Sunday, March 18, 2007

My Top 10 Smoking Guns that 9/11 was an Inside Job

by Larry Simons
March 18, 2007

This was a tough task. Finding 10 smoking guns of 9/11? No.....narrowing it down to 10. I left out important smoking guns like "No Arab names on flight manifests on ALL 4 planes", the "PNAC (Project For the New American Century)", the "Bush-bin Laden connection", "Advanced warnings" and the "NIST report". Here, I narrow it down to 10. At different times some of these smoking guns have been higher/lower on my list. I ranked them mainly by plausibility that these things could have happened outside of government complicity. You may not agree with my rankings, and that's ok. But, we all should agree on one thing.....9/11 was an inside job.

10. FBI agents warned off anti-terror cases

Whistleblowing FBI agents have gone public alleging that they were threatened and impeded in certain anti-terrorism investigations in the months prior to 9/11.

Agent: FBI Could Have Prevented 9-11

WASHINGTON – A veteran FBI agent Thursday charged that corruption inside the bureau derailed investigations that could have averted the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11. His lawyers said the FBI had evidence that the World Trade Center was a possible terrorist target.
In a memo written 91 days before Sept. 11, Special Agent Robert G. Wright Jr. warned that Americans would die as a result of the FBI's failure to investigate terrorists living in this country.
Wright went public at a press conference even though FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered him to stay in Chicago and threatened him with criminal prosecution if he spoke publicly about the agency's wrongdoing.
"The FBI is not protecting the American people," declared Wright at a conference sponsored by his attorneys at the public interest law firm Judicial Watch.
"... [There is] virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing in the United States. Unfortunately, more terrorist attacks against the American interests, coupled with the loss of American lives, will have to occur before those in power give this matter the urgent attention it deserves..."

Newsmax, 31 May 2002

9. The 9/11 Commission Report: "a 571 page lie"

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) was a supposedly independent all-encompassing investigation into the events of 9/11. Such an enquiry was initially resisted by the Bush administration who saw it as an waste of resources. When public pressure finally forced them to act, the administration placed many obstacles in the enquiry's path, including giving it extremely meager funding and by putting Henry Kissinger in charge. Kissinger resigned facing questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Kissinger resigns as head of 9/11 commission

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Facing questions about potential conflicts of interest, Henry Kissinger resigned Friday as chairman of the September 11 commission.
President Bush named Kissinger to lead the 10-member commission last month, dropping his longstanding opposition to an independent probe of the events leading up to the September 11 terrorist attacks... (CNN, 13 December 2004)

The report, which was published in August 2004, has been criticized by philosopher and former Professor of Theology David Ray Griffin, who has written two books and given lectures on the subject of the attacks. In his book The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, he dissects the official enquiry, and has described it as a "571 page lie". Griffin has summarised more than 100 points from the report that he describes as implicit or explicit lies, some of which include:

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air...
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent...
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October...
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews...
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times...
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane...
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane...
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president...
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration...
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest...

Excerpts from "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie" by Prof. David Ray Griffin

8. CIA Insider Trading

Suspicious trading occurs on the stock of American and United, the two airlines hijacked in the 9/11 attacks. "Between September 6th an d 7th, the Chicago Board Options Exchange [sees] purchases of 4,744 put option contracts [a speculation that the stock will go down] in UAL versus 396 call options---where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would [net] a profit of $5 million once the carrier's share price [dive] after September 11. On September 10, 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings, [are] purchased in Chicago. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines [see] such trading in their put options." One analyst later says, "I saw put-call numbers higher than I've seen in 10 years of following the markets, particularly the options markets." (AP 9-18-01)

"To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the 'put' options...on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by 'Buzzy' Krongard, now executive director of the CIA. Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown, Inc., which was brought by Deutsche Bank. "His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust---Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world." (Independant, 10-14-01)

The Chicago Board Options Exchange sees suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley between September 6-10, 2001, which are two of the largest WTC tenants. In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts in its shares are bought each day. Then the total for the three days before the attacks is 2,157. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, see 12, 215 put options bought between September 7-10, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day. Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, speaking of the trading on Morgan Stanley and other companies, says, "This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence." (ABC News, 9-20-01)

7. Cheney's Stand-down Order

In giving evidence to the 9/11 Congressional Commission, and despite coercive questioning to the contrary, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta described how Dick Cheney was informed well in advance that a plane was headed for the Pentagon but consciously failed to issue a shoot-down order. From the testimony:

"There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane [headed for the Pentagon] is 50 miles out [...] The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant."

Here is Norman Mineta's testimony at the 9/11 hearings:

6. The Controlled Demolition of WTC 1 & 2/ Bombs in buildings

For the first and only three times in history, steel-frame buildings collapsed due to "fire". The black smoke clearly visible was indicative of a cool, inefficient, oxygen starved fire, rather than the towering inferno that the official account would have us believe. The fires were soon contained by firefighters, but the buildings stood for only 102 and 56 minutes respectively before collapsing.
The official story of the "pancake theory", whereby fire induced structural failure caused each floor in turn to collapse into the one below in cascade, is incompatible with the fact that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 happened at near free-fall speed (around 10 seconds). Even if we suppose that a "pancake" collapse is theoretically credible, it's speed must still be significantly less than that of free-fall, as each floor, support and buttress will provide resistance to any falling material. Then we must further suppose that all this can happen in near-perfect symmetry, twice in a row.
Many witnesses have come forward to describe how they witnessed bombs exploding in the buildings including firefighters, police, maintenance staff and other survivors. The concrete from the buildings was pulverized into the super-fine crystalline dust that covered lower Manhattan, an effect only expected of high-explosives. Many anomalous explosions and smoke puffs are visible throughout both collapses.
watch film on this link of the many reports of bombs/explosions


NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. "I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too," said Isaac.
... Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade Center towers.
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.
"It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs," said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11...
American Free Press, 2005

Senior north tower janitor William Rodriguez was heralded as a hero for saving the lives of numerous people trapped in the burning tower. He claims that his statements of explosions in the basement before the impact of the plane were consistently cut from his network television interviews, and his evidence to the same effect given to the official 9/11 Commission disregarded. Said Rodriguez in a telephone conversation:

"What really upsets me is that we have all these people coming forward with credible testimony about explosions and we have been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission and the major media... [T]he American press, they have locked their doors on all of us, never allowing our stories to surface or even trying to investigate why the 9/11 Commission didn't bother to include out statements in the final report... What does that tell you?"
William Rodriguez

In his paper entitled "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?", Professor of Physics Steven Jones of Bringham Young University, Utah calls for a "serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges [explosives]," and includes key points which Jones and many others feel have not been addressed by the FEMA, NIST, or 9-11 Commission Reports. He goes into detail about the large pools of molten metal that were observed for days under all three buildings.

Video clips provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero. The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location....
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.
Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water... On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, 2005

Neither the 9/11 Commission, FEMA or NIST reports mention the molten metal.

5. The Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

The case for controlled demolition, as opposed to fire, is strongest for WTC 7. The similarly constructed 47 story building was not hit by a plane, yet five hours after the collapse of towers 1 & 2, and with seemingly little damage save minor fires on two floors, came straight down into its own footprint in a perfectly symmetrical near-freefall collapse of around 7 seconds. Its collapse has all the hallmarks of, and can only realistically be explained by, a conventional controlled demolition. As outlined by David Ray Griffin in his paper entitled "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True", these hallmarks are:

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings.... [Indeed, a classic "crimp" is visible in the centre of WTC 7's roof seconds before it collapses, indicative of a central support column being blown out in advance of the main demolition, a standard practice to induce the building to fall slightly inwards on itself - Chike]
Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance.
Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high.... The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns. According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped" (Kean and Hamilton, 2004...)
Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: "Our DREXSTM systems... segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.
The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be "chopped up into... sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero".
Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles...
Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy...
Horizontal Ejections ["squibs"]: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that "[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers" (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7)...
Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.
Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions.. [T]here is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.
Molten Steel: [A] feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns...

Prof. David Ray Griffin, "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True"

The 9/11 Commission sidesteps the whole mystery of WTC 7 by declaring the collapse out of its scope. Similarly, the 2005 NIST report also does not investigate WTC 7; a separate investigation has been delayed and is pending. The FEMA report's best hypothesis, that of fire-damage, is by their own admission an unlikely one:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
FEMA report, 2002
FEMA does not consider the hypothesis of controlled demolition.

4. Larry Silverstein's Confession: "Pull It"

In September 2002, complex owner Larry Silverstein stated on a TV documentary that he gave the order to "pull" WTC 7, accepted industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it [WTC Building 7].' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Larry Silverstein on America Rebuilds, PBS

As Paul Joseph Watson points out:
We know that the term "pull it" means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the SAME documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull building six."

Rigging a building this size for demolition is a painstaking process that takes weeks at the very least. After years of stonewalling, in 2005 Silverstein finally explained himself through his spokesman in a debunking article on the US State Department's website, where he claimed that by "it" he was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. Even if we leave aside the fact that contextually this makes little sense, the following still needs to be explained:

The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 [at this time].
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
Paul Joseph Watson, Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges, 2005

Silverstein received a $7.1 billion insurance payout based on an obscure terrorism clause in a policy taken out five months before the attack, more than doubling his initial investment.

3. Pentagon Hole: Too Small For a Plane

There are SO many problems with the Pentagon story, I can’t even begin to tell them all here, but I will list the main 3: 1) The physical evidence 2) Inconsistencies in witness testimony 3) Surveillance cameras

Physical evidence

The hole in the fa├žade of the Pentagon was no more than 16-18 feet wide. Supporters of the official story like Popular Mechanics argue that it is a FACT that the hole was at least 75 feet wide, but no photo shows this. James Meigs of Popular Mechanics appears on The O’ Reilly Factor on August 7, 2006 and tells O’ Reilly that the hole in the Pentagon was 90 feet wide. Well, come on guys, which is it? 75 or 90? Another laughable conclusion PM comes to is that upon impact, Flight 77’s wings snapped off and folded back against the fuselage of the plane and went into the building with the plane. The problem with this explanation is that if the wings did snap off at impact, the laws of kinetic energy tells us that the wings would have propelled FORWARD in the same direction as the rest of the plane, the same way that if a car strikes a telephone pole and the side mirror breaks off at impact, that mirror will propel forward, not backward. This being the case, the wings still should have made impact damage to the exterior of the Pentagon. Being that the wings are attached to the strongest part of a plane, the engines, the damage would have been severe, being that the plane was traveling at roughly 500 mph.
The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 125 feet wide. Why was there no wing damage? Even PM’s argument contradicts the physical evidence. They say the hole was 75 feet wide, or 90 feet, depending on who’s the PM spokesman is at the time. Even if the wings "broke off" and went in with the plane, why would this create a 75-90 foot hole? If the wings did NOT break off, that creates a 125-foot (at least) or even wider hole because the plane went in at an angle. Either way, PM is clueless on this issue and consistantly give inaccurate numbers.
Here's what they had to say about it:

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The major problem with this analysis is that the weakest part of the plane is the NOSE of a plane, yet THAT was able to punch a "cartoon-like outline of itself" into the reinforced concrete, but the strongest part of the plane, the engines, was NOT able to. Also, keep in mind that the entire nation saw two planes hit the WTC towers and amazingly they DID punch "cartoon-like outlines" of themselves into STEEL. Sozen says one wing hit the ground and the other was "sheared" off by the force of the impact. How does he KNOW one of the wings hit the ground? Did he see the plane hit the Pentagon? How else would you know this unless you witnessed this? How does the wing hitting the ground automatically explain away that it didn't penetrate the Pentagon? Is he saying that it hit the ground and "broke off"? If that's what he's saying, then he didn't say those exact words. If it broke off upon hitting the ground, where's the wing? He said the other wing was "sheared off". Where's THAT wing? Shouldn't BOTH wings be laying outside of the Pentagon? Why did we never see pictures of the broken off wings? Did the wings vaporize too like they said the rest of the plane did? If the fire was hot enough to vaporize the plane, why didn't it vaporize the Pentagon windows? Why didn't it vaporize office equipment (filing cabinets, computers, and even a book laying on top of a wooden stool) that you can clearly see inside one of the Pentagon offices after the collapse? Why didn't it vaporize the bodies of the victims? (It was reported that all but 2 victims were identified by fingerprints). It’s amazing that there are actually people out there that accept the Popular Mechanics fairy tale.

75-90 Foot hole??? Where????? (Keep in mind, the Pentagon from ground to roof is 77 feet)

Here’s what PM says about the debris:

Flight 77 Debris CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

First of all, let me clarify one thing. We do NOT claim there was no wreckage at the Pentagon. We simply say all the "debris" left at the site was in very small pieces, making it very convenient for unidentified men to walk right up and pick it up off the ground. Pieces of debris like the one below have been used by the official account supporters to say that it really was AA 77 that hit the Pentagon because you can clearly see the red paint from one of the letters on the debris. First of all this red paint makes out no discernible letter from the American Airlines logo. Second, there are no burn/fire marks on it, no scrape marks showing it was just involved in a huge explosion. After all, we are told by the official account that the plane went into the building and vaporized. So, how did this piece escape the vaporization? Why was it laying so far from the impact point? Why is this piece of metal appear to be so flimsy/thin? Look at it. It looks like a large coke can ripped apart.

Only 2 possible explanations exist for me about this debris: It was planted, or whatever struck the Pentagon was a smaller scale lighter aircraft, like a Global Hawk. This is why Operation Northwoods is so important to the truth movements’ analysis of 9/11. Because in this document, it explains how our own Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962 had planned terrorism on Americans to use as a pretext to enter war with Cuba. One of the acts of terror by our own government was this, "An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time a duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the select passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone." And this was 1962! Imagine what they could have done 39 years later with advanced technology, trillions more dollars and a more corrupt CIA. This scenario (from Northwoods) also explains what they could have done with the actual people who were supposedly on Flight 77. I also love how Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" Held parts of uniforms from crewmembers??? Amazing. A plane can vaporize, but not the mighty material from the uniforms of crewmembers. Also, it was reported that all but 2 people were identified by the fingerprints. Again…amazing. A plane incinerates into non-existence but the skin of the victims somehow is able to conquer plane-vaporizing fire.
This is what Popular Mechanics says happened by the LANDING GEAR? A PERFECTLY ROUND hole was caused by LANDING GEAR? It's very unlikely the nose of a plane did this either, since this hole was the SIXTH wall the nose had to come through. The nose...the weakest part of the plane...went through SIX walls and then just vaporized into dust? Why didn't it vaporize before entering the SIXTH wall? This is simply NOT believable.

The above photo shows something very interesting. I got the top half of this picture from an "official version" website. The red area is supposed to show the portion of the Pentagon that Flight 77 penetrated. There are at least 4 glaring problems with this analysis. First, the length of the damage in the above photo is not wide enough, since Flight 77 entered the Pentagon from an angle, as illustrated in the bottom photo. When objects come in at an angle, the length of damage will be MUCH wider. The red diagram in the bottom picture where the wings are illustrates how wide the damage in the Pentagon should have been. Another problem with the red portion in the top half of the picture is that you can CLEARLY see that portions of the wall that aren't even damaged are shaded red as if that is part of the impacted section. Look at the picture on top. Look on the right side of the red shaded area. You see that small rectangle-shaped red-shaded area---NOT damaged...and right below that, you see one of the columns of the Pentagon still IN TACT, but yet they have it shaded in red as if it has been impacted! You have to look REAL close at these lies people, or sometimes they can fool you just like slight of hand during a card trick. Second, the top photo doesn't illustrate any damage that the tail of the plane would have made. The tail of a Boeing 757 is 44 feet high. 44 feet is over HALF the size of the total height of the Pentagon wall (77 feet), so the damage from the tail should have been higher than the very middle of the Pentagon's height, even if the tail of the plane was sitting on the ground! But, obviously, the tail is attached to the fuselage, which raises the height of the tail in proportion to it entering the Pentagon, which would make the tail damage even MUCH higher than the mid-way point of the Pentagon's height. The photo above shows damage MUCH lower than than mid-height of the Pentagon. A third glaring error in the above photo is that it is deceiving in that it shows the Pentagon so far away that you don't really notice the cable spools that were sitting right in front of the Pentagon during the attack. Had the photo been a much closer shot like the one shown below, you could easily notice the cable spools and that they are untouched and unmoved. This is a big problem, since the plane would have to have been flying very low, that it would have been virtually impossible to not hit those spools and drag them into the building with it.

There is absolutely no way the plane could have missed hitting these cable spools on it's way into the Pentagon, but in virtually EVERY picture you see on "official version" sites where the scene has been re-created to show their version of what happened, these spools are missing. One might say, "yes, but the wings can slide right by that space between the spools and the undamaged area". Yes, true, they could, but you're forgetting one very important thing.....the engines! The engines would hit the spools! A 4th major problem with the split photo above is that the lawn is practically untouched. The "official versions'" plane would have been flying so close to the ground, the lawn would have been damaged in some way. The plane skidding across it or jet blasts damaging the grass would have happened. But as we look at the picture, it shows a pristine lawn, as if it had just been freshly cut. How can this be? Anyone who buys into this fairy tale will simply believe anything.

Inconsistencies with eyewitness testimony

All I can say about this is: You have people like the one mentioned above that held in their hands the mighty, explosion/fireproof uniforms of the crewmembers. Others say they actually saw the passengers in the windows of the plane. Yep, a speeding 500mph plane that nobody was expecting to see, and yet they looked up and saw people in the windows. I saw a video clip about a year ago of an American Airlines plane coming in for a landing and as it went by, you could not see people in the windows…and this plane as I mentioned was LANDING, going MUCH slower. Most of the testimonies just can’t be believed because what they said they saw is just impossible. Some said they saw a missile, some said they saw a smaller plane, etc… The list goes on and on. The bottom line is: If this were American Airlines Flight 77, EVERYONE, EVERYONE would have seen a LARGE aircraft and it would have been very very loud and it would have been a big blur. The jet blasts from the engines would have literally thrown cars into the air since the plane was as low as it was and as close to the highway as it was. I’ve seen what jet blasts do. They literally throw cars into the air. None of this happened on 9/11. Too many inconsistencies with witness testimony to put your faith in these people alone.

Surveillance cameras

The Pentagon is the most videotaped and surveilled building on Earth…and ALL we have is those bogus, bullshit video stills and one camera shot of the side of the Pentagon that were released? This is simply not believable that this is ALL the footage they have of this. In my research, I have learned that Federal officials have at least 80 videos of what really hit the Pentagon. Why can’t we see this? Why? First they said it would be too traumatic for us to see it, yet we saw the planes hit the towers over and over. Then, they said they couldn’t release them because the Moussaui trial was going on and videos were not released as a matter of National Security. Well, that damned trial is over…….can we see them now???? WHY NOT? This blatant and insulting cover-up in keeping these videos from us is in and of itself a smoking gun of 9/11.

Rumsfeld: Smoking gun or gaffe?

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on 12 October 2001 by Lyric Wallwork Winik a columnist for Parade magazine when he said this, "It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building (Pentagon) and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

2. Presidential Secret Service behavior/Bush’s behavior and his lies/ How was it known Bush was safe in the school?

"Victory clicked into my mind," Mr. Bush told The Times. "The one thing that became certain is that we wouldn't let this stand. I mean, there was no question in my mind that we'd respond."I wasn't sure who the attacker was. But if somebody is going to attack America, I knew that my most immediate job was to protect America by finding him and getting them."


Why was Bush allowed to visit Booker Elementary on 9/11?
Bush was in his car on the way to Booker Elementary School when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. CIA Director George Tenet declared the impact a deliberate attack with "bin Laden's fingerprints all over it" moments after being informed by cell phone.

With Bush's location given out by the media the days before, an airport only four miles from the school he was visiting, and the CIA Director stating the impact was intentional, why did the Secret Service allow Bush's visit to go ahead?
Despite the fact that the president was on a publicly advertised media call, the Secret Service made no move to relocate him to a secure location until 30 minutes after the second plane hit the WTC.

Why didn't the hijackers try to crash a plane into Booker Elementary when it was publicly known that the President would be there and that the school is only 3.5 miles away from an International Airport?
It was reported that 2 of the hijackers stayed at a Holiday Inn on September 7 just BLOCKS from where Bush stayed (Colony Beach) when he arrived in Florida. If terrorists were intelligent enough to outsmart the most powerful military and defense agencies in the entire world, don’t you think knowing where Bush was in Florida would have been very easy, especially since his trip to the Sarasota school was publically announced on local Florida TV on Sept. 7, the VERY day these 2 terrorists were at the Holiday Inn? Why would President Bush being in the SAME city as they were be unimportant to them? What would be greater for the terrorists to not only attack America, but to kill its President? Wouldn’t this be the icing on the cake for them? What are the odds of two out of only 19 terrorists being in the EXACT SAME city as the President on the EXACT same day it is announced on TV that the President will be arriving in Florida, and yet they don’t take advantage of that opportunity for an assassination? The airport in Sarasota was literally just blocks away….and they wouldn’t attempt to try to crash the plane into the school? Why?

If protestors knew Bush was going to be in town this day and even knew his route, why couldn't the terrorists know this too?
"Sept. 11 was supposed to be what White House strategists call a "soft" day -- no big speeches, just a few events to highlight Bush’s education plans.The 20-minute drive from the hotel was routine, although a few protesters waved signs about the administration's policy on offshore oil drilling." -St. Petersburg Times (09/08/02)

Why did Bush implement a military response when he just said he thought the 1st crash was just an "accident" and how did he do it since he said he "didn't have time to think about it"?
"Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared." -Bush
"I said, it must have been a horrible accident. But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it." -Bush 12/04/01
------oh really? Is THAT why you stayed at the school for another HALF HOUR after being told of the 2nd plane striking the WTC? It’s on TAPE that you sat on your ass reading after knowing of BOTH strikes on the WTC. WHEN were you "whisked" off???

Why didn't the Secret Service evacuate the President of the United States out of Booker Elementary when the United States was being attacked by terrorists? Why did they let him continue with the meaningless photo-op?
Exactly! It is the sole duty of the Secret Service to get the President to safety and not ask questions, ask permission to do so or to fear for their own lives while doing so. This didn’t happen on 9/11 at the Sarasota school. Even after the 2nd plane hit the WTC, the Secret Service did not respond. Remember people, the Secret Service does NOT ask permission to protect the President. It is their duty to REACT when they know or feel the President is in danger. Knowing that Bush’s visit to the school was very publicized and knowing NOW that the 2nd tower of the WTC was struck, it would have been obvious that this was a terrorist attack. But yet, even STILL they did not react. Another interesting thing to keep in mind is the fact that 5 days later on Meet The Press, Cheney had this to say to Tim Russert, "The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was….." and then Cheney stopped himself, never finishing that sentence. Interesting. The Secret Service has open lines with the FAA, and we all know from the NORAD’s own timeline of events as you will see below that the FAA FIRST knew of the first hijacking at 8:40am. The story changes in the 9/11 Commission Report. The 9/11 Commission says that the FAA first knew of Flight 11’s hijacking at 8:25 am. How can BOTH reports be right? And no matter which one is correct, why didn’t the Secret Service get President Bush the hell out of that school at 8:25 am or 8:40 am, since they had open lines with the FAA, according to Cheney?

What time did Bush leave Booker Elementary and why wasn't Booker Elementary School evacuated after President Bush left just incase terrorists had planned to attack Bush at the school?
Very good question here. I remember on 9/11 when I picked up my OWN child after hearing the Pentagon was struck. I remembered thinking, "Maybe I’m overreacting". But, when I arrived at the school, EVERY parent was picking up their child and it was very chaotic…..and this was on the very day of 9/11, 3 ½ years BEFORE I believed our government was involved in 9/11. And here we have the very school that Bush was at, not evacuated, not told by the Secret Service or any other government official TO evacuate. Isn’t this just a tad unbelievable?

Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to make a speech from the school and not evacuate him to a secure location when they knew a terrorist attack was going on for 25 minutes already?
Hmmmm, I thought Bush said he was "whisked off" and didn’t have time to think about it. Apparently, the definition of "whisked off" on 9/11 meant to wait around 30 minutes first.
Why isn't there any Secret Service agents or other armed guards escorting Bush up the steps to Air Force One or why wasn’t Air Force One accompanied by fighter jets upon leaving the school when our country is under attack and the President's life might be in danger?

Knowing that at least TWO planes had slammed into the twin towers in "an apparent terrorist attack"—the very words spoken by Bush just MINUTES earlier while still at the school in Florida, why wasn’t Air Force One accompanied by fighter jets when it left the Sarasota school when there was NO way of knowing if there was a plane in the sky in the Florida area filled with terrorists who had not hijacked their plane yet?
Here's yet another in a long list of broken procedures that day. Are we to accept this was just mindboggling incompetence by our top government officials that they would not give our President fighter jet protection of Air Force One when the VERY act of terror that was being inflicted on our country at that VERY moment was by the use of AIRPLANES?? Bush KNEW there was a hijacking going on at this moment. He just got done giving a speech at the school saying ".....this apparent terrorist attack on our country", and yet he gets on a plane WITHOUT protection knowing there might be more planes in the air? The Secret Service had to know there were more planes----they had open lines with the FAA, according to Cheney---RIGHT????? This is what officially made this a smoking gun, and a CLEAR indication that BUSH KNEW!

Bush claims twice to have seen the first WTC plane crash on TV in his holding room at the school, how could he have seen this when he hadn't even arrived at the school yet?
"The first airplane hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m., as the president's motorcade crossed the John Ringling Causeway on the way to Booker Elementary from the Colony Beach & Tennis Resort on Longboat Key." -Washington Times (10/08/02)
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident," Bush. -White House (12/04/01)
"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway," Bush. -White House (01/05/02)

Bush said this 3 months after the attacks
"That's a tough decision to make, but you've got to understand that I was the commander in chief and the president of a nation that had just been attacked by four aircraft, and we didn't know if other aircraft were coming or not," he said. -ABC (12/05/01)
Exactly! You don’t KNOW if more are coming-----so WHY do you put every child and staff at the school at risk when YOU DON’T KNOW if more are coming????

1. The Military Stand Down and the NORAD drills

When did NORAD receive a shoot-down authorization?
"A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania." - 9/11 Commission

This is what filmmaker Alex Jones had to say about the stand down of the military and the NORAD drills on 9/11:
No single smoking gun has yet been forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners.
Until now. More and more individuals are looking at the facts and highlighting exercise drills that took place on the morning of 9/11.
It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.
The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked.
The drill scenario also explains a comment made by air traffic control personnel which was featured in a July 2004 BBC television report. The controller is told that a hijacked airliner is heading for New York and responds by saying, "is this real world or an exercise?"
Alex Jones was one of the first to highlight the wargames in his documentary film 'Masters of Terror', which was released in August 2002. Alex explains why the Associated Press later had to admit the fact that the CIA were running drills of crashing planes into buildings on the morning of 9/11.
What were the drills called and what was their nature?
1) OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: This was planned months in advance of 9/11 and ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect the east coast.
2) BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Alex Jones first reported on this back in May when Rudolph Giuliani let the details of it slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue. Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7. As we reported back in January, Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?
3) OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.
4) OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN: The details of this exercise are still scant but it is considered to be part of Vigilant Guardian, relating to simulating hijacked planes in the north eastern sector.
5) OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR: This was referenced in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies'. It is thought to have been the 'attack' component of the Vigilant Guardian exercise.
Another example of how air defenses were purposefully kept preoccupied so they couldn't protect New York was reported by in December of 2003. The Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing, based at Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, were just eight minutes away from New York and could have intercepted both Flight 11 and Flight 175.
Under NORAD procedures that date to the Cold War, two F-16 fighters from the 177th were parked around the clock on the Atlantic City runway. Pilots waited in a nearby building, ready to scramble.
But on the morning of 9/11, the F-16's were performing bombing runs over an empty stretch of the Pine Barrens near Atlantic City after being decommissioned from their usual role of protecting the skies of the east coast.
It was only after both trade towers were hit that the two F-16s landed and were refitted with air-to-air missiles, then sent aloft.
Now that we have established how NORAD were confused, delayed and distracted by the numerous wargames, the next question to ask is who if anyone was aware of which planes were 'real world' and which planes were 'exercise'? The answer to this question will provide us with the name of the individual who ran the operatonal execution of the 9/11 attack.

Dick Cheney.

Cheney was initially taken by the secret service to an underground bunker in the White House called the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.
From there, according to CNN, Cheney directed the US government's response to the unfolding attack.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On May 23, 2003 in front of the 9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:
"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
As the plane in question hit the Pentagon, what else can we conclude but that the 'order' was not to shoot down the aircraft and to let it find its target.
Mineta stated that he did not know what the 'order' was because he wasn't there when it was made.
After the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was transfered to another bunker in what the Philadelphia Daily News describes as 'the underground Pentagon'.
Site R, a highly secure complex of buildings inside Raven Rock Mountain near Blue Ridge Summit, Pa., close to the Maryland-Pennsylvania state line and about seven miles north of Camp David, is a 53-year-old facility conceived at the start of the Cold War as an alternate command center in the event of nuclear war or an attack on Washington.
The bunker is built into a mountain hillside and is virtually camouflaged to the naked eye. The location betrays itself by the vast gaggle of satellites, microwave towers and antennae that festoon the perimeter. Inside the facility there are computer filled caverns and communication and tracking technology that would put a James Bond movie to shame.
The entire facility is guarded by heavily armed military police.
Within hours of 9/11 unfolding, five choppers had landed on the facility's helipad and top officials such as Paul Wolfowitz were ushered in to join Cheney in the command bunker.
Site R - also known as Raven Rock or the Alternate Joint Communications Center is from where vice-President Dick Cheney ran the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Cheney's command superceded the orders of the Pentagon, the FAA or the White House. He is the number one suspect in the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people.
In May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations. This meant he was solely in charge of the overlapping NORAD drills and wargames on the morning of 9/11, that prevented Standard Operating Procedure from being implemented, and any of the hijacked planes being intercepted.
The smoking guns of 9/11 are no longer disparate jigsaw pieces that serve to just raise more questions than they answer. We now have a coherent and plausible explanation of how the events unfolded, why there was no air defense response, and a prime suspect as to who executed these actions. The facts fit this version of events.
The 9/11 truth movement has just taken a giant leap towards dismantling the lies of September 11and finally offering justice for those who lost their lives on that terrible day.

Despite government rejections that such an attack had ever been envisaged, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) ran drills in the years previous simulating the exact 9/11 plot:

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...
USA Today, 18 March 2004

It has been reported that similar drills also occurred on the morning of 9/11 itself, apparently confusing air traffic controllers, and were offered as one of the many excuses for military failures. Indeed, NORAD did not respond until 85 minutes after the initial impact. Standard operating procedure is to scramble jets the moment a plane leaves its course, a procedure already put into practice 67 times by the American military that year.
British MP and former Blair cabinet minister Michael Meacher questioned the official version of events in an article in the London Guardian:

... The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?
... could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11?
... 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence... is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11.

Here are the complete timelines from 3 different sources: the FAA, NORAD and the 9/11 Commission. Why aren’t these timelines in complete synchronization? Why were Air Force Bases that were farther away notified to send fighter jets rather than bases that were MUCH closer? Example: Why would NORAD order planes from Langley AFB, which is 130 miles from Washington, rather than from Andrews AFB, which is only 10 miles away and has the assignment to protect Washington? Why??? Why did the Pentagon LIE after it received criticism that they didn’t send planes from Andrews AFB and say that "Andrews had no fighters assigned to it" when it was widely reported that after the Pentagon was struck, F-16’s from Andrews AFB were flying over Washington? Here’s the amazing thing: Even sticking with the official account that Andrews "had no fighters assigned to it" (which justified sending fighter jets from Langley), another problem exists in the fact that the official version also says that the Langley fighters were airborne by 9:30am. The Pentagon was struck at 9:38am. An F-16’s top speed is 1,500 mph. Traveling at that speed an F-16 can go 187 miles in 7 ½ minutes. Langley is 130 miles from Washington. That’s 57 miles less the distance, knocking roughly 2 minutes off the travel time….meaning that the F-16’s could have reached Washington from Langley in roughly 5 ½ minutes. Even in the timeframe of the OFFICIAL version, the F-16’s would have reached the Pentagon at 9:35am, enough time to shoot down Flight 77. But, in reality the F-16’s reached the Pentagon 15 minutes late, at roughly 9:53am, making their travel time 23 minutes. An F-16 traveling for 23 minutes at 1,500 mph would go 575 miles (or 25 miles a minute). The distance from Langley to Washington is only 130 miles, which means these fighter jets could not have been traveling over 300 mph…..or about 20 percent capability. And we, the American people, are expected to believe this fairy tale. Unbelievable.

NORAD’s timeline (Sept 18, 2001)
Flight 11
0840 FAA Notification to NEADS
0846 Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F-15s)
0852 Fighters Airborne
0846 (estimated) Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles
Flight 175
0843 FAA Notification to NEADS
0846 Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11)
0852 Fighters Airborne
0902 (estimated) Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles
Flight 77
0924 FAA Notification to NEADS
0924 Fighter Scramble: Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va. 2 F-16s)
0930 Fighters Airborne
0937 (estimated) Airline Impact Time (Pentagon)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles
Flight 93
N/A FAA Notification to NEADS
Fighter Scramble: Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)
Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)
1003 (estimated) Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles (from DC F-16 CAP)

FAA/Military Timeline (Sept 11-14, 2001)
Flight 11
7:59 am Departed Boston
8:46 am North Tower of WTC struck
No planes scrambled
Flight 175
8:14 am Departed Boston
9:03 am South Tower of WTC struck
No planes scrambled
Flight 77
8:20 am Departed Dulles (Washington D.C.)
9:38 am Pentagon struck
No planes scrambled
Flight 93
8:42 am Departed Newark
10:03 am or 10:06 am Crashed in Pennsylvania
Planes scrambled shortly before Flight 93 crashed

9/11 Commission Timeline (July 2004)
Flight 11
8:25 am FAA (Boston Center) aware of hijacking
8:38 am FAA (Boston) notifies NEADS (NORAD) of hijacking
8:46 am NEADS scramble order to Otis AFB
8:46:40 am AA 11 strikes WTC
8:53 am Otis F-15’s airborne
9:16 am AA aware of its Flight 11 struck WTC
9:21 am Boston FAA (erroneously) tells NEADS: AA 11 headed to DC
9:24 am NEADS scrambles Langley F-16’s to stop phantom AA 11
Flight 175
8:42-8:47 am Various signs that a hijacking had occurred
8:52 am Flight attendant notified UA of hijacking
8:55 am FAA (New York Center) suspects hijacking
9:03 am UA 175 strikes WTC
9:15 am FAA notifies NEADS of strike (12 minutes afterwards)

Flight 77
9:05 am AA aware of hijacking
9:24 am NEADS scrambles Langley F-16’s (but to go after phantom AA 11, not AA 77)
9:34 am FAA notifies NEADS that AA 77 is missing (not hijacked)
9:38 am AA 77 strikes Pentagon
9:38 am F-16’s scrambled to stop phantom AA 11 are 150 miles away from DC (had gone wrong direction)

Flight 93
9:34 am FAA headquarters aware of hijacking
10:03 am UA 93 crashes
10:07 am FAA (Cleveland center) tells NEADS of hijacking
10:15 am FAA (Washington center) tells NEADS of crash


Anonymous said...

Bravo Larry! That is a great article.

Real Truth Online said...

This is for all the assholes that claim I never post facts. Sink your teeth into all these facts. Know what's funny? These people that are posting on my site as if other people actually SEE the comments. I gave one simple rule and it couldnt be followed, and that rule was to stop saying the same shit over and over and actullly DEBATE. They couldnt do it---so I had no choice but to moderate comments. Of course, Eugene, they are saying I am sitting here like big brother "approving" of their comments. Not the case. They can insult me all they want, as long as it is accompanied by a debate. So far, there's no debate from then, even STILL, so thats why their comments aren't being posted. It's funny that they actually waste their time typing when NO ONE is seeing the comment at ALL---LOL. Offer a debate, and I'll post the comment. If not---stay in the blog graveyard---hahahhahaha.

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't have to waste your time attempting to debate with him or anyone else that doesn't have the foggiest understanding at all what debate is.

" bits" What a crock o'shit.

procol harum (eugene) said...

I thought what officially happened was that 9/11 was carried out by 19 Islomatic-fascists, hell bent on getting to heaven where 72 vestal virgins were waiting on the coast and very hot to trot with dead terrorist guys.
These devote religious fanatics partied hardy the night before, skipped the light fandango and turned cartwheels across the floor. The morning of September 11th they awoke looking a Whiter Shade of Pale, and boarded some nearly empty planes with orders for evil doing from a multi-millionaire living in a cave. They weren’t on the flight lists, so they had to use “cloaking devises” borrowed from the Klingons in order to board the planes so as to not be seen, screened, filmed, or asked for boarding passes. After they were airborne, they were able to take over the planes using some hocus pocus muslomanaic magic and razor blades. They then used telepathic persuasion to convince NORAD to ignore them, and to just concentrate on the Dick Cheney drills that were in process. These drills were of hijacked planes being crashed into the Pentagon and the WTC. Wow what a “coincidence” that was!

Although there is no reason and the truth is plain to see, and although your eyes are OPEN, they just as well be closed, because the Official Conspiracy is the only one you are allowed to believe. After all it was George Dubya Bush that said on September 12th, that we must not believe any other conspiracy story but his very own.

Real Truth Online said...

I'll take moderation off and let them post again and see if I get a debate. They wanted FACTS right? I gave them mountains of facts----anyone curious to see how they will spin these facts? Interesting Eugene that you brought up the "planes not filled to capacity" fact. That could be another smoking gun, that the planes weren't filled to capacity. I think I saw a site say the 4 planes total had a 27% capacity? Hmmm....just enough people to load them all onto one plane and do something with that plane. Since we have TWO crash sites where there was NO plane debris found...Pentagon and Shanksville---it's anyone's guess where this plane of people went. This is why Northwoods is so important, if people just READ it. Hey Eugene---here's another question: Since the terrorists turned off the transponders---how did they know where the targets were? Interesting huh?

real truth online said...

see, now Ive let them post---and Ive given them HUNDREDS of facts--and where are they? In their hole squirming.... it is to laugh

real truth online said...

Ha!!! I knew they;d run like scared rabbits once I posted fact after fact after fact!!! They typed like 15 comments while I ws moderating the comments---then i take moderation off, and they are NO WHERE to be found! hahahahahahahahahahahha

real truth online said...

they're still GONE!!! lol-----they must be sitting with the WMD's-------LOL

eugene said...

If you wanna have some fun in a right wing play ground go here:
Tweddle is Red States Rule.
He posted the site on the Public Opinion forum once as a place were the "Big Boys" hang out.....what a joke.

Puck said...

You know Larry, Jas, in his mad rantings did actually come up with one fact. That Bill Maher, Ariana Huffington and Noam Chomsky and a few others dismiss any government involvement in 9/11.

I often wonder if that is a position that they tak e for reasons of image. 9/11 truth is such a polarized issue and the scales are way tipped in the direction of ignorance. I wonder if these 3 outspoken intelectuals may worry about not being taken seriously if they give any credence to an inside job.

No one knows more than you how ridiculed you can be for an unpopular opinion.

real truth online said...

Youre right--not too many in "show biz" will come out and say they believe in the cover-up. Thats why when they DO come out, you gotta commend them, because they have nothing to gain and alot to lose. Charlie Sheen, Ed Asner, James Brolin, and now Rosie are on board. I realize when you speak out against things, it could be career ending--thats why no news anchor would ever do it. Their jobs are at stake. Thats why 9/11 truth is a grassroots effort and I only hope Loose Change makes it to theatres this summer or fall. Notice how when I posted all these facts Jas ran for the hills? He got upset that I called most Americans cowards----and look, he turned out to BE one! Hey Eugene, I dont think Jas is tweddle---Jas can spell most words.

real truth online said...

in the words of the immortal Chilliwack from 1981----Jas is "a gone, gone, gone, he's been gone so long, he's been gone, gone, gone so long (ooooweeeee-oooo)...." My oh my---where on Earth is Jas? Looks like my incredibly long list of facts suffocated Jas---and made him just disappear. Hmmmmmmm---where COULD he be?? LOL

real truth online said...

ha ha ha ---looks like Jas is gone for good! I havent been moderating comments now for TWO days and where is Jas? Didnt he promise to debate when I posted facts? Hmmmmm-----why do you suppose he lied???? Hmmmm??????

Jas said...

Ladies and gentlemen, if you come to this site know that the site's creator will not stand for debate on his fantasyland 9/11 issues and will delete posts that differ from his views (note the dozens of "deleted by site administrator" comments stemming back to 2006 in which others have called Larry on his bullshit). He calls himself a patriot and blames Fox news for showing only one side of the argument. Who's the real hypocrite Larry? The only reason he’s opened posts again is because I contacted some of the “truther” websites he linked on his page and informed them of how he hurts their cause, ridiculous as it is.

I'll be shocked if this post lasts more than an hour but if it does it seems Larry's trying to grow a pair.
The following are quotes made by this site’s creator when someone disputes his lies regarding 9/11. Keep in mind I have been a staunch critic of nearly everything this current Bush administration has done. I am an avid liberal, secular progressive who does not believe in any religion whatsoever and hasn't voted Republican in my life. I also believe Bush should be impeached for the Iraq war deception among other things. My friends would tell you if anyone would like for the 9/11 conspiracy to be true it would be someone like me but I’m way too intelligent to believe in anything that can’t be proven.

As quoted from this site's creator Larry Simons when refuting 9/11 claims:

"You're a total SHITHEAD, and if I was you, Id kill myself."

"You’re a fucking CHICKEN"


"You don’t know SHIT!"

Here’s only one of my responses:
For the record I believe my own eyes and reason along with most of the 9/11 Commission Report on 9/11, the Popular Mechanics report on debunking 9/11 myths, staunch anti-government leftist and MIT Professor and father of modern linguistics Noam Chomsky's scholarly articles along with reporting from Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Bill Maher, Brian Williams, Dan Rather, the videotape of bin Laden explaining how he helped mastermind the 9/11 attacks, the thousands of eyewitness accounts on the matter and the hundreds of reputable scholarly publications and FACTUAL websites that report the truth about 9/11.

There's no use arguing with you crackpots. I've seen the conspiracy crap all over the internet. These "theorists" have a so-called answer for everything when in fact all they have are questions.

I saw the planes hit the towers. I saw the towers eventually fall starting where each plane hit those towers yet there's websites telling me no planes hit the buildings... it was all done with blue screens just like in Terminator 2, or it was done via controlled demolition from a black-ops team from our own government. I'm not stupid enough to believe that and I'm joined by your heroes, Olbermann, Huffington and Carlin.

If you wanted to I'm sure you could give me 100 websites that tell me Bigfoot felled those towers. My granddaddy used to tell me... "Son, there's no use arguing with a fool."


And I’m sorry Larry but you continue to show your lack of intelligence with eloquent quotes like these...
"We’re in BIG trouble if this guy is our next President. He truly is a piece of shit." - Larry Simons

"Of course, as a reflection of how stupid America is, I get the occasional idiotic comment like, "Look what Ray Nagin did in New Orleans!" - Larry Simons on how stupid America is. You must really love your country Larry. You call the American people "stupid cowards" and then make baseless claims our own government (corrupt as it may be) is directly responsible for killing 3000+ of their own on 9/11.
Another Larry quote: "I’m tired of talking to stupid, ignorant, mind-controlled, unpatriotic American citizens like you."

Larry I've read more books from respected scholars and ex-government officials criticizing American foreign policy than you ever will. I've also taken several Master's level courses on related subjects which is more than you can say with your high school education and your complete and total reliance on unreliable and discreditable websites for your ridiculous 9/11 theories posted by crackpots with no education like yourself.

You hate America and its people, fine, but don't accuse me of being a "stupid, ignorant mind-controlled American" when you yourself exhibit more ignorance, stupidity and hate for your fellow countrymen in nearly every post you display.

If anyone is being "mind-controlled" it is you from all those other "truthers" out there."
You're speculating about things you don't know and making baseless accusations as usual scooter. You and all the other "truthers." Everything with you clods is a case of one plus one equals three. It's a piling up of improbabilities.

Speculation isn't a fact scooter and questions aren’t either.

The burden of proof isn't on me. It’s on you. If you truly had facts the entire world would know. Its similar to science vs. religion debate... the burden of proof is not on non-believers. Fact is the National Academy of Scientists believes your 9/11 theories about as much as they believe the Bible or Koran is the word of God, and reasonable men know this.

If there was a "mountain" of evidence surely you should hire a lawyer and sue all the people who are involved in this massive conspiracy of yours... Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the entire BBC, ABC, NBC, FOX, owner of building 7, the editors of Popular Mechanics, the CIA, FBI, NSA. Wow that's a lot of people to keep quiet on such a major conspiracy and that’s just the tip of the iceberg, think of the countless others involved we don't even know about!

If you had any proof, people like your heroes Olbermann and Huffington would be reporting it or are they complicit too? Can I put them on the list of co-conspirators?

So you and your high school education are more intelligent than Noam Chomsky eh? I've read practically everything he's ever written and he'd be reporting the "facts" if there were any and he doesn't resort to telling people who disagree with him to kill themselves or write moronic sentences like "It's another to swallow jizz for a living for all the world to see."

The answer is no, your heroes will not report your baseless claims because they would lose all credibility. They don't report your false claims just like they don't report when someone claims the Loch Ness Monster is real even though I can give you 1,000 websites that give the same type of "proof" you're spewing. Can you prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist Larry? I didn't think so.

So go ahead Larry ask me a specific question if you can pose an intelligent one without resorting to insults and homophobic slurs. I'm waiting. Oh and when you do so could you also prove to me that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster don't exist because I have proof that clearly shows otherwise.

I've identified myself repeatedly as a proud liberal who despises what the Bush administration has done over the last 6 years. I also have expressed myself as an unabashed O'Reilly, Coulter, and Fox News critic. That said you could probably assume I don't think being gay is a disease and firmly believe gays should be able to marry, adopt or have their own children and openly serve in the military. They should have every right as the rest of us. And to insinuate that I am gay in such a judgmental way screams of homophobia or plain hatred for homosexuals. Why would you attempt to make such an insult and laugh about it unless you felt otherwise?

You are quoted as saying, "Live and let be gay, I always say...(not really)" What Larry? Are you one of those intolerant hypocritical types like O'Reilly and Coulter who believes God cares what people do while naked? And the line, "It's another to swallow jizz for a living for all the world to see." won't be winning you any Pulitzers let me tell you.


Don't stoop to Larry's level (he is "real truth") and tell your debate opponent to commit suicide. Larry's just showing his true colors. If he took all the garbage about 9/11 off this site it would actually be worth visiting but my guess is he's invested too much money in 9/11 "truthers" t-shirts to turn back now. Plus he's a lot like George Bush and Bill O'Reilly in that he will never ever admit he is wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I'm sure you're narcissistic enough to think you're just like King, Murrow, Paine and Lincoln but every one of them would roll over in their graves regarding the crap you're spewing about 9/11. And its one thing to be embarrassed by your government and to question your government. It’s entirely something else with what you're doing with baseless accusations re: 9/11. You come across as hating this country whether you like it or not.

I'll say it again, you've yet to give any proof whatsoever and this is coming from someone who despises what those in charge have done to our country over the last 6 years.

This site has no credibility because of your foolish 9/11 conspiracy bunk. If you took all the 9/11 crap down and focused on the Iraq war, Katrina/FEMA, record deficits, tax cuts for the rich, Scooter Libby, 40 million without healthcare, Abu Gharib, warentless wiretaps, Abramoff, Cunningham, Delay, Foley, Ney, Enron/Halliburton, gas prices, No Child Left Behind, Fox News and the startling hypocrisy of a so-called "Christian" president people might actually take you seriously. But until you throw away all your 9/11 "truthers" t-shirts saying how the BBC, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the owner of building 7, popular mechanics ect ect ect were all involved in this massive conspiracy you have absolutely no credibility.

You have no proof Larry. None. Just cutting and pasting crap from websites no one in their right mind would believe.

Without me you'd have no one to insult but if you are going to go all Bill O'Reilly on me and delete my posts because they hit too close to home go ahead, I'd expect nothing less from you.

Fire away Bill O Jr. We can't have anyone disagreeing with you're posts now can we? And you say you strive for truth. My arse.

And by the way you've done more name calling and insulting than I have by miles and miles. You're just as bad as the hypocrites you try to bring down.

Dude seriously, I saw your picture... you're young and that gives you somewhat of a pass but that still doesn't mean you're not in need of some serious medication. I'm one of the folks that think Bush and the lot should be tried for war crimes for the Iraq fiasco but every bit of "evidence" you provide on 9/11 is looney toons. The people you quote and provide stories from are nutbags and have absolutely no credibility. I bet you've never even heard of Chomsky who would never let something like this B.S. conspiracy go unstudied.

Yes, let us all bow to Larry Simons who sits at home at night in his mommy's basement cutting and pasting junk he finds on the internet and thinks he's smarter than the thousands of scientists, scholars, journalists and eyeball witnesses who know more about 9/11 than he could ever hope. Thanks for providing the truth for us “uneducated cowards and complacent morons” Larry. And to think how comfortable we all were not questioning authority until you came along and opened our eyes to how government is corrupt. God Bless you Larry Simons and God Bless America!

Go ahead Larry and now pull a Bill O'Reilly and tell me how I made your argument stronger. No spin from you eh? Your argument transcends anything any of us morons could imagine right?

You keep making my argument for me Larry. All you can do is insult others and not debate the facts like an adult. Don't you realize that alone makes me right?

Larry you do more to damage your cause than you'll ever know. Its people like you who make it easier for the "right wing" to garnish support for their pathetic causes.

HERE’S SOME EXAMPLES OF PREVIOUS POSTS BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME TO THIS SITE AND DISAGREED WITH LARRY SIMONS (Check out the posts from 2006 and note the hypocrisy from this site’s creator and his lack of debate skills as he can only respond with threats, insults and deleting others posts when they completely refute his baseless 9/11 claims):

“Unlike you, I do not hate you Larry. I really feel sorry for you. You go through life, angry, full of hate, rage, screaming for attention, trying to get people to believe your crackpot conspiracy theories.”

”I do pity you. I cannot think what your life is like as you wake up every morning thinking what a terrible country you live in, never seeing anything good in life, and as you sit in front of your computer and spewing your hate toward anyone who disagrees with you.”

”The last thing you want to have the light of truth shown on you.”

”At the same time I find you somewhat funny. To read your posts as you meltdown and launch into a profanity filled posts is good for a good chuckle.”
“One cannot reason with someone engulfed in hate as you are.”

”Not one major newspaper, or TV news show will give you the time of day. Or are they part of the grand conspiracy as well??? (Twilight Zone music is now playing in Larry's head)”

“I may be at fault for feeding your rage. Like a spoiled child who craves attention, when I pay attention to you, you smile and start pounding the keyboard once again. I see I am the only one posting on your piece of shit website, so I am at fault. I hope your shrink does not hold it against me.”

“All I can say is I've answered your questions, and you've answered none of mine, looks like to me your doing the ignoring, but why let facts get in the way?
You've never addressed anything I’ve asked, why?
No one threatens as a bluff, they use it when they have no other choice, you know, like when you have no answers.”

“You couldn't beat me with facts, so you used threats, your only weapon.
I beat you with facts you couldn't dispute, cause if you could have you would have answered my questions, so you used threats, not to beat me, but to quiet me, your pathetic, you complain about not debating, then you don't debate, you run and hide, delete posts, and threaten.”

”The only responses we get from you is cursing, name calling, and threats, that’s your answers to everything? That’s the answer you give when questioned by someone? Looks like you don't have much "truth" in your arsenal, but you do have a ton of crap.”

”This is my last post to you, since there's no point because you refuse to answer anything I ask, but we both know who won, the one who answered questions won, which would be me. The one who refused to answer anything lost, which would be you. c/ya!”

“You do the exact same you bitch about; once again you accuse others of what you do. You never answered any on my questions, you dodged, and weaved, and your answers were cursing, and name calling, lol.”
“Is that what the truthers do when they have no point, name call? Cause that’s all you do when you have no answer, you ignore, and name call, does your eyes burn when you read the truth? Be careful you'll go blind reading the truth, your more of a nazi than anyone, you spew more propaganda than Hitler ever did.”
Anyone see a recurring theme here?
My final comment:
Larry I do so pity you as well as those who you say agree with you. Funny how few of your fellow “truthers” out there actually come to your site or to your defense. Sad, but not only do you not have any “truther” friends but you obviously have no real friends as well. I’m certain you live alone or in your mother’s basement and have no education or steady employment and you’re 38 years old. I’m willing to bet you’ve never had a girlfriend in your entire life. I’ve come to realize that you likely have borderline personality disorder with schizoaffective tendencies evidenced by delusions of grandeur and persecution (look it up). You are as big a hypocrite as any of the right-wingers you so despise and you are so filled with hate that you are likely going to snap one day and go to the nearest water tower with a gun and start offing innocent civilians.
You disrespect all those who perished, were injured, or lost a loved one on 9/11 and you make honest secular liberals like myself look foolish. So good job Larry you true patriot and fighter of truth, justice and the American way.

Have fun wasting and living out your life vicariously through your pathetic excuse for a blog. I’m going to go play with my beautiful wife and son who although only a toddler already knows more than you ever will.