terrorist spoke, we 
knew. There was this voice that was threatening the pilot, and it 
was clearly threatening. During these transmissions, the pilot's 
voice and the heavily accented voice of a hijacker were clearly 
audible ...."

There are some logical problems with this account, of course, not the 
least of which is that a) we are told the pilot's voice was seldom 
heard, b) it was not possible to tell which pilot was at the 
controls, and c) during the transmissions the pilot's voice was 
clearly audible.

This accounting is spook talk. Let's get to the heart:

"All of it was recorded by a Federal Aviation Administration traffic 
control center. Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands of 
federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-control 
facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center. 
The tapes presumably could provide clues about the hijackers -- and 
may become even more important if they plane's 'black boxes' are 
damaged or never found." ("Controllers' tale of Flight 11," The 
Christian Science Monitor, September 13, 2001.)

So, yes, the same "federal law-enforcement" machinery that cooked up 
the David Koresh negotiation tapes and arranged to destroy the 
evidence at the Mt. Carmel Center in the April 19 inferno will be 
handling these records, too. 

Flight 175

The Washington Post reported a similar story for United Airlines 
Flight 175, which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade 
Center tower at 9:06 a.m. 

"Less than 30 minutes into a journey that was to have taken six 
hours, Flight 175 took a sharp turn south into central New Jersey, 
near Trenton, an unusual diversion for a plane heading west, airline 
employees said. It then headed directly toward Manhattan.

"Somewhere between Philadelphia and Newark--less than 90 minutes from 
Manhattan--the aircraft made its final radar contact, according to a 
statement released by United Airlines," (Washington Post, 
"'Everything Seemed Normal When They Left' Boston Airport," September 
12, 2001, pg. A10.)

Once again, there was no contemporaneous, detailed, first hand 
information from the air traffic controllers about communication from 
the air traffic controllers.

Of course the controls would not respond to manual directions if they 
were under the control of Global Hawk.

Flight 11/Flight 175 Hijacker Passport Found

We have just mentioned the distinct possibility that the masterminds 
of Operation 911 will manufacture evidence. Well, here is a CNN 
story for your consideration:

"In New York, several blocks from the ruins of the World Trade 
Center, a passport authorities said belonged to one of the hijackers 
was discovered a few days ago, according to city Police Commissioner 
Bernard Kerik. That has prompted the FBI and police to widen the 
search area beyond the immediate crash site." ("Leaders urge 
'normal' Monday after week of terror ..." September 16, 2001 Posted: 
7:07 p.m. EDT (2307 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.america.under.attack/

We are asked to believe that one of the hijackers brought his 
passport with him on a domestic fight, even though he knew he would 
not need it then, or ever again; that upon impact the passport flew 
from the hijacker's pocket (or was he holding it in his hands?), that 
the passport flew out of the aircraft, that it flew out of the 
burning tower, and that it was carried by the air currents and landed 
safely, where it could be discovered, several blocks away ...

Lawd, WHO WRITES THIS STUFF?

Flight 93

United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, was scheduled to leave 
Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco. We are told it 
crashed into an abandoned coal mine near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, 
at 10:37 a.m., one hour and 50 minutes after the first World Trade 
Center tower was hit.

Without a doubt, Flight 93 was *shot* down. The first TV network 
reports said exactly that: Flight 93 had been shot down by a 
military jet. That information even made it into the print media.

"Local residents said they had seen a second plane in the area, 
possibly an F-16 fighter, and burning debris falling from the sky. 
[FBI Agent] Crowley said investigators had determined that two other 
planes were nearby but didn't know if either was military. " 
("Stories swirl around Pa. crash; black box found," USA Today, 
September 14, 2001. )

"Pieces of the wreckage have been found as far away as New Baltimore, 
about eight miles from the crash site. When the eastbound plane 
crashed, a 9-knot wind was blowing from the southeast, [FBI Agent] 
Crowley said. ("Bereaved may visit Flight 93 site," Pittsburgh 
Tribune-Review, Friday, September 14, 2001.)

On September 11, "[r]esidents and workers at businesses outside 
Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, 
papers, and what appear to be human remains. Some residents said 
they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. 
Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian 
Lake, nearly six miles from the crash site." ("Investigators locate 
'black box' rom Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash," 
[Pittsburgh] Post Gazette, September 13, 2001.)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

The Washington Post reported that, just as Congressional leaders were 
discussing shooting the plane down, they learned it had crashed. 
("Jetliner Was Diverted Toward Washington Before Crash in Pa," Sept. 
12, 2001, pg. A10.) The North American Aerospace Defense Command 
(NORAD) and the FBI denied that the plane had been shot down. 

The FBI blamed the spread of debris over an 8-mile area on a 10 mph 
wind that was blowing at the time. Of the debris, TIME Magazine of 
September 11 says: "The largest pieces of the plane still extant are 
barely bigger than a telephone book." (Pages in this edition are 
not numbered: this quote appears on what should be pg. 40). 

Planes that crash do not disintegrate in this manner. However, the 
assertion that the hijackers had a bomb on board, and the bomb 
exploded, might provide an explanation for the disintegration. 

There is a problem with this story, however: Hijackers who planned 
to crash the plane into the Capitol would not want, or need, a bomb. 
In fact, a bomb might be counterproductive: Suppose it went off 
before hitting the plane hit the Capitol? The mission would be 
ruined. Bringing a bomb on board would greatly increase chances the 
hijacker who carried the bomb would be detected when boarding. And 
it's hard to imagine why hijackers would mutilate and dismember 
passengers with plastic knives and box cutters when they were 
planning to blow them up, anyway. No, the bomb story does not wash. 
You can read one such story at:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp

Missing Air Traffic Control Conversations

According to a an ABC news report by Peter Dizikes on September 13: 
"Federal Aviation Administration data shows Flight 93 followed its 
normal flight plan until it neared Cleveland, where the plane took a 
hard turn south. 

"That marks the point at which the plane must have been hijacked, 
investigators say. Then it took a turn east."

Note that the investigators used the phrase "must have been" 
hijacked. Didn't they know? Weren't the air traffic controllers in 
touch with the pilots? But the direction changes with the next 
paragraph:

"ABCTVNEWS has learned that shortly before the plane changed 
directions, someone in the cockpit radioed in and asked the FAA for a 
new flight plan, with a final destination of Washington."

Now THAT conversation must have been interesting! You can imagine 
the response of the air traffic controller: "Excuse me? Flight 93, 
you're in the middle of a scheduled trip to San Francisco, but you're 
just changed your mind and want to spend the day in Washington? 
Please explain."

According to an MSNBC story of September 22, 2001, Flight 93 was late 
taking off, and did not make its way down the runway until 8:41 a.m. 
("The Final Moments of Flight 93,")
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
It was aloft for almost two hours, crashing at 10:37 a.m. Making a 
rough estimate from the distances traveled and the time in the air 
(see TIME Magazine, September 11, "The Paths of Destruction" ), 
Flight 93 went off course sometime between 9:45 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. 
Recall that both towers had been hit by 9:06 a.m., and the New York 
airports had been closed since 9:17 a.m. It would have been 
impossible for an air traffic controller on duty between 9:45--10:00 
a.m. not to know that commercial air traffic in the US was in a dire 
emergency from "suicide planes."

And now Flight 93 calls in, asking permission to do a U-turn, fly 
east an hour and a half, and land in Washington DC ??? What, the 
pilot was nervous and didn't know there were airports in the midwest? 

I'd love to hear the REAL conversation between Flight 93 and the air 
traffic controllers, wouldn't you? But I think we'll have to wait a 
while ...

Come to think of it, why would a *hijacker* call in to ask for an OK 
to change directions?

Conflicting And Unbelievable Reports

The networks dropped the story that Flight 93 had been shot down and 
now said that Flight 93 passengers called their families and 
described a hijacking. The hijackers were armed with box razors, and 
overwhelmed the passengers and crew, and told the passengers they 
planned to crash into the Capitol in Washington, DC. The hijackers 
also mutilated and dismembered the passengers, presumably with their 
plastic knives and box cutters. What a messy job that must have 
been! We were not told if the hijackers chatted to the passengers 
about their plans before, after, or while they were committing the 
mutilation/dismemberment. (I heard the mutilation/dismemberment story 
once while watching network TV coverage. Then the story was dropped.)

On the other hand, TIME Magazine reported that one of the passengers 
called home to say: "We have been hijacked. They are being kind." 
(TIME, Sept. 24, pg. 73.) 

Are we believing this? I'm not. 

No. Something went wrong with the masterminds' plan. They could 
not afford to have Flight 93 make a conventional landing and allow 
the pilots and passengers to talk about their experience. They could 
not afford to have the "hijackers" survive and the electronic 
controls of the plane examined. So Flight 93 was shot down. 

Who Were Those People, Anyway?

Before September 11, the combined forces of US military and domestic 
intelligence -- the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
the National Security Agency -- were clueless that such a 
catastrophic event would occur. Yet a day or so later, the FBI had 
secured the names and mugshots of each of the 19 hijackers. How did 
the FBI know who the hijackers were? After all, all the eyewitnesses 
are dead. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims 
and hijacker Muslims on those flights? Or did they just go through 
the passenger lists culling out the Muslim-sounding names and 
labeling the people bearing those names as hijackers? "You're Muslim 
so you're a hijacker..."

On September 30 I looked at the passenger lists of those four 
flights. To my surprise, the lists contained none of the hijackers' 
names. Here are the URLs I checked:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html
 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html
 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
 

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

Then I went searching on Usenet for more information. I found that 

had noticed the hijackers' names were not on the 
passenger lists on September 27, on alt.culture.alaska, "Re: BLACK 
BOXES AND BODIES -(2). " I don't know what you'll find when you look 
at the passenger lists, but the historical record is there.

The FBI may be lying, of course, and the airlines telling the truth: 
Perhaps none of the "hijackers' were passengers on those four planes. 
If that is true, the airlines are helping the FBI commit a most 
grievous fraud on the public. What does that say for the airlines' 
integrity? In either case, we can place little confidence in the 
veracity of the information in those lists. Names could have been 
added just as easily as they may have been deleted.

Don't Take The Credit, Take The Blame

By now you've realized that it's OK to believe in conspiracies 
provided they are Muslim conspiracies. In fact, we MUST believe 
that a man who dresses in sheets lives in a tent or a cave in the 
middle of nowhere - Osama bin Laden -- was the mastermind. He used 
his $300 million fortune to pull off Operation 911. Come to think of 
it, how do we know the size of his fortune? Does the FBI know his 
banker? And given that the world's banking system is highly 
centralized and in the hands of Mr. bin Laden's avowed enemies, how 
could our terrorist tent-dweller have retained his fortune all these 
years? If Mr. bin Laden could have pulled this off in New York, why 
didn't he pick on his more direct enemy, Israel, and do a 911 on them?

Brilliant as Mr. bin Laden is, he forgot to take credit for the 
attack. Even worse, he forgot to issue any demands. He allowed his 
operatives to use their Muslim names and leave a clear trail for the 
FBI to follow. Mr. Atta, the pilot of Flight 11 (north World Trade 
Center), was particularly helpful. He kindly left his car at the 
Boston Airport. Luckily, an unnamed source drew the FBI's attention 
to this car. According to radio reports, the FBI found a suicide 
note written in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in the car. Mr. Atta 
liked to write in Arabic; he wrote a second, long document in that 
language, which, for some reason, he put in his luggage. 
Coincidentally, this luggage did not make it to Flight 11, so the FBI 
found it at the airport. Another lucky break! But why Mr. Atta 
would take luggage on a suicide mission has not been explained. The 
same note was carried by one of the hijackers on Flight 93, and, 
Mother of Miracles! survived the crash, even though the airplane 
itself was torn into shards. Everything was so amazing that Bob 
Woodward, the man who talks to the dead, was called in to write 
a 
story about it all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37629 2001Sep27.html

Read Mr. Woodward's article. Mr. Atta sounds like a lawyer with his wires crossed, exhorting his co-conspirators to remember their wills and reminding them that Mohammed was an "optimist;" exhorting his fellows to "utilize" (ugh--there's a lawyer's word for you -- what's Arabic for "utilize"?) their few hours left to ask God's forgiveness. God's forgiveness for what? They were about to 
die heros, martyrs in the good cause ...

Sure, we believe every word. We swallow the whole story.

On the other hand, here is the International Television News article 
on the Global Hawk:

===

Robot plane flies Pacific unmanned
http://www.itn.co.uk/news/20010424/world/05robotplane.shtm
(ITN Entertainment April 24, 2001)
---
"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from take-off, right 
through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway." - Australian 
Global Hawk manager Rod Smith.
---

A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first 
unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean.

The American high-altitude Global Hawk spy plane made flew (sic) 
across the ocean to Australia, defence officials confirmed.

The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to 
a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and 
landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at 
Edinburgh, in South Australia state.

The 8600 mile (13840 km) flight, at an altitude of almost 12.5 miles 
(20 km), took 22 hours and set a world record for the furthest a 
robotic aircraft has flown between two points.

The Global Hawk flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot 
monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which 
provides infra-red and visual images.

"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right 
through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway," said Rod Smith, 
the Australian Global Hawk manager.

"While in Australia, the Global Hawk will fly about 12 maritime 
surveillance and reconnaissance missions around Australia's remote 
coastline.

"It can fly non-stop for 36 hours and search 52,895 square miles 
(37,000 square km) in 24 hours. Australia is assessing the aircraft 
and might buy it in the future.

"Emerging systems such as the Global Hawk offer Australia great 
potential for surveillance, reconnaissance and ultimately the