|The Big Takeover
Can you explain how a Boeing 767 that is 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6
yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of the Pentagon, creating a
hole only 16 feet in diameter? The building is 26 yards high. It supposedly knocked over light poles,
even though they would have damaged the fuselage and could easily sever the wings. There are a
dozen anti-aircraft missile batteries guarding the building. There is an invention called radar which
would have let them know it was coming. That airspace is restricted to all aircraft. There are at least
nine security cameras pointed in the direction of the impact yet no video has shown the alleged plane
crash and none of the debris from a Boeing has ever been recovered.
Skip Pulley – the Soundboy Radio Show, November 2005
Driven by the court-ordered release of the 911 transcripts of September 11, 2001 by the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, large communities of people united by the internet are rushing
to verify their respective theories of what really transpired that day. The central theme behind their
search for truth is the glaring inconsistencies between what eyewitnesses saw and heard and what we
were shown on broadcast television. For example, during ABC's live broadcast, a man is describing
the burning North Tower as we watch it. Suddenly we see what appears to be a plane come from the
right. The man however, sees nothing but the explosion. The anchors have to tell him that a plane hit
the tower; he saw only the fireball. I was watching the events unfold on NBC. A woman was describing
the object that she saw strike the north tower as a small plane or a rocket. When another object that
appeared to be a plane hit the south tower, she gasped and shouted that there had been another
explosion. When they told her it was a plane, she said she only saw an explosion. As I watched the
events transpire that day, I was filled with anguish and disgust. I have feelings and I felt it like a man.
Now, I will dispute it like a man.
Physical law cannot be broken
How were the laws of physics changed to permit the heat from the burning jet fuel to fatally weaken
buildings with 150,000 to 200,000 tons of steel? Why did the South tower collapse, since most of the
jet fuel apparently was ignited in the fireball accompanying Flight 175s crash?
Why did the sections of both towers that were above the fires disintegrate as soon as they collapsed
rather than landing as large blocks? Why did World Trade Center 7, which wasn’t hit by an aircraft or
significant falling debris, collapse at all? Apparently it is the first large building in history that
completely disintegrated due to a fire.
It is very strange for a plane impact on the south side to deliver the majority of the explosive
substance to the north side of South Tower. This would lead us to assume that there was no core
formed of numerous massive steel core columns in between the collision trajectory and the resulting
explosion formation. In the first place, the explosion of a real plane would have occurred the instant
the wings touched the outer skin of the steel skyscraper. However, this particular explosion was
delayed for nearly one second and occurred deep inside the tower. Secondly, it has been observed
that the Twin Towers fell straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a similar characteristic of a
controlled demolition. Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum,
one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact
steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. The paradox is
easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis. “. . There was what appeared to be at first an
explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out
horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of
the collapse.” Frank Cruthers, Chief (F.D.N.Y.) Citywide Tour Commander
It is often pointed out that no steel building before or since the 9-11 attack has collapsed as the result
of fire. Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term,
Morgan Reynolds, said the common account of the WTC collapse is “bogus” and suggests a
controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. He also questioned the
involvement of commercial jets stating that “the North Tower’s hole wasn't big enough for a Boeing
767.” Minoru Yamasaki, architect and designer of the WTC before his death in February, 1986 stated,
“We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes.” (A Boeing 707 is comparable to the 767)
This also brings up the question of why the eyewitnesses and victims only reported an explosion in
their 911 calls and not what they thought was an airplane crash.
Only Demolition and Severe Earthquakes Have Leveled Skyscrapers. Steel-frame high-rises have
been in use for over a century.
• No steel-frame high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire. Other skyscrapers have been ravaged
by severe fires. Examples include:
One Meridian Plaza fire blazed for 18 hours, gutting 8 floors and the First Interstate Bank Building fire
burned for 3-1/2 hours, gutting 4 floors. Both fires exhibited: Large emergent flames, extensive window
breakage and blazes filling entire floors
These fires were much worse than those in the Twin Towers and Building 7. Neither fire significantly
damaged vertical steel columns. Other than demolition, total collapses of steel buildings are extremely
rare, even in the event of severe earthquakes.
Some Proofs of Demolition vs. Collapse
1. The towers’ concrete was pulverized in thin air. The steel superstructures of the towers provided no
more resistance to the falling rubble than air. 2. The volume of the dust clouds produced by the
collapses indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitation energy. 3. The South Tower’s top
shattered before falling into the intact structure. Proofs 1 and 2 require only common sense. Proof 3
uses basic thermodynamics, and Proof 4 uses basic mechanics.
The 2-D Animation theory
The 2-Dimensional Animation (seen on television) theory, also known as the “no planes” theory has
been attacked and ridiculed like no other theory relating to 9/11. In fact, however, it is based on
stringent science, reports from the military aviation community and on careful analysis of the photos
and mainstream media news videos of the alleged plane crash into south tower.
Based on the MIT study of the attacks and twin tower collapse, it is established science that the visible
flying aircraft craft could not have done any of the following:
o the visible aircraft is in the south walls shadow but parts of the it shine white like a lamp
o the visible aircraft emits a yellow flash an instant before nose touches the wall
o the visible aircraft cuts six floors which is impossible (Prof. Wierzbicki, MIT)
o the entering aircraft creates dust pimples that blow outward as from explosions instead of inward
o the sensitive wing tips, tail rudder and elevator do not bend or break off, nor do they flip forward
o no veer or waver despite flying in at an angle (about 13 degrees) it appears to move right while
o no deceleration despite a calculated loss of kinetic energy of 26%
o no deformation, crumple or smash-up of the visible flying aircraft
o no explosion until the visible flying object has faded out of sight
o no sound of the impact, only the sound of an explosion
o the aircraft in various photos and video appears to take three different approach paths to the
o the aircraft suddenly appears out of nowhere, even though the sky was completely clear
o It is a known fact that a stealth aircraft can project a hologram of a plane while engaged with the
enemy as a defensive tactic.
o Other than the engines, a commercial aircraft is comprised mostly of aluminum and air. They
cannot penetrate concrete and steel completely at any speed.
People who are not brainwashed and are willing to use their common sense must acknowledge that all
the video presented by mainstream media networks on 9/11 and actors posing as eyewitnesses on
the days and weeks thereafter have falsely documented the visible aircraft at south tower doing all of
The Properties of Steel
Steel frame towers are very strong. They need to withstand the pressure of gale-force winds, the
violent rocking motion of earthquakes and the ravages of time. For this reason, they are almost
impossible to destroy. Airplane strikes do not destroy skyscrapers. A bomber strike to the Empire
State Building during World War II did not harm that building. The World Trade Center towers were
designed to survive several strikes by a Boeing 707. (the 767 is slightly more massive, but not
If a failure had occurred at the moment of impact, it would have been at the point of highest levered
stress near the base of the tower, causing it to fall over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of
course did not happen.
Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been
destroyed by fire. So, how do you destroy a skyscraper? Suppose you are the owner and you need
the land to build a better one, for example. A low level nuclear device is very effective, but it can be
difficult to get permits from the city. An earlier solution was the wrecking ball; a huge lump of steel and
lead swung from a massive chain at high speed. With the benefit of momentum, it is able to bend or
break a few girders at a time. But it would be a hopeless task to destroy a tower the size of the World
Trade Center using a wrecking ball. By far the cleanest, safest most efficient way to destroy a
skyscraper is known as “controlled demolition”.
The trick is to distribute explosives at key points throughout the structure. The explosives are
detonated simultaneously, destroying the integrity of the steel frame at key points, such that no part of
the building is supported against the force of gravity. The entire mass is pulled swiftly to earth, where
gravity does the work of pounding the structure into tiny fragments of steel and concrete. The
gravitational potential energy of the structure is converted smoothly and uniformly into kinetic energy
and is available to very efficiently to pulverize the fragments of the building as they impact against the
Controlled demolitions have a striking and characteristic appearance of a smooth, flowing collapse. As
your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions. Here's the
proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a
The equation is H= (1/2) at2, where H is the height, (a) is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per
second squared) and (t) is time in seconds.
Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about
the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below.
According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.
It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air; as if the entire solid structure
below this had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way just disappeared into
nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to see if there had been a
controlled demolition, because the explosions below leave the upper stories completely unsupported.
Like Wyle E. Coyote after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then
goes straight down. Any kind of friction process should have slowed down the supposed collapse.
Just like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational
acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World
Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least broken the fall of the upper stories. This
did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all. This proves controlled demolition.
You’ve been had; hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray and run amok. We have been lied to about this
on numerous occasions and at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft
was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact,
most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks would
have been pierced or stripped as the airplanes supposedly penetrated the walls of the towers; as a
result, the huge fireball which was seen on national TV was where most of this fuel supposedly burned.
The fire it caused was not a hot, dynamic fire. This would have blown out many windows in the building
and would have burned a bright red or white color.
The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire. But let’s say for the sake of
argument that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This
redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The
process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no
steel skyscraper has even bent in a fire. Let’s also say for the sake of argument that the structure was
sufficiently weakened and did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the
intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper portion of the building
(the part that has broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work
uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall
sideways. If it does not tip over, it has to go straight down through the building below. The gravitational
potential energy of the upper floors would be coupled into the frame below. This frame would deflect
elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting.
At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame
would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic
noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential
energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame. Even if the World Trade
Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they would have stood for awhile before toppling
in the wind. If by some act of magic they had collapsed straight down, the energy required to pulverize
the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upper floors. The gravitational
potential energy of the World Trade Center was hardly sufficient to convert its concrete into powder;
so for that to happen in an “accidental” collapse would have been impossible. (It would have taken a
lot longer than 10 seconds in any case)
Tens of millions of people around the world saw what was said to be United Airlines Flight 175 crash
into the South Tower at 09:02:53 a.m. The videos of UA 175 have been shown so repeatedly
(particularly that day) that they are probably the most infamous videos in world history. The first shot
that the world saw live was from North of the WTC. The North Tower was burning. The South Tower,
logically, is undamaged. UA 175 arrives in silhouette from the right and heads to the South Tower
near its southwest corner. Impact is not seen. Immediately following, there is a fantastic explosion of
what presumably was the diesel fuel in the jet. First of all, why is the plane in silhouette? It is hundreds
of feet south of the tower. Unblocked by the Sun in the east, we don't expect to see it totally in
shadow. Secondly, the smoke from the burning towers seems to change directions several times, even
though we know that day to be exceptionally windless and clear.
On page 32, Chapter Two of FEMA’s official 911 report shows what they claim to be part of UA 175’s
fuselage on WTC 5. FEMA’s report also says that UA 175 struck the tower between the 78th and 84th
floors. These pieces of the fuselage somehow not only survive the fireball (without showing any signs
of having been burned) they also exit the south tower without being seen on any video. They travel
through the air and land on the top of WTC 5. In addition, the pieces were silver. We know United
Airlines has a grey and dark blue fleet. The first supposed north tower hit is more sketch than the
second south tower one. The North Tower documentation produces a major problem.
We cannot successfully match the initial explosions at impact with the damage later on. So where is
the plane in the Naudet Brothers' footage of the North Tower hit? The object we see looks like a
disguised missile. The blurry blob that they claim to have videotaped in their documentary can not be
a plane for more reasons:
1. A close-up of the blurry flying object in the Naudet video indicates it has a different background
than the rest of the image. This suggests it was copied and pasted onto the video. 2. The blurry flying
object does not obey the laws of perspective. As it moves away from the camera it should get smaller.
However, it remains a fixed size as it moves away from our perspective until it hits the North Tower. 3.
The damage to the North Tower was inconsistent with what was shown in the Naudet brothers' video. If
the blurry blob in their clip was a plane it would have left damage that resembled the rest of the
documentation. 4. It is impossible for the North Tower to be more in focus than the plane which hits it.
Depth of Field affects regions that are in front of the camera, not specific objects. Depth of Field
changes based on several factors, including distance to the camera lens, amount of light which
passes through the aperture and focal length of the lens. Depth of Field does not change based on
the speed of the objects being recorded by a camera's lens. Nor does Depth of Field play favorites; i.
e., deciding that a tall building should be more in focus than an object that hits it. Of course, New York
should be full of witnesses who saw commercial jets hit the WTC. However, a survey of witnesses is
inconclusive about what they saw. For example, a helicopter traffic reporter failed to see either plane
even though he was in an excellent position to. So as a result the expect us to swallow this enormous
lie. The World Trade Center towers were designed to withstand aircraft impact, which they did for
about an hour. Then they collapsed directly to the ground, with remarkably little collateral damage to
surrounding buildings, in a manner that strikingly resembles the appearance of controlled demolitions.
The US government claims that fire was responsible for the collapse, but many reports have
overstated the heat of the fire and the amount of fuel from the airplanes which was not consumed in
the fireballs outside the towers.
If explosives had been planted in the World Trade Center towers, they could have been used to
trigger the collapse. Building 7, which collapsed later in the afternoon was never hit by any airplane,
so there is no known reason (other than explosives) for it to have collapsed into rubble. However, a
cloud of dust was seen in the area of building 7 immediately before the collapse of the south tower,
which has not been explained. While the whole attack was going on (a period well over an hour)
George W. Bush sat in a classroom and listened to a story about goats, and the military did not
respond to the first three attacks. His location was public knowledge. How did anyone know there was
not a hijacked plane headed for the school in Florida? Perhaps the grade school was equipped with
anti-aircraft gun batteries on the roof. Regardless, he sat there during the supposed attack listening
to children read about goats from a book that he was holding upside down. Given his vocabulary, that
may be how he reads.
To add insult to injury, a fourth flight was also supposedly “hijacked” that day, but was said to have
crashed in Pennsylvania. Within hours, a massive media campaign to blame the attacks on Arabs and
specifically Osama Bin Laden had begun; and this campaign of fake terror and false threat has
continued to the present day. The Patriot Act appears poised to supersede the Bill of Rights. If the
prisoners at Guantanimo Bay are guilty, prosecute them. There is only one reason not to; if your case
is non-existent. If the world trade center collapsed, why not investigate how it happened? All the
evidence was destroyed. You were told that there was no prior knowledge of the 18 alleged hijackers
plan yet within 24 hours of the event the FBI knew the names, addresses, flight schools they had
attended, the acquaintances of the suspects and had detailed information on all of them, including
their passport applications. It doesn’t add up, does it? Neither does the fact that the CIA actually
invented Al Qaeda (and Islamic Fundamentalism, for that matter) just as they had the Viet Cong
decades before. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said, “There is such a
taboo on suicide in Islam, it is completely prohibited. That we find it inconceivable that somebody
would invoke the name of God and then commit some act that is totally opposed to the faith.” The
video of Palestinians in the streets celebrating news of the attacks was phony. It was made at around
noon according to visible shadows. At the time the video was shot it had to have been near or after
sunset in that part of the world. Therefore the video could not have been shot on the day or at the
time claimed. Devout Muslims who would be willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause do not
frequent bars and do not ever drink alcoholic beverages. A devout Muslim would not take a copy of
his holy book the Quran to a bar and leave it behind when he left after spending an evening drinking,
participating in lap dances, and bragging about pending bloodshed to take place the following day.
This part of the story is an insult to our collective intelligence. Men who were supposedly so careful
during 5 years of planning, training, and careful preparations and never allowed even one leak do not
brag the night before their mission that they are going to cause such widespread violence and
bloodshed the following day using credit cards with their correct names, and allowing drivers licenses
with photos to be Xeroxed.
A devout Muslim on the way to his death would not leave his holy Quran in a parked car. If the
extremist theory is true, he would take it with him. All of this pales in comparison to the fact that the
simultaneous hi-jacking of 4 large commercial jet aircraft did not alert anyone to the possibility of the
impending attacks. Within an hour of the attacks the FBI knew the names, addresses, flight schools
they had attended, the acquaintances of the suspects, and had begun a nationwide roundup.
So who benefits? The answer is obvious and very disturbing. Everyone in the oil business will benefit.
Everyone in the defense industrial complex will benefit. The United Nations will benefit. The State of
Israel will benefit more than any other.
What really happened that day?
To understand the absurdity of the official story of 9/11 you must first trust your instincts and your
common sense. If you remember, one of the first things we were told was not to entertain “outrageous
conspiracy theories” about what happened. This was a very strange request as it came within 36
hours of the supposed attacks. Many free thinkers in this country and throughout the world have
theories of how and why this was done. Now I that have evidence, it’s no longer a theory. Allow me to
The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001.
He signed an unprecedented 99 year lease with a ridiculous insurance policy that included a clause
for acts of terrorism. An import company called Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the buildings around
that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been easy
(with all the commotion and noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on several floors; enough for at
least some kind of controlled demolition. There were floors in both towers that could only be accessed
with a key. FEMA, by their own admission ran several terror alert drills in the weeks prior. Two weeks
before 9/11, bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the building and the security staff ended a series
of rotating 12 hour shifts. But this is all circumstantial. Even those who point out that the Presidents
brother Marvin Bush was head of security for the trade center complex, are just adding decoration to
the crime scene. The real questions are how and why.
Most people are convinced that for there to be a conspiracy there must have been a network of
thousands of participants. That is an irrational assumption. It only takes a few dedicated people on the
inside along with the complicity of a coerced public. The perpetrators of this crime knew that this
attack and the war that would follow would be psychological, not tactical as a conventional war would
be. It therefore only makes sense to attack the world trade center and the pentagon as a
psychological operation or “psy op”.
Let’s start with common sense, and then get into logistics. Airplane hijackings compared to the number
of flights is rare. Successful hijackings are extremely rare. Since 1947, 60% of hijackings have been
refugee escapes. In 1968 there were 27 hijackings and attempted hijackings to Cuba alone. In 1969
there were 82 recorded hijack attempts worldwide, more than twice the total attempts for the whole
period 1947-67. Most were Palestinians using hijacks as a political weapon to publicise their cause
and to force the Israeli government to release Palestinian prisoners from jail. So at first, the official
story of eighteen arab hijackers on 9/11 would seem to make sense. The entire defense of this theory
and this war rests on the shoulders of this massive lie. It is entirely false and extremely weak for
1. Primary radar will detect any large aircraft regardless of weather it has an active transponder
or not. If planes were hijacked that day, they would have easily been seen and tracked by air traffic
2. Large commercial jets like the Boeing 676 are difficult to fly. Professional pilots go through
years of training, including college-level aviation programs, in which a bachelor’s degree (commonly in
Aviation Science or a related field) is conferred upon the completion of both flight and classroom
We are being led to believe that these 18 arab flight school students whom apparently we knew
nothing about prior to 9/11 yet had detailed information about 24 hours afterward somehow took
control of the massive planes with plastic weapons and flew them above cloud cover with no
experience piloting a jumbo jet, no idea in which direction they were flying and no help from air traffic
control. Two of the four pilots and one of the four co-pilots were said to have a military background,
yet they were somehow overpowered with plastic weapons without engaging the remote device.
3. The supposed 911 calls from the passengers and crew were extremely suspicious. One of the
passengers was documented as calling his mother and stating his first and last name. A flight
attendant from AA77 was unusually calm and un animated as she described the hijackers and injuries
to various crew members.
4. Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with remote-controlled flight computers for purposes
of hijack recovery. This was stated by a British intelligence operative and was also suggested by a
former German secretary of defense. The technology needed for such systems is well known, and its
utility is obvious. If these systems had been operative on 9/11, then they should have been used to
take control from the hijackers.
But on 9/11, the remote control systems were not used to bring the planes home, nor did fighters
scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes supposedly executed highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers
(well beyond any known educational background of the Arab student pilots) and allegedly crashed into
the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.
5. The US air force has standard operating procedure to send jet fighters to intercept hijacked
aircraft within minutes of an airliner straying off coarse or reported as hijacked by air traffic control.
These fighters may be armed and are certainly very maneuverable, and an airliner cannot hope to
6. You can’t get box cutters aboard an airplane. In fact, if you are brown person or have a
passport from an Arab country, you can barely get yourself aboard an airplane. Racial Profiling did
not start with 9/11, it merely intensified. It is not as if no one had ever thought of trying that before.
For all these reasons, the supposed Arab hijackers' mission should have been an ignominious failure.
These measures (as well as pre-9/11 “random” airport security screenings) have been effective
enough that hijacking has rarely been a problem for the past few years.
So if the four commercial airliners did not strike their targets, what happened to them? The flights
alleged to have hit the north WTC tower and the Pentagon simply did not exist. They were not
scheduled to fly that day. On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been
established for some time that on Sept 11, 2001 the damage to the Pentagon was caused by
something other than the hijacked Boeing 757; American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the government
to have crashed into the building. More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video
evidence that the object which hit the North Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the
hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight 11, as claimed in the official story. In response to these
observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing. It raises a valid
question – if these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?
First let’s recap on the official story of what happened to four planes that morning. AA 11 left Boston
for LA at about 8 am, was reported as hijacked about 8.25, and hit the north tower at about 8.46. UA
175 left Boston for LA at about the same time was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the south
tower at about 9.03. AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time, was reported hijacked at about 8.55
and hit the Pentagon at about 9.45. UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time; was reported
hijacked about 9.45 and crashed in PA at about 10.10. The Bureau of transportation website contains
search pages where one can pull up detailed statistics about the history of which flights have been
scheduled for which airports on any given day.
Go to http://www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml and click on “detailed statistics” You can search records
of scheduled and actual departure times, arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure
airport, arrival airport, Airline and flight number. Searches for Sept 11, 2001 reveal that the flights AA
11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled that day. Here are the search results which I
encourage everyone to check for themselves.
A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and
actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. A search for UA
from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed at 7.58. Also
listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination. The term "diverted" does not specify any
differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so the data gives no indication one way
or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to them, but it does confirm that they
departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations. A search for AA flights from
Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA that day was 0181 at
11.00. A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list flight 77. The earliest scheduled
AA flight to LA from Dulles was 0135 at 11.15. If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you
will find that they were regularly scheduled flights right up to Sept 10.
AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00 and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at 7.45. On Sept 11,
they were not scheduled. Not cancelled, just not scheduled. On Sept 12, they re-appear in the
schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20 when both flights change their
numbers. Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA
11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them, nothing;
because the flights did not exist.
This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the
Pentagon and north WTC tower incidents. This still leaves the unanswered question of what
happened to the alleged passengers aboard the non existent flights. In the case of AA 77, while one
can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, but it is preferential to wait until some real
evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting that UA 175 left from the
same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable to AA 11. It would
seem reasonable to speculate at this stage that any passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11,
and were booked on it that day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per the normal
routine. They were then most likely told that there was a last minute problem with the flight which could
not be fixed within a reasonable period of time, and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.
The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight
paths and hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the
planes. It also indicates probable complicity by American and United Airlines in the events of Sept 11,
2001. UA 93 seems to have the most bizarre explanation of the four. When the mayor of Shanksville,
PA (the alleged “crash” site) was interviewed about the plane crash his response was “what plane”?
The first news reporters on the scene said that there was no evidence of a plane crash anywhere in
the area. An emergency worker was quoted as saying that it looked like they just dropped a bunch of
metal out of the sky in a small area in the woods, suspiciously far from the supposed impact site. The
county coroner said he stopped being coroner after 20 minutes because there were no bodies there
to autopsy or identify.
So it is very probable that what happened to UA 93 was exactly what the Associated Press and air
traffic officials originally claimed had happened; it landed safely in Cleveland at around 10:15 am.
“A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International
Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the
plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane
as Flight 93. The airline [didn't] say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also
“deeply concerned” about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to
Los Angeles. On behalf of the airline, CEO James Goodwin said: “The thoughts of everyone at United
are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground
who may have been involved. United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to
obtain further information on these flights,” -WCPO-TV (09/11/01)
A second plane, identified as Delta 1989, was also reported to have landed at the Cleveland airport
due to fears of sabotage. At a news conference, Mayor White identified the plane as a Boeing 767
flying from Boston to Los Angeles. It may be more than coincidence that both of the flights that
allegedly struck the World Trade Center also originated at Boston's Logan Airport. The Akron Beacon
Journal reported that the mayor had stated that 200 passengers had been released from the plane at
11:15 a.m. The airport in Cleveland had been evacuated at 10 a.m. "Airline passengers and crew
members were walking onto the highway to find their rides as no cars were allowed into the passenger
drop off and pick up areas," the Journal reported. The following day, Sept. 12, the Journal reported
that an eyewitness had watched the Delta plane sitting near the I-X Center, which is a facility at the
southeast edge of the airfield. It also reported that 78 passengers “were taken to NASA Glenn
Research Center to be interviewed by FBI agents.” The NASA facility is at the extreme northwest end
of the airfield. One of the noteworthy news events at the Cleveland airport is that 78 passengers were
taken to the NASA Glenn Research Center, which had been evacuated, where they were interviewed
by FBI agents. Why were the passengers taken to the NASA facility and why were FBI agents waiting
for them there?
There was a lot of “magic” at work on 9/11, to produce the effects that were seen on the Television.
There was a tremendous “spin” on the entire situation from top to bottom. There is a huge
smokescreen of treachery and deceit; The Saudi Arabians, W. Bush, Bin Laden, Wall Street,
justification of war, etc. Taken all together, the
Evidence suggests very strongly that the attacks of 9/11 were fake terror, and quite possibly a
collaborative venture involving elements within the Israeli and US governments. This is purely
speculative but I believe it to be a logical conclusion given the principles involved and those who have
benefited since. The flight school in Venice, Florida where the hijackers supposedly trained is linked to
CIA drug running operations.
A recently leaked document from the US Drug Enforcement Agency indicates that a number of Israeli
intelligence operatives describing themselves as art students took up residences in close physical
proximity to the Arabs as they moved about the country. It would be very interesting to question the
Israelis regarding their knowledge of the Arab flight students. No one has thought to do that. Many of
the Israeli businesses located at the trade center relocated that summer. Some even claimed to
receive communications from home offices overseas telling them not to show up for work on 9/11. It
gets worse. There had been plans to go to war in the Middle East as early as the mid-nineties.
This war was financially supported by and laundered through several sources; the International
Monetary Fund, Enron, Worldcom, and Halliburton. How do we know this?
1. IMF policy makers deliberately supported capitalistic military dictatorships friendly to American and
European corporations. Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to their views of
democracy, human rights, and labor rights. These criticisms generated a controversy that helped
spark the anti-globalization movement.
2. The chief auditors of Enron were rumored to consort with rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, gaining
inside information on the workings of OPEC. This rumored insider information supposedly led to more
profitable trading of oil commodities.
3. In May, 2003 Worldcom was given a no-bid contract by the United States Department of Defense to
build a cellular telephone network in Iraq. The deal has been criticized by competitors and others who
cite the company's lack of experience in the area.
(the securities and exchange commission had thousands of files investigating Enron and worldcom.
They were destroyed when world trade center building 7 collapsed for no apparent reason)
4. Haliburton contracts in Iraq are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in sales by the
time they started to expire in 2006. The contracts in Iraq will be more profitable after the US Army
reimburses them for costs that were originally investigated as potentially inflated.
All of this is still scenery for the stage play. Intelligent people realize what these corporations do and
have done. Why was 9/11 chosen to be the catalyst for the war of a new world order? In the words of
the neo-cons, it was another Pearl Harbor.
This method of shock and awe was employed during the 2000 election and was magnified in the fall of
2001. This war being waged is against us. Our society and our constitution. Given the many
uncertainties about the events of 9/11, it certainly seems that there should be more questions asked,
more investigations, and more thought about the responsibilities of the various parties involved. Logic
will reveal that Arabs, Bin Laden, Bush, Cheney, the military industrial complex, and Wall Street could
not have been solely responsible for the entire chain of events. It is equally unlikely that if the Israelis
are involved they could have pulled it off by themselves.
Instead of a legitimate investigation, the US government is gathering support for war against Middle
Eastern nations, an ironic and tragic response to the enigmatic events of that day. Tyranny in the
name of security will benefit and rule over the American People. Eventually, the official story will be
exposed as a lie. The defense of this lie will cause key principles to crack under the pressure. You can
choose to be a part of the problem or remain a part of the solution.