AA Flight 11 CraftNorth Tower explosion

I’ve been working on an extensive blog post called “9/11 for Beginners.” Although my 2013 book Truth Is a Lonely Warrior has a long chapter on 9/11, I have not written a blog post on it, because so much good material is already available from other online sources.

However, since fresh insights and information have emerged in recent years, and because we can never really say too much about this devastating crime, I felt I should contribute what I can to the discussion, in hopes of awakening additional people.

In the course of writing, I discovered a single piece of research that is so thorough, objective and edifying that I believe I should devote a post to it. The research is contained in a forum thread called “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls.” The URL is http://www.letsrollforums.com/forum/forum/the-u-s-government-conspiracy-of-9-11/the-mystery-of-flights-11-77-175-93/29035-fog-fiction-and-the-flight-11-phone-calls.

The author of this remarkable thread, which might be better termed an essay, is known to me only by his or her forum moniker: loopDloop.

Of course, I can hear someone saying, “Oh, great, James! It’s so academically reassuring to know that your work has as, its chief citation, loopDloop.” I can only suggest that people visit the thread and judge for themselves. The essay, written with extensive documentation over a two-year period (2012 to 2014), punctuated by a few forum comments, runs for seven forum pages. I am going to bullet-point some highlights here, along with my personal thoughts, plus insights from other 9/11 analysts. In the meantime, hats off to you, loopDloop.

Let’s start with the official version of American Airlines Flight 11. This is the flight said to have been hijacked by Mohamed Atta and four other Al Qaeda terrorists, and was the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center (North Tower). Almost all information about what occurred on Flight 11 is based on phone calls from two flight attendants, Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney. The pilots never sent any mayday communications, and like all pilots that day, never punched in the hijack code as they were rigorously trained to do. Also, there were no calls from any Flight 11 passengers. In the official timeline, Flight 11 departed Boston’s Logan Airport, bound for Los Angeles, at 7:59 AM; the transponder was turned off at 8:21; Ong made the first connecting call at 8:21; and the plane crashed at 8:46.

There is no audio of the calls that Sweeney made to American Airlines Flight Services at Logan Airport, although notes were kept. Of Betty Ong’s 25-minute call to American Airlines Reservations, allegedly only an early four minutes were recorded. This is rather incredible, given that it was an emergency call about a hijacking; nonetheless, those four minutes are all the public and even the 9/11 Commission have ever heard. The following clip contains those 4 minutes; Ong speaks with Vanessa Minter, an AA reservationist in Raleigh, North Carolina, to whom the call was randomly routed; as well as AA resolutions agent Winston Sadler and supervisor Nydia Gonzalez.

Let’s now review some of the Flight 11 story’s problems. Nothing in this post is intended to dishonor the dead; rather it is intended to honor them by seeking the truth about their fate.

False flags are often planned to coincide with drills. This occurred with the Boston Marathon bombing (which happened during a bomb drill) and the recent Charleston massacre (which coincided with a DHS “active shooter threat” drill). The reason for coordinating false flags with drills is that if anything goes wrong, and the false flag cannot be carried out, the authorities can attribute any strange events the public witnessed to “a drill.”

Our thesis will be: Ong and Sweeney believed they were participating in a hijacking drill. Those familiar with 9/11’s backstory know that NORAD and the Air Force were engaged in military exercises that day, including simulated hijackings. Information about this can be found abundantly on the Internet.

The “Flight 12” controversy

In the clip, Betty Ong originally says she is on is “Flight 12” and later corrects this to “Flight 11.” Here’s how this has usually been explained: Flight 11 was a regularly scheduled Boston-to-Los Angeles flight; on the return trip to Boston it was known as “Flight 12”; Ong, in her nervousness over the hijacking, simply made a mistake and called it “Flight 12.”

But the situation is more complex.

If you listen to the clip, when Ong speaks at 0:12, there are distinctly two voices saying “Flight 12.” This has been explained away as Ong and Minter speaking at the same time, but it seems hard to believe that they would speak so identically.

Furthermore, if it is really Minter speaking, this means Betty had already identified the flight as “12” to Minter in a previous, unrecorded part of the conversation. That would mean Ong mistakenly identified the Flight as “12” at least twice.

This still might not seem controversial until we turn to Madeline Amy Sweeney. She called American Airlines and reached passenger service agent Evelyn Nunez. According to FBI records, Nunez reported Sweeney said that “Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight attendants stabbed. In addition, there was a passenger in row 9 who had their throat cut by a passenger in seat 10B. Nunez also learned the hijackers said they had a bomb. The flight attendant was talking fast and then got disconnected.”1

So Sweeney, just like Ong, mis-identified the flight as “12.” When Sweeney called back a second time, she spoke to Flight Services Manager Michael Woodward, who kept notes of the conversation. Here is the first page:

Woodward Note

Woodward initially wrote “12,” but corrected it to say “11.” Apparently Sweeney once again mis-identified the flight as “12.” What are the chances of both flight attendants making this mistake twice?

Allow me to suggest that Ong and Sweeney were following the script of a hijacking drill, but the scriptwriter had mistakenly labeled the flight “12,” the Los Angeles-to-Boston run. In the course of communications, Ong and Sweeney spoke to whoever was directing them, and corrected this error.

Did I say “scriptwriter”?” Look at the official version Flight 11’s seating:

Flight 11 passenger plan

Although a strong case has been made that there were no Muslim terrorists at all on the 9/11 flights, look who’s beside “Mohamed Atta” in row 8. It’s Emmy Award-winning screenwriter David Angell and his wife Lynn. Angell was co-creator of the hit TV series Frasier and Wings (about a Massachusetts-based airline). Seated directly behind them in row 9 is Daniel Lewin, a former captain in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), and who served in the Sayeret Matkal, which specializes in counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, and assassination. It was said that Lewin could bench-press 315 pounds and “was trained to kill terrorists with a pen or a credit card, or just his bare hands.”2

Let’s just say, “the plot thickens.”

The Mystery of Gate 32

One of the lesser-known controversies surrounding Flight 11 is that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) has no record of its departing that morning, as the Bureau should. Such data is automatically recorded electronically when a flight takes off. There is debate about the significance of this, and I have no settled opinion, but those who wish to learn more can consult Peter Meyer’s article. I wouldn’t say Flight 11 “did not exist”; there is certainly a record of flight-control conversation with the departing pilot, as well as radar records. But was the plane what we’ve been told?

Deepening the controversy is that mainstream media accounts give two different gates as Flight 11’s departure point: 32 and 26. In early accounts, The Boston Globe, Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, and other publications said Gate 26. However, Gate 32 was the scheduled gate, the flight controller transcript said Gate 32, and that is what the 9/11 Commission accepted.

Adding fuel to the mystery is a detail noticed by loopDloop. Flight attendant Sweeney, in her first aborted call, had said “Flight 12 at Gate 32 had two flight attendants stabbed.” This confusing message prompted Michael Woodward and his colleague Elizabeth Williams to proceed directly to Gate 32. According to the FBI’s interview of Williams:

WILLIAMS stated on September 11, 2001, at approximately 8 a.m., she was working in her office at LOGAN AIRPORT when MICHAEL WOODWARD, Manager of Flight Services for AMERICAN AIRLINES AA, advised her that they needed to go to Gate 32 because two flight attendants had been stabbed. Upon arrival at the gate, WILLIAMS and WOODWARD found an empty airplane. WOODWARD then got on the phone and contacted EVELYN NUNEZ, an employee of AA at LOGAN AIRPORT. While WOODWARD was on the phone, WILLIAMS searched the gate-side computer for information for the flight time of the airplane at Gate 32.3

Although Woodward never mentioned it, Williams candidly said an empty plane was at Gate 32. Had another aircraft really pulled into the gate and emptied itself of persons in the half hour since Flight 11 departed? What seems more likely: the plane never left. This would resolve why the BTS data base has no record of Flight 11 ever taking off. Did a “ringer” plane, perhaps with no passengers aboard, depart Gate 26? I’d like to quote loopDloop at this point:

Here’s a possible scenario: the doors of the flight are closed at 7:40am. As soon as that happens, a man stands up on the plane and explains to the passengers and crew that they are now involved in a military drill. They are asked to disembark the plane, through the rear doors, where a bus is waiting for them on the tarmac. They are taken somewhere. . . Sweeney and Ong are selected, and convinced, to play roles within the simulation, pretending to phone in the details of the imaginary hijacking. It is impressed upon them that they must not give the game away. Betty Ong does pretty well, but in the end, there is really only four minutes near the beginning of the call which could conceivably ever be released into the public domain, so they make up the story about the four minutes of recording. . . Amy Sweeney’s first call is a complete botch up, and the controllers have to pull the plug on the connection after about a minute, because she is taking too much creative license with the script. They give her a quick pep talk, and then she reconnects for the second phone call . . . .

More Problems with Ong’s Call

For convenience, I’m re-embedding it here:

— At 0:15 you will hear the people in Raleigh ask Betty what seat she is in. She avoids the question. She is asked four times before responding that she’s in her jump seat. The question’s answer had obviously not been in the drill script and had to be improvised.

And “jump seat 3R,” an attendant seat at the plane’s rear, doesn’t pass muster. A jump seat has no airphone by which to make an outside call. Betty would have been facing the last row of passenger seats, which have no airphones behind their backrests. This seemingly reduces her options to a cell phone. It is generally conceded that, in the technology existing in 2001, connecting a cell phone call in an airliner at high speeds and altitude was very difficult, though not impossible. It stretches credibility that Betty maintained a cell connection for 25 minutes without once getting “dropped.”

By tracing Flight 11’s airphone records, LoopDloop makes a strong case that Betty was wearing a headset plugged into a Claircomm box (Claircomm was the company that supplied AA with its airphone equipment). LoopDloop’s explanation is a bit long to repeat here, but may be found in the first two posts of his outstanding thread.

— Although it’s not heard in the available audio, according to the FBI transcript of Ong’s call, she said a hijacker “stood upstairs.”Former flight attendant Rebekah Roth, author of the bestselling 9/11 novel Methodical Illusion, has picked up on this important discrepancy. Flight 11 was a Boeing 767. Although Boeing 747s have stairs, Boeing 767s do not. Here are the stairs of a 747:

Boeing 747 stairs

The “scriptwriter” for Flight 11’s drill had evidently traveled on 747s and had these in mind. Small wonder that Ong’s description of the hijacker being on the stairs was deleted from the audio made publicly available.

— The FBI reports also reveal that Winston Sadler (who can be heard in the Ong call’s audio) said “Ong also stated that she did not believe that the coach passengers were aware of the hijacking.”5 Likewise, just some three minutes before the North Tower’s explosion, supervisor Nydia Gonzalez, who can also be heard in the Ong clip, said in her own recorded conversation: “Okay. It seems like the passengers in coach might not be aware of what’s going on right now.”6

This seems unbelievable. According to the Sweeney and Ong calls, three people had been stabbed: two flight attendants (one requiring oxygen) as well as the passenger in 9B (fatally). There would have been great commotion and shouting. Ong further stated: “We can’t breathe in business class, so somebody’s got mace or something. . . . we can’t even get up to business class right now, cause no one can breathe.”7

Let’s think this through. If it was “impossible to breathe” in business class, the business class passengers would have retreated to the plane’s rear to breathe better (as well as escape the bloody violence they were witnessing). The coach passengers would surely have asked what was happening; the retreating business class passengers would surely have told them. Yet no passenger shrieks are heard during Ong’s call. Nor is there any record of any of the 81 passengers attempting to place phone calls (unlike other 9/11 flights).

And as airline professional Roth points out, if mace had made the business class air unbreathable, in a pressurized cabin the mace would drift into coach. But you never hear Ong coughing.

— Finally, why in the world did Ong place her call to American Airlines reservations? Not only was this contrary to hijacking protocols, reservations is the last place you’d want to call for an emergency, because of the long hold times typically experienced there.

Additional Problems of the Sweeney Call

— Let’s recall that after Madeline Amy Sweeney’s first (disconnected) call, Michael Woodward and Elizabeth Williams proceeded to Gate 32 and found an empty plane. While they were gone, Sweeney again called Flight Services, and reached Jim Sayer (name redacted in the FBI Reports, but deduced to be Sayer in loopDloop’s analysis8). According to the FBI’s interview with him, Sweeney said “they were in the air over New York City.”The call was quickly taken over by Woodward when he returned to the office. In the timeline established by loopDloop, this could not have been later than 8:34 AM. As he notes, “They weren’t anywhere near New York City when Amy claimed to be in the air, above it.”10

— In the FBI report, Sayer stated that Sweeney said “A doctor and a nurse, on board the plane, were caring for the injured man [Lewin, the passenger in 9B].”11 Yet according to supervisor Nydia Gonzalez, Ong said no doctor was on board,12 which the passenger manifest confirmed.

What was the purpose of the flight attendants calls? The same as all the 9/11 calls: to provide the government with the narrative required to begin the never-ending “War on Terror.” Since none of the four planes had any survivors to describe what happened, reconstruction of events, proving a hijacking by men who looked “Middle Eastern,” was based entirely on the calls. In Flight 11’s case, Ong and Sweeney reported the hijackers’ seat numbers. Although the numbers they gave were sometimes contradictory, it was enough for the government to match those passengers to people on its terrorist watch, as well as a list of names found in Mohammed Atta’s luggage, which conveniently didn’t make it onto Flight 11. Of course, 9/11 Truthers have always asked why Atta would bother bringing luggage for a trip on which he planned to commit suicide.

LoopDloop has a good insight into why the script had Israeli Special Op Daniel Lewin getting killed. Naturally people would have asked why this veteran anti-terrorism expert, who could “kill a terrorist with a pen or credit card,” didn’t lead a recapture of the cockpit. So the narrative transformed him from handler to heroic victim – one more feather in the Zionist cap, Lewin being just one of many Zionists linked to 9/11.

Sara Low’s Calls

A little-known Flight 11 fact is that a third attendant, Sara Low, also made four attempted airphone calls. All these calls failed to connect; they were made to the number of a childhood home she hadn’t lived in for ten years. This has been attributed to Low not being able to remember her current home phone number due to stress from the hijacking. However, loopDloop, with his usual excellent detective work, has established that Low’s current home number would have been on the ATT Phone Card she was using to bill the calls.13 His deduction: Low was being instructed to call home to describe the “hijacking.” But Low, sensing something very wrong with the “drill,” refused to disturb her family, and kept dialing the number of her childhood home, which she knew was defunct.

If this was a real hijacking, it seems unreal that three flight attendants would keep making calls. The cabin crew was by now seriously undermanned. Two of their fellow attendants had allegedly been stabbed and would have needed help; a passenger had had his throat cut; the pilots were never mentioned, but by default would probably have been dead or wounded. Panicking passengers would have needed reassurance. Yet somehow Betty Ong was able to stay on the phone 25 minutes, and Sweeney likewise spent extensive time on the phone.

Never did the ladies request help. The calls’ sole purpose seems to have been to document what occurred. Ong’s calm demeanor has been attributed to professionalism; her voice reveals little anxiety despite fellow crew members being stabbed and the cockpit being controlled by murderous hijackers. It is no slur on Ong’s professionalism to ask: Was she this calm because she thought “it’s only a drill”?

American Airlines’ Restrained Response

When the hijacking became known about, a remarkable number of American Airlines employees were told to “keep quiet,” “don’t spread it around,” “don’t mention it,” etc. Although one could put a sinister spin on this, it may indicate that some suspected they were only dealing with a drill/exercise. For a full review of AA’s muzzling of the hijacking news, I recommend the article “’Don’t Mention This to Anyone’: Why Did American Airlines Suppress News of the First Hijacking on 9/11?” at 9/11 Blogger.

The FBI Arrives a Little Early

When Betty Ong made her call, it was answered by reservationist Vanessa Minter, who states that the FBI arrived about five minutes later and took her off the phone. Watch starting at the 2-minute mark of this interview (I can’t embed this clip, so click on the link):


Since Ong’s call was the first alarm that Flight 11 was hijacked, one wonders how the FBI was able to respond so quickly, even allowing for some exaggeration by Minter. As loopDloop notes, it “makes no sense. Unless they were monitoring the whole thing from the beginning, and realised that Minter was making a hash of the whole thing and had to be whisked out of the frontline as quick as possible.”14

The FBI Arrives a Little Late

And who was American Airlines’ Managing Director of Corporate Security on 9/11? Larry “Mandrake” Wansley, a veteran deep undercover FBI agent, co-author of the book FBI Undercover: The True Story of Special Agent Mandrake.

In a 2002 article in the Dallas Observer, Wansley’s FBI Undercover co-author Carlton Stowers wrote:

It began as a bright, promising September morning on the sixth floor of the Dallas-based American Airlines headquarters. Staff members were sipping coffee and mingling as they anticipated the morning’s operational meeting. . . . Larry Wansley, managing director of corporate security, had arrived early, pleased that on that day he would not be jetting off to San Francisco or London or Rome to address some new crisis. . . . At 7:45 a.m [Central], however, the leisurely atmosphere changed dramatically. From the airline’s nearby command center came an urgent call. American Flight 11, carrying 92 passengers from Boston’s Logan Airport, Wansley was told, had been hijacked. Betty Ong, a 45-year-old flight attendant on board, had managed to phone her company supervisor, reporting at least three hijackers with weapons and several passengers injured. From the vice chairman’s office, Wansley phoned Danny Defenbaugh, special agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office. It was the first step in the well-researched, secret hijack-response plan all commercial airlines have in place.15

Defenbaugh, we’ll note, had been in charge of the FBI’s investigation of the Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing, recognized in alternative media as a false flag. Here’s how Wansley explained things to the 9/11 Commission in 2004:

On 9-11 Wansley was walking into Baker’s office for the morning phone call (7:45am) and the secretary told Wansley that “we have a hijacking.” He called the SOC but they didn’t have much information. Wansley then called Danny Defenbaugh who was the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Dallas Field Office. Wansley informed Defenbaugh about the hijacking with the little information that he had which was that Flight 11 had been hijacked. Defenbaugh did not know anything about it. Defenbaugh told Wansley to hold and got a couple of other people together which Wansley said “started the ball rolling.” 16

So according to Wansley, his FBI colleagues had no clue about the hijacking at 8:45 AM Eastern. What a contrast to the statement of Vanessa Minter, who received Betty Oong’s call at 8:20, and said FBI agents took her off the call just five minutes later.

Flight 11 and the North Tower: Exclusive Coverage

President George W. Bush has long been ridiculed for saying he saw the first plane hit the World Trade Center on live TV. But some wonder if this slip means he had a private showing:

This seems reinforced by a similar slip in Stowers’ article on Wansley:

As he began relaying the information, Wansley heard a sudden chorus of muted screams from an adjacent conference room. Several female employees, eyes fixed on a television, had just watched a plane fly into the North Tower of New York’s World Trade Center.

Phone still in hand, the security director emerged in time to see a cloud of black smoke billowing from the building. In downtown Dallas, Defenbaugh’s secretary had entered his office and turned on his TV. “Did you see that?” the FBI agent asked Wansley.

Neither, however, connected the gruesome images they were watching with their own immediate concern. The initial television reports were suggesting that it had been a small, private plane that had flown into the Trade Center. What they had to focus on was how to deal with American’s hijacked Boeing 767. Someone else, they agreed, would have to deal with New York’s problems.

Then, in a mind-numbing moment as the two longtime friends continued discussing plans, a second plane appeared on their respective TV screens, banking sharply as it headed directly for the South Tower. “Oh, my God,” Wansley said.17

Were both Bush and this writer making silly mistakes? Perhaps. But if 9/11 was an inside job, it makes sense that the orchestrators had a private live-camera view to ensure everything was going as planned.

Spinning through Splicing

Credit goes to loopDloop, not only for spotting the above Stower article on Wansley, but for discovering that two different versions exist of Betty Ong’s taped call – one generated on 9/11 and one on 9/12. The changes occurred immediately following Wansley’s interview of supervisor Nydia Gonzalez, which can be seen in the opening pages of the FBI’s documents on Flight 11. Gonzalez plays the tape for Wansley. Not only does it differ in minor respects from the tape we hear today, but in the original Ong repeated some of the exact same phrases over as though she was on a loop, strongly suggesting that rehearsed lines were being repeated. The clip we hear on YouTube is highly edited.

What Did Happen to the People on Flight 11?

Regrettably, loopDloop’s posts on his two-year thread stopped in 2014, just when he had indicated he was going to address this question. I would rather defer to his consistently good insights, but in his absence, I’ll take my best shot, acknowledging that most of what I say is speculation and most certainly may be wrong.

Let’s pick it up from loopDloop’s original proposal:

The doors of the flight are closed at 7:40am. As soon as that happens, a man stands up on the plane and explains to the passengers and crew that they are now involved in a military drill. They are asked to disembark the plane, through the rear doors, where a bus is waiting for them on the tarmac.

I suggest that something like the above did happen. Flight 11’s crew may have moved to a specially prepared plane with handlers on board, at Gate 26. The passengers were told they weren’t needed for the exercise, and that they and their luggage would be moved to United Flight 175, which would be shortly departing for the same destination as Flight 11: Los Angeles. In this way, they were told, they would lose no time. Flight 175, another Boeing 767, had only 56 passengers, and could easily have accommodated Flight 11’s passengers. (Of course, Flight 175 was the plane alleged to have struck the second tower.)

Alternatively, if the BTS reports, Gate 26 reports, and Gate 32 “empty plane” report are all wrong, perhaps only the passengers disembarked, and the original plane did depart Gate 32 with crew and handlers aboard.

In either case, a plane took off as “Flight 11,” turned off its transponder at 8:21, while “Mohamed Atta” spoke threateningly in the cockpit for the benefit of flight controllers back in Boston. Ong and Sweeney played their parts, guided by cue cards. Sara Low smelled something wrong and wouldn’t play ball. In the meantime, at 8:14 Flight 175 had departed Logan.

This post is about Flight 11. However, because I believe its passengers likely boarded United 175, I will discuss both planes in the ensuing remarks. There are many theories about what happened; since speculation is shaky ground for investigation, I’d like to restrict myself to some established facts.

Fact Number 1. In 1962, the U.S Joint Chiefs of staff developed a never-implemented plan called Operation Northwoods to stage “false flags” in order to justify invading Cuba. In addition to hijackings, the plan included swapping a drone mid-air for a passenger plane; the drone would be destroyed by radio signal, but the public would hear that Cuba had shot down the actual passenger plane. We’ll quote the original declassified document; a PDF can be read here.

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

An aircraft at Eglin 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 the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.

Fact Number 2. One of 9/11’s remarkable details, acknowledged even in the official account, is that Flights 11 and 175 came close to colliding. See, for example, this article from USA Today. It occurred when they crossed paths very close to Stewart International Airport, which Wikipedia describes as a “public/military airport.” Further, Wikipedia notes, “In 2000 the airport became the first U.S. commercial airport privatized when United Kingdom-based National Express Group was awarded a 99-year lease on the airport.”

Flight paths

Flight 11 took a circuitous route, almost as if waiting for 175 to catch up. Here is an excerpt from a Pilots for 9/11 Truth documentary proposing that the 9/11 planes may have been swapped for drones in an updated version of Operation Northwoods:

With transponders off, detection of the planes was primarily from radar, which could have been more easily tricked by a swap. (Some have suggested that missiles instead of drones may have been launched.)

Fact Number 3. Flights 175 and 93 – which, of the four 9/11 flights, were the only two that officially took off according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics records – were not de-registered as planes until four years later. As Greg Syzmanski notes:

Two of the 9/11 airliners were never “deregistered” and remained on the “active” flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to “deregister” the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.18

Fact Number 4. Affirming the above, Pilots for 9/11 Truth made a significant discovery through the Freedom of Information Act. Airborne planes receive regular messages, similar to text messages, via the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). It is possible to track a plane by checking which ACARS stations it received messages from. Twenty minutes after it allegedly crashed into the South Tower, Flight 175 was still receiving messages from ACARS, proving that it was heading west over western Pennsylvania. (ACARS also demonstrates that Flight 93, the “Let’s Roll” flight, was heading west over Illinois well after it supposedly burrowed into the hole in Shanksville leaving only tiny bits of debris.) A detailed discussion of what ACARS proves is in this two-part article by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Some who are less familiar with the 9/11 Truth Movement may ask: Am I really saying 175 didn’t hit the South Tower as claimed? Yes. Some of the best evidence you’ll find is in this affidavit by John Lear, son of Learjet inventor Bill Lear, and one of America’s most expert pilots. Besides the impossibility of a Boeing 767 sustaining a speed of 540 mph at an altitude of 1,000 feet, Lear presents many other facts that demolish the 9/11 story.

Let Pilots for 9/11 Truth show you why poorly trained hijackers couldn’t have hit the World Trade Center at the claimed speeds, a feat which, as you will see, seasoned Boeing pilots couldn’t achieve on a flight simulator:

Finally, first watch this CNN clip of Flight 175 striking the South Tower:

Then watch this breakdown of the video by Ramon Dockins:


A plane’s aluminum wings and tail could not sail through steel, no matter how fast they were going. This type of phenomenon happens only in Looney Tunes cartoons. As Russian analyst Dimitri Khalezov has pointed out, during World War II the front armor of a Soviet T-34 tank was impervious to explosive enemy shells traveling far faster than the speed of sound, even though the steel armor was much thinner than the World Trade Center’s steel girders. If aluminum could pierce steel, we’d be using it to manufacture artillery shells.

wiley e coyote

I have an opinion about what people really saw hit the Towers, but we’ll stay on course. There’s so much more we could say about the Towers (e.g., how they collapsed) and 9/11, but right now let’s ask: What really happened to Flights 175 and 11?


If 175 never hit the North Tower, was still airborne 20 minutes later, and not de-registered for four years, it almost certainly must have been landed somewhere.

One possibility is Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, which was evacuated on the morning of 9/11 because a plane was ordered to land there which was suspected (falsely) of having terrorists and a bomb on board. This was Delta Flight 1989, another Boeing 767 en route from Boston to LA. It landed in Cleveland; its passengers remained on board for well over two hours before being uneventfully interviewed by the FBI at FAA headquarters.

In the meantime, however, a second large plane touched down on a runway far from Delta 1989. While the Delta passengers still waited, some 200 passengers were reportedly brought from this second plane to the airport’s NASA Glenn Research Facility, which had been evacuated earlier. This second aircraft has been called Cleveland’s “mystery plane,” and there is speculation that it could have been United 175. Adding some credibility to this is ACARS putting 175 over western Pennsylvania headed for Ohio. Subsequently a NASA Glenn spokesman told a Cleveland Free Times writer that the aircraft had been a NASA plane carrying visiting scientists, who were bussed to local hotels. It remains a point of controversy. (Those who wish more information may consult the article “The Cleveland Airport Mystery” with an update here.)

In its own playbook, Operation Northwoods had called for the swapped plane to land at an Air Force base and there evacuate passengers. I think this is a reasonable scenario for all of the 9/11 planes, because of the tighter security and secrecy that military installations maintain. With all the war games going on that day, confusion initially reigned at NORAD, and one can see how the planes could have landed undetected. Covert landings might also have been facilitated by the absence of the numerous warplane crews engaging in the exercises.

While the locations remain a guarded secret, I feel confident in saying landings did occur.

Which leaves a final question: What happened to the passengers after landing? There are two schools of thought: (1) they were exterminated; (2) they had been hired to take part in the plot, were paid handsomely, and were then “disappeared” under new identities.

The latter view has gained support in more recent years due to heightened awareness of the use of crisis actors in false flags, as well as the low number of passengers that turned up on the Social Security Death Index and the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. It also more closely corresponds to the plan laid out in Operation Northwoods.

However, I am skeptical that the Illuminists could have found that many people, including complete crews of pilots and flight attendants, who would agree to assist in 9/11’s mass murder for the right price; or that they would risk having someone with second thoughts come forward, “resurrected,” and expose the plot. Those who planned 9/11’s slaughter wouldn’t have hesitated to extend the carnage to unwitting helpers who thought they were only participating in a drill.

The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. In a plot of this caliber, wouldn’t a few accomplices be in the passenger mix? Daniel Lewin and Barbara Olson come to mind. Perhaps when the passengers disembarked, they were separated into two groups, in a black reversal of the “sheep and goats” which Jesus Christ described in Matthew 25. I believe Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney were among the innocent.


  1. “T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr-Entire Contents,” p. 57, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents.
  2. Paul Sperry, “Lewin: Flight 11’s Unsung Hero?” WorldNetDaily, http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/13281/.
  3. T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr-Entire Contents,” p. 40, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents.
  4. Ibid., p. 3.
  5. Ibid., p. 42.
  6. “9/11 Passenger Phone Calls,” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls.
  7. “T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr-Entire Contents,” p. 12, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents.
  8. “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls,” loopDloop post of March 2, 2012, http://www.letsrollforums.com/forum/forum/the-u-s-government-conspiracy-of-9-11/the-mystery-of-flights-11-77-175-93/29035-fog-fiction-and-the-flight-11-phone-calls
  9. “T7 B17 FBI 302s of Interest Flight 11 Fdr-Entire Contents,” p. 28, http://www.scribd.com/doc/14094215/T7-B17-FBI-302s-of-Interest-Flight-11-Fdr-Entire-Contents.
  10. “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls,” loopDloop post of March 2, 2012, http://www.letsrollforums.com/forum/forum/the-u-s-government-conspiracy-of-9-11/the-mystery-of-flights-11-77-175-93/29035-fog-fiction-and-the-flight-11-phone-calls.
  11. Ibid., post of August 2, 2012.
  12. “9/11 Passenger Phone Calls,” https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/9/11_Passenger_phone_calls.
  13. “Fog, Fiction and the Flight 11 Phone Calls,” posts of July 29, July 30, and August 30, 2014, http://www.letsrollforums.com/forum/forum/the-u-s-government-conspiracy-of-9-11/the-mystery-of-flights-11-77-175-93/29035-fog-fiction-and-the-flight-11-phone-calls.
  14. Ibid., post of August 2, 2012.
  15. Carlton Stowers, “Rough Skies,” Dallas Observer, November 21, 2002, http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/rough-skies-6392004.
  16. “Memorandum for the Record, Interview, Mr. Larry Wansley, Director of Security, American Airlines,” January 8, 2004, p. 4, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00012.pdf.
  17. Stowers.
  18. Greg Syzmanski, “Are Both Jetliners Still Flying in United’s ‘Friendly Skies’?” http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm.


James Perloff is the author of Truth is a Lonely Warrior: Unmasking the Forces Behind Global Destruction (2013) and the classic The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline (1988). He has conducted research and published articles on America’s hidden history for over thirty years. Perloff has also written the script for the new Free Mind Films feature length production, Shadow Ring. More information is available at jamesperloff.com

Leave a Reply

107 thought on “Unraveling the Mysteries of Flight 11”
  1. Nice article. Mr. Perloff has done some excellent work, especially of late, though I listened to his visits on Dr. Stan Monteith’s radio show for many many years.

    I have studied 9-11 since 9-11-01 and I have sort of “coordinated” several lines of inquiry regarding the many separate aspects of 9-11.

    Please understand…

    If there were no planes,

    Then there were no passengers.

    If there were no passengers,

    Then there were no hijackers.

    If there were no hijackers

    Then there were no Islamic fundamentalists.

    If there were no Islamic fundamentalists,

    Then the whole “war on terror” has been a complete charade.

    I believe PNAC and its neocon members, all of whom are “Zionists” and most of whom are self-identified “Jews” are the main faction that “wanted and needed” a “war on terror.”

    There were three or four real planes with real pilots used in ancillary ways to support and lend credibility to the official narrative of 9-11. So do not be misled when people start pointing fingers as “no planes”, “no planes theory (NPT). or “no planner”, as these terms obfuscate the distinction between no planes crashing at any of the four disignated crash sites and planes being used as props to support the official story.

    I would comment that ‘former flight attendant” Rebekah Roth and her seemingly sudden, out-of-nowhere appearance on the 9-11 truth scene with here New York Times best seller book Former flight attendant Rebekah Roth, author of the bestselling 9/11 novel Methodical Illusion, appears to be posing serious questions regarding the official story of 9-11 regarding the four flights and the passengers of the four flights of 9-11, but all the while, it is understood that the flights are real and took place and the passengers are real.

    I believe strongly that this “author” and her NYT out-of-nowhere best seller book are part of the elaborate ongoing to this day misinformation / disinformation strategies after the event of 9-11-01. She also, considering her name, may be part of ” just one of many Zionists linked to 9/11.”

    I have observed several books on several “conspiracy” related subjects over the last 16 years that seem to be conveying solid, factual information about some person or event, but that subtly “assume” or “take for granted” certain underlying tenets of the official story or official narrative or official account of the person or event. (Offhand, one example of such a book I can remember was “Regicide” by Gregory Douglas who claimed to have obtained a big box of crucial records of a Robert Crowley, a top CIA administrator, regarding CIA being responsible for JFK assassination. The idea seemingly promoted by this book is that the CIA was the SOLE plotter and operators of the assassination. It is a subtle misdirection loaded with what appears to be solid factual information.)

    The management of the cover-up stories after an event, an event such as 9-11, is a Cass Sunstein- type, deep state employment of several strategies to focus students or truth seekers about the event first here, then there, but never focus on the basic facts and evidence in relation to basic official narrative. We poor humans can only focus on one thing at one time, and that reality is used to the max by Sunstein-type machinations. From the very beginning of 9-11 truth seeking, there have been very strong efforts to keep our focus away from the planes and passengers.

    Pilots for 9-11 Truth (Rob Balsalmo) went down the wrong path regarding 9-11 and now no one hears much from that camp these days. The posiiton of that entity is that they accept fakery and deception for Pentagon and Shanksville events, but adamantly refuse to accept fakery at the Twin Towers events. Real planes, real pilots and presumably real passengers for Flight 11 and Flight 175.

    ““I would like to make it clear that Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not endorse the No Plane Theory nor the article mentioned in the OP. I personally have not read the article in detail, nor do I intend to. People are free to make their own choices”. – Rob Balsamo”

    You may still find these important articles …

    Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo

    By Jim Fetzer originally posted on Veterans Today in April of 2012 and then deleted and now reposted at



    Monday, June 25, 2012
    The “official account” of the Pentagon attack is a fantasy

    Dennis Cimino (with Jim Fetzer)


    originally also posted on VeteransToday, then deleted, but never reposted.

    Here is a recent interview of Dean Hartwell who wrote “Was 9/11 a Movie”

    “The Ochelli Effect” on Saturday – link here:


    1. “I believe PNAC and its neocon members, all of whom are “Zionists” and most of whom are self-identified “Jews” are the main faction that “wanted and needed” a “war on terror.” Kindly present a scholarly argument in an article with proof of your assertion. Otherwise, it’s contrary to the guidelines for posting on this site to defame a person or group without proof of wronging. James where are your guidelines on the constant barrage of postings on this site that are irrational, without proof, and blatantly anti-Semitic?

      1. “Kindly present a scholarly argument in an article with proof of your assertion…”

        Kind of you to ask! It’s ironic; not only did Dr. Tracy just finish an interview with P. Henningsen, where JT observed the policing of US/Western dialog since at least the inception of the ADL in 1913; but Doctors KBarrett, JFetzer, NKollerstrom and other Uni Profs also attest to the “invisible/de-facto limits to free speech/thought/publication” in academia.

        Anyways these links will have to do, hope they meet your exacting “…scholarly argument in an article” standard.



        free book by Chris Bollyn, “Solving 9/11: The Deception That Changed The World”,

        search ‘alan sabrosky israel 9/11’ (no quotes), he’s Jewish BTW 🙂

    2. I think you make a good case, dachsie, in demonstrating how many-layered the deception was with 9/11.

      I remember an early analysis called “flight of the bumbleplanes,” which had each plane joined by a double (if I remember correctly), with transponder turned off, and the real plane then turning off its transponder and the double turning it on. The real planes landed in Cleveland, the passengers all crowded on one plane (which was shot down over western Pennsylvania), and the rest flown over the atlantic ocean and ditched.

      Another early theory was propounded by Eric Hufschmid, that WTC7 had a homing signal, and the planes that crashed into WTC1 and WTC2 were robotically programmed to be drawn to it, but the twin towers were in the way, so they crashed into them.

      We can excuse early attempts at making sense of the available evidence so early on. The various theories have valid elements. But with time, we can formulate much better theories. Maybe there were hijackers and planes. But you are correct that the destruction was NOT caused by planes.

      In conversation here, not so long ago, I think it was with Peacefrog (forgive me if I misremember), I kept advising that we focus on what is impossible, when building our theory. Today, I would like to remind everyone that WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6 were also destroyed that morning. All four buildings acquired incredibly strange damage patterns (Dr. Fetzer recently posted in a comment thread here at MHB a lecture he delivered, wherein he described the weird the damage each of them had done to it), each very different one from another. I like to focus on WTC6, because it looks like a post hole digger systematically removed the inner part of the building–it makes it easy to point out the urgent need to explain. No one ever talks about these buildings. Well, Judy Wood does.

      Dr. Wood postulated Tesla technology was employed, because the evidence is so unprecedented; she concluded that the damage to the buildings no one talks about, and the other crazy evidence (“toasted cars,” fires amidst an abundance of office paper, but the paper does not burn) indicates a technology that is not officially acknowledged, and can’t be explained by what we do know about. I don’t know if that’s the correct conclusion to draw, but at least she’s dealing with the evidence everyone else ignores.

      But let’s set Wood’s conclusions aside, choosing not to decide if she’s right, and simply thank her for pointing out the damage patterns of WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6. If anyone–ANYONE– is going to have a valid opinion about 9/11, they HAVE to address the bizarre destruction of each of those buildings. If they don’t, they are not seriously trying to get to the bottom of the mystery. And if they DO decide to face those aspects of the mystery, they will have to drop the airplanes meme, because no one has ever said those four buildings were hit by airplanes.

      I remember one Dr. Stan interview with Don Scott, origin of AIDS researcher, wherein he mentioned his long years investigating the assassination of John Kennedy; Bruce Adamson, who wrote a multivolume, comprehensive portrait of George De Mohrenschildt, called in. He wanted to know if Scott knew about the De Mohrenschildt connection. Scott laughed; anyone who knows anything about the JFK hit knows about De Mohrenschildt, he replied. He’s a key to the mystery.

      Well, that’s how I think about 9/11: anyone with a valid opinion on the subject has to talk about WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6.

      Airplanes are the way we are kept from looking at what should be the most obvious disproofs of the official story. Any theory that makes us feel satisfied, without addressing the impossibilities in the official story, but also the massive parts of the event not even acknowledged, must be rejected.

      As Judy Wood argues, we must address ALL the evidence. And those four other buildings are the most important evidence of all, in my opinion.

      1. “Airplanes are the way we are kept from looking at what should be the most obvious disproofs of the official story.”

        Very true.

        However, there could be debate about what exactly are the obvious disproofs of the official story the planes meme is designed to keep out of our search for truth.

        Yes, Dr. Wood is the first and only person who brought to our attention the other WTC buildings, aside from 1, 2, and 7.

        But still her material comes under the general area of study of what exactly destroyed the WTC buildings. Many people think that is a waste of time and that is does not make much difference exactly how, or what agent, effected a building’s destruction.

        This all gets back to the WHO did 9-11, as opposed to HOW 9-11 was done.

        I realize that studying how the buildings were destroyed can tell us a great deal about the WHO of 9-11, but that study can also be a big diversionary trail that spends truth seekers time and energy in matters not directly related to WHO did it. It is now clear to me that there have been many sophisticated misinfo / disinfo operations within the 9-11 “truth movement.” “Sophisticated” meaning many of these special and various “theories” about exactly what happened at the WTC that have come forward over the years have people with specialized Ph.D. degrees and present what appear to be very solid hypotheses and theories, so that they “wow” we ordinary amateur truth seekers.

        Many people became corralled early on into becoming true followers of and believers in one or another of these sophisticated misinfo / disinfo theories and these people of the difference factions started fighting with each other which greatly weakened any chance for bringing 9-11 truth toward substantive 9-11 justice. Also there were strong manipulations within each group and each theory to confine the followers to stay within the group, not wander off the reservation. Lastly, there was apparently much money from unknown sources funding certain theories.

        The more I study, the more it seems clear to me that all of our efforts to find 9-11 truth, as well as the truth about Sandy Hook, and all the other false events, were planned and engineered to fail, and “they employed every trick in the book to dissolve and weaken our efforts.

        The clock has run out and they got away with it all.

        But I believe the truth always wins in the end.

        1. CORRECTION:


          “Yes, Dr. Wood is the first and only person who brought to our attention the other WTC buildings, aside from 1, 2, and 7.”


          Yes, Dr. Wood is the first and only person who, in the beginning, brought to our attention the other WTC buildings, aside from 1, 2, and 7.

        2. “But still her material comes under the general area of study of what exactly destroyed the WTC buildings. Many people think that is a waste of time and that is does not make much difference exactly how, or what agent, effected a building’s destruction.”

          I’ll bet you know, dachsielady, I don’t give a fig for what “many people think.” Who cares what the morons believe?

          WTC1 and WTC2 turned into dust and blew away. The core of WTC6 was removed, as if by the systematic action of a building-sized post hole digger. If “many people” are disinterested in how these unprecedented events (which happened almost instantaneously) occurred, I’d call them mentally incompetent, and their opinions disinterest me.

          But the truth is, “most people” have no idea that the question even exists. If they were told about the details about buildings 3,4,5 and 6, and they still expressed disinterest, I’d REALLY despair.

        3. What I meant when I stated…

          “Many people think that is a waste of time and that is does not make much difference exactly how, or what agent, effected a building’s destruction.”

          was that I think many 9-11 truth seekers became frustrated with all theories and the arguing about what destroyed any or all of the WTC buildings. They then just started put forth that argument so as to tell us all that what really mattered was WHO did 9-11.

          In a way, the WHO is the basic thing that matters. It is easy to get lost forever is searching for the whole truth about the physical destruction of the WTC buildings, though I do think is is a very important matter. So in a sense, the “what many people think” argument held water in my opinion. Of course, that argument could have also been touted by those who simply do not want anyone to too closely look at what destroyed the WTC buildings.

          I personally have imbibed quite extensively all of the different theories and the physical after-effects of all four of the “crash sites” and I, in my mind, always tried to relate that information as to whether it gave us a better picture of WHO the plotters and planners may have been.

          As I said before,

          “From the very beginning of 9-11 truth seeking, there have been very strong efforts to keep our focus away from the planes and passengers.” That was a big red flag to me from my beginning in this truth seeking and my beginning was 9-11-01,

          This MHB particular interview with James Perloff about Flight 11 falls in the planes and passengers category of 9-11 truth study.

          What is so odd is that Dr. Wood for her first several years said practically nothing about the planes and passengers and devoted her study exclusively to how the WTC buildings were destroyed. Her close associate, Dr. Morgan Reynolds, however, devoted most of his work, and excellent work it was, about the impossibility of big Boeings crashing at any of the four designated sites. [nomoregames.net]

          I, early on, found myself more and more interested in researchers who would at least address to some degree the issues and anomalies associated with the planes and passengers. It seemed artificial in a way to say one is seeking 9-11 truth but almost religiously avoiding the planes and passengers area of study.

          Here is an amusing 2009 memo from Dr. Reynolds to Dr. Fetzer that sort of is making fun of the “thermite theory” of WTC building destruction, in line of course with his strong support of Dr. Judy Wood’s directed energy weapons ideas.

          “I am widely accused of discrediting the 9/11 truth movement but it is Gage/Jones/and the rest of their gang that does so. There is no substantive case for thermite or its variants playing a significant role in turning the WTC (mostly) to fine dust. Theirs is a distraction, a limited hangout, a fall back story for the perps who, once the 9/11official version I fairy tale lies in ruins, trot out version II: muslim terrorists used internally-placed explosives to bring down the WTC—ridiculous version II. ”

          What this email is alluding to is that Dr. Jones and the thermite theory groups of people and groups always adamantly held on to strict avoidance of any mention of planes or even Building 7 that was not hit by a plane so that “muslim terrorists” were always an integral component of their thermite theory that they never wanted questioned even remotely. This faction of 9-11 truth never got around to talking about Building 7 until some time in 2010 and that only when they were sort of forced to take a position on a building that was closely associated with the blatant reality that it was not hit by a plane.

      2. Judy Wood addresses it with junk science. All of it can be explained with a combination of conventional and nuclear explosives. There are all sizes. In the fifties they demonstrated nukes a thousand times weaker than the Hiroshima bomb. Believe me so called Free Energy Wood is hoping for is just as realistic as the British Royal family being reptiles from outer space.

        1. Fine with me, Peter. I really don’t care if it is Tesla technology. Tell me how WTC3 acquired its unique, bizarre, damage. Tell me how WTC4 acquired its, bizarre, damage. Tell me how WTC5 acquired its, bizarre, damage. Tell me how WTC6 acquired its, bizarre, damage.

          I don’t know from “junk science.” I DO know that Dr. Wood is a genuine scientist, and in that field. I’m not one of those, so I stand mute. I have no idea how those buildings, pretty much instantly, got the incredibly weird damage they got. You tell me. If it’s mini nukes, tell me how they sliced those buildings like a giant chain saw, and evaporated half; or how the core of a building was removed, in circular motions. Please.

          Is it like the crop circles in southern England? Are the patterns meant to toy with us?

          One thing is certain beyond certainty: airplanes piloted by Arabs didn’t do any of it.

        2. Patrick
          If I recall correctly wtc3 has a very large opening slightly under or beyond it as seen from the twintowers. If that is what you call bizarre I agree and it may have been created in the late 60s as sketched in my first comment here. I dont think the ice age created it and I dont think it was created on 9/11. And regarding other buildings any bizarre shape can be achieved using nukes. It is possible although tricky to tweak the design so the energy is portioned out a little bit longer over time which is advantageous when you want to decrease the shockwave and keep the neutrons. No mystery just very delicate hitech. Normal nuke: intense impulse one shot deal. Too much noise. Tweaked design. Maybe similar energy but lower intensity. You dont need to go beyond vaporizing the material. Goes without saying that actual designs are classified.
          There were many explosions in the area. Clearly heard from 2 miles distance on the other side of the river. Each rumble may have been the envelope of many individual explosions.
          Dont you think a genuine scientist is capable of lying to you?. Free Energy is junk science and those who prefer junk science to politically incorrect nukes are not to be trusted. It might work as a way to provoke an investigation but I dont think so. She is controlled opposition.
          You also ask about the demolition. They used many cutter charges as well. If you take Jim Fetzers word for it the collapse cut the steel to convenient lengths for lorry transport. Cutter charges no doubt if it happened like that.
          See my comment about NNSA. Wonder why Judy thinks they were there with eyes and ears covered? Why were they following the protocol for protection against nuclear radiation while the other rescue personnel received no similar instructions?

        3. Peter, I share many of your reservations. On the other hand, Wood did a good job of documenting certain conditions. It is suspicious that, after scrupulously avoiding ascribing a cause, she points (slyly) to Hutchison.

          After showing many anomalies, she claims that there was never persistent heat after the release. That is clearly not true.

          Some have called her a disinfo agent. I stop short of that. I’m not sure what her game is, but her usually good logic sort of breaks down at a certain point. I don’t know why.

          She has a specialty in materials science. She, more than most, would recognize sublimation and disassociation. Just like Jones has a specialty in nuclear science, how does one explain overlooking the obvious?

          I think I have to leave it at admiring her work in collecting evidence and being disappointed with some of her refusal to look at the facts. There may be a reason for that, I simply do not know what it is.

        4. One reason to avoid facts could be for to have the book published at all.
          As far as I know no publisher has yet published anything about nukes at 9/11.

        5. I just wanted to pop in and remind Peter and Patrick of some testimony given to the commission by a female EMS worker who was at street level and near to buildings 1, 2, 5 and 6 I believe through the second “plane strike” and first subsequent collapse. If I thought a search for her name would be fruitful, I would have searched to save you the trouble. I just can’t recall her name I’m afraid.

          Her testimony has aspects that could be interpreted to point to both the advanced weapon theory and the more conventional weapons theory. On one hand, she describes seeing through the first floor lobby windows of building 6 I believe a string of bright flashes at regular intervals. On the other hand, she describes witnessing strange effects to cars as she was running away from the first collapse debris. I think she was even struck by a car door that had been blown from the car frame it had been attached to.

          Looking into her testimony and that of a few others might be helpful in making the determination of what caused the various destruction patterns. Another quick point I wish to make relates to the common use of the phrase “space beam” or other similar phrases. Judy Wood isn’t entirely innocent in this matter, as I believe many links to pages of her early analysis were partly named “…star-wars…” and may have even referred to “…beam…” It may have been a reference to the Reagan era (earlier really) Star Wars defense system. But, it may also have been a clue to her theories of how these advanced weapons may have worked.

        6. Derrick Smithers
          Dmitri Khalezov mentions that witness and the car. Since he thought only a big thermonuclear bomb 50 m under the lowest level of each tower caused everything, he tends to doubt it could be smaller nukes. Therefore he thinks its a hoax story to give semblance of EMP effects on the car. Personally I dont think it need be connected with the collapse if indeed it happened. Witnesses can be liars and there were many who said they saw a plane but the videos are obvious fakes in some cases and why would the authorities not direct attention to authentic material and advice people to skip the rest if they had a single authentic video?
          Both the burning of the cars and one strange explosion can be special effects to confuse us and done by the perps. And the perps in this case might even be people inside to the FBI – or some other seemingly genuine official grouping. Fletcher Prouty bore witness about the CIA infiltrating everything and appearing as the initial military troups in the mountup of the Vietnam war in 1964 when ~’their’ agent Daniel Ellsberg lied and said the CIA had adviced against the war. Maybe the FBI is as corrupt as it seems in connection with many scandals using crisis actors but it could well be that the deep state has contaminated everything.
          1500 degrees C after five weeks according to Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc is what needs to be explained.
          Of course it was hotter initially and then the temperature of the whole blob of molten iron sank to the melting point.Before it did the hotter molten material could share its energy with steel coming from higher altitude. Thus the melt might include some of the material that wasnt directly hit. All covered with a magma of concrete.
          This cannot be explained away and together with the regularly checked doseage monitors(claimed falsely to be for other than nuclear radiation),the very high increase in cancers and the presence and decontamination work done by NNSA personnel wearing protection for ears and eyes are telltale signs of nukes which are indeed directed energy weapons when suitably encapsulated.

        7. As tiresome as this subject becomes, Peter, I feel compelled to keep restating facts purported “researchers” simply don’t seem to know about, which, if they knew them, they would just stop talking.

          You say “Dmitri Khalezov mentions that witness and the car.”

          It is WITNESSES and HUNDREDS of cars.

          You say “Since he thought only a big thermonuclear bomb 50 m under the lowest level of each tower caused everything, he tends to doubt it could be smaller nukes.”

          Have you heard of “the bathtub”? It was not damaged. It is physically impossible–physically impossible–for the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2 to have been the result of nuclear charges of any size to have originated deep underneath the towers. It does not matter how small they were. The “bathtub” was not damaged. This is THE key fact of 9/11. Nothing else, in the end, matters.

          You say “Therefore he thinks its a hoax story to give semblance of EMP effects on the car.”

          There is no “car.” There were hundreds of cars. Parked. Many blocks away.

          Skipping some of your remarks, you say “Both the burning of the cars…”

          No evidence of “burning” can be found. It is unknown phenomena that is in evidence. Half the vehicle affected, half evidencing a brand new wax job. Look it up (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html)

          Nothing like this has ever been seen before. There is no explaining it. It definitely was not fire.

          You say “…and one strange explosion can be special effects to confuse us and done by the perps.”

          This is indeed true, in general, but completely irrelevant in the 9/11 investigation. The evidence is real, physical, factual. It must be faced. It’s not just people talking. It is weird, indeed, unprecedented in all history.

          You say “1500 degrees C after five weeks according to Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc is what needs to be explained.
          Of course it was hotter initially and then the temperature of the whole blob of molten iron sank to the melting point.Before it did the hotter molten material could share its energy with steel coming from higher altitude.”

          Well, how then did the shopping mall survive, largely intact? (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/)

          And how did the hydraulics of the earth-moving machinery function in such conditions? (http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirt4.html)

          This page might prove helpful, too: http://www.drjudywood.com/faq/

          This is all just about facing the evidence, and trying to make sense of it.

          The bathtub was not breached. Any theory that does not deal with that fact is as “toast” as the cars that morning.

        8. Patrick
          Misunderstandings. I dont share Dmitris views about the kind of nuke.
          So whatever conclusions would emerge in his case dont apply for the smaller nukes several observers including experts formerly from the IAEA agree were used. So the bathtub doesnt have to be brought in. However I dont approve of her conclusions even in Dmitris case. Judy doesnt know basic facts about nuclear underground explosions. The particular type Dmitri was considering would have a pointed top fitting inside the building. That follows from the depth. Deeper explosions have a spherical shape. It goes without saying that the plans from the plowshare project of actually bringing down tall buildings in this manner would comprise suitable parameters to focus the power in an optimal fashion like this. But Dmitri was probably setup by agents and in particular one who claimed to be Michael Hariri and said something dramatic would happen the day before 9/11 and who reminded Dmitri of the nuclear demolition plans of wtc. Dmitri knew from his involvement in nuclear safety and interchange of info between the superpowers about civilian uses of nukes. They wanted him to spread his version while the perps knew they would do it using small nukes, thus rendering his explanation impossible. In my view the next step in the coverup obliterating the mininuke explanation would be to create false evidence of a mininuke exploding in such a way as to let loose an intensely radiating plasma which noone ever saw. Hence the need for a special effects-mystery with the cars.
          I was referring to one particular car showing strange symptoms, by some interpreted as EMP, strong mechanical forces. I meant that that particular car could have been prepared with special effects without any connection to the collapse. And like I have mentioned before its easier to go over the cars with burners in case it wasnt caused by the collapse.
          And you say nothing like this has been seen before. Wrong it is actually what happens for nuclear explosions. There is one example at the Bali bombing claimed by many to be the result of a mininuke. When half the car is burnt it indicates intense radiation. But as mentioned earlier I dont think any outside intense explosion was seen and therefore I suspect foul play. And there is reason to believe many hoaxes were going on. Eg the big airplane engine a couple of blocks away which would have had to travel through one tower if it had originated from a plane. Only it was the wrong type of engine… Had it been the right type it would still have been impossible. They just dumped it there to mislead.
          Do you say you dont believe the building had molten iron at 1500 degrees? It wasnt just Marc saying it. And satellites have measured very high temperature above a thick isolating cover of debry on top of it.
          Are you saying that was not the case?
          Are you denying that firemen were pumping enormous quantities of water without seeing the expected cooling effect within the anticipated time frame?
          Judys presentation contains factual errors and in addition doesnt expect that some of her clues are distributed to mislead. I suggest the following explanation for whats going on. The perps know they have produced several special effects and hoaxes. Her task is to make a unified theory of this based on something other than existing physics and assuming nothing is done to mislead despite believing this was an elite project.
          She is a disinformer, whether she understands it or not. And I think she is fully aware of it but therefore sees her role as completely safe. The only problem is how to make the book a best seller.

        9. I can’t believe you guys are still doing this.

          It’s pretty crystal clear.

          The only thing we’re missing is that Fantastic devise, bomb or what ever it was that we have no clue that was used.

          We can’t explain it period!

          All the goodies from thermite, bombs, controlled demo was used in conjunction with the Magnificent thing. (SHE)

          What We know about US Technology is 30 years old.

          I asked my Step-Father in law who retired from “them” ( I can’t mention details) have you seen anything you worked on today on display.

          He said “Nothing”. He won’t spill any beans in case you think I haven’t tried,

          I asked him if all Hell broke loose tomorrow would we win?

          He said “Piece of Cake”

          He also told me, ” you want to know all things and your wrong.” You couldn’t sleep at night if you knew

          I think we are counting so much on our Technology we may lose just out of practicality.

          The Russians think 300 old planes are better than 30 high Tech planes.

          The Russians think ahead and Not Money and contracts.

          Every Russian engine/transmission on any Tank/Truck and every bullet is interchangeable for the field.
          They can fix it in the field. We Can’t

          We have Tanks/armored vehicles/Guns, you name it that are incompatible because our companies compete for contracts and Not for Security of the US.

          I’m out of words.

        10. Ric
          Its true that part of their technology is classified like various electronic systems for brain computer communication. But of course the Us was well aware of available jamming of radars and guidance systems and monitoring for blind spots in enemy radar coverage. Israel uses it every time they make their attacks. So the incident when the hitech defense system was jammed by the russians in the black sea was probably just theatre. Is it possible they didnt think Russia could jam their receivers?
          Maybe there are some classified details about Ram jets. And surely they have experimented with newer variants of nukes. Cleaner designs leaving less fingerprints. But there is nothing mysterious beyond that with 9/11. Only the usual illusionism. Playing dirty tricks, psyops. Lots of it.

        11. Peter:

          “Judy doesnt know basic facts about nuclear underground explosions.”

          I don’t have a valid opinion about that, but I do know the fact of the bathtub not being damaged that morning. Whatever was done to those buildings could not have originated beneath the bathtub’s floor, and sufficient mass to damage the bathtub DID NOT crash down from above.

          The floor of the bathtub is bedrock. So any explosives, of any type, could not be underground–because it would require drilling beneath the bathtub, and the bathtub was not harmed.

          That means whatever explosives would have had to be placed in one of the lower levels. But we know that the mall, and the train station, were essentially untouched. All the destruction was above ground.

          These are facts.

          As for the supposed high heat, were it actually in evidence, the machines roaming around on top of the pile could not have functioned, and men could not have been doing any work there–and the mall would have been filled with the streams of molten steel. Of course, the opposite is true. The hydraulics functioned just fine, the men survived just fine, and the contents of the stores in the mall were undamaged by heat.

          Another thing about the high heat myth: if there was in fact molten steel at the site, none of the pictures can be true, because water would have caused steam explosions, when it rained–which it did do–and when firemen sprayed the pike with hoses–which they did. The photographs would be worthless to us, because all you would see would be vast clouds of steam. Of course, we see perfectly clear images, complete with what Dr.Wood calls “fuming.” No steam explosions=no molten steel.

          These are facts. They must be dealt with, if we are to find out what happened. And only after we find out what happened can we discover whodunnit, and why.

        12. You did not read my comment. I dont like to insult you but you have put on your deaf clown costume. I said I dont think there was a big bomb way below but I said that such a bomb would direct its enery in a pointed ie directed shape towards the soft spot beneath the building 27 m below ground level. So the bathtub wouldnt feel much of that. But you are not reading attentively so I guess you will pop up with another go at it. Dmitris preliminary version made sense. But the next version when he realized there were problems with the structure underneath, the metro etc.( He does claim metro trains were indeed damaged according to witnesses). But Dmitri refined his hypothesis to put the position of the bomb no longer centred but at the side. That was too hard to swallow for me and smaller nukes are much easier to bring into agreement with the facts. Like I mentioned its obvious they wanted to use Dmitri to spread that particular idea and I think he is in good faith. He claimed that there was a confidential lie regarding russian mininukes being used by terrorists there. That version was to have been distributed to some influential people abroad and among some establishment people at home, but not to the public. He labels that he second truth.
          But there is no proof the russians ever lost any mininukes. That rumour came from one general Lebedev who was said to die in an accident with a chopper. There are on the contrary rumours about the Us having let loose hundreds of old Davy Crocket mini nukes. Possibly in need for reprocessing.
          Anyway can we move on from the bathtub now or are you going to pretend you didnt see my answer once more?
          The molten steel wasnt directly accessible. It was hidden under thick layers of rubble. And despite the temperature gradient concealed in that manner the satellites saw very high temperatures but of course much lower than 1500C. The 1500 was measured by probes stuck down. But in the clown mode you deny all that of course. No need to consider the evidence just repeatedly stating ‘these are facts’ while actually being in denial about the facts .
          I hope people who read this realize what Patricks role is in this case. Not to seek the truth anyway.

        13. Of course I read your comment, Peter. I quoted some of it back to you.

          Here’s another quote:

          “Are you denying that firemen were pumping enormous quantities of water without seeing the expected cooling effect within the anticipated time frame?”

          What would have ever given you that idea? I said that it rained, and firemen hosed down the pile. There was no “expected cooling effect” because there was no heat to worry about to begin with. We know this because when the water migrated to the bottom of the bathtub it didn’t explode into steam at any point on the way down.

          You say “the satellites saw very high temperatures but of course much lower than 1500C. The 1500 was measured by probes stuck down. But in the clown mode you deny all that of course. ”

          Yep, I’m just a clown. And I do deny it. I don’t believe “the satellites” saw any such thing; I have seen the graphics the cover-up men distributed, like everyone else. Dr. Wood includes them in her book, in fact. They are scary cartoons.

          And in my “clown mode” I foolishly deny any “probes” were needed, because men were walking around in the sub basements. We have pictures of them. I wonder how they survived the thousand degree heat?

          In situations with competing evidence, we always must defer to the impossible; it is impossible for men to descend into basements where the conditions were as claimed. It is impossible for water not to make its way to what you claim were pools of molten steel, and if it did, it is impossible for it not to explode into steam. Therefore, we must reject the cartoons and the chatter about “satellite imagery.”

          I, too, “I hope people who read this realize what Patricks role is in this case.” If you don’t like the facts, and don’t like my pointing them out, there’s no need to be snippy about it and talk about my not wanting “to seek the truth.” It’s bad manners.

        14. Ok Patrick, I’m sorry if you are really serious. I couldnt believe that. I still wonder if this isnt some kind of benevolent gatekeeping. What does the presence of the NNSA(National Nuclear Security Administration) tell you Patrick? Why were they staying there?
          Why were they working with the remnants at Fresh Kills?

          Since Judy is wrong about the steel and bases it on a misinterpreted video I see no reason to trust her denial of the high temperatures. The firemen said their boots were very hot and this wasnt deep down. The satellite images were taken immediately.
          You say they are fakes. Temperatures of 7-800F have been widely quoted independent of any satellites. I dont know how it was measured but presumably using probes.
          You dont detail the timeframe when they walked in the basement as if it didnt matter. Maybe five weeks or seven weeks like someone else suggested isnt true and it was a shorter timeframe when the 1500C( 1460) were still measured. But time matters.

          About the cooling water. What additives were in it?
          1. Maybe the ion exchange chemical they brought in many truckloads of. I dont know that but it would need to be mixed effectively to be able to exchange ions. This would make sense for many types of WMD both biological chemical and radioactive.
          Its efficiency depends on the type of ions one wants to exchange.
          In any case this provides a motive for preferring to cool at modest temperatures to keep the liquid character. Steam would be unwanted.
          2. A Uvabsorbing liquid intended in particular for cooling radioactive heatsources. It is less efficient for ordinary fires and doesnt make sense unless there are radioactive heatsources.
          I dont know what quantities were used only that they were there.
          And I dont know if it was hosed in mixed in water or used separately.

          Where was the water actually entered.
          The hot spot was at the centre but here was plenty of room around it. The molten iron would be covered with some 27 meters of debry. The portion in direct contact would create a rather watertight magmalike mix of concrete dust. On top of that there would be successively cooler layers of debry. If the water flowed towards the region surrounding the centre it would cool everything without coming into contact with the hot pile in the centre.
          I dont know what the height relations were towards the rim compared with the centre. But I suspect the elevator was on top of the bomb, that the lower part of the core of the building partly imploded inwards and that therefore here was less material in the rim. Therefore it makes sense to assume there was a pile in the centre slightly higher than the rim. And was the bottom watertight or were there passages so water never rose high down there. This may explain why not much has been reported about steam. If they did see steam initially they would have been directed to change the entrance point, since the steam might have become radioactive.
          Note:That consideration was probably decisive for those who anticipated radioactivity but the firemen ‘didnt need to know’

          I noted that (the much criticized) Steven Jones later switched on to experimenting with free energy in order to ‘do good for humanity’ or something. The free energy he worked with was not imaginary physics but he just harvested leaks of magnetic fields from ordinary mains lines. He tuned an oscillator’s frequency and phase to achieve constructive interference. Thereby achieving a minute rise in the circulating power in his local oscillator. That free energy, useless as it is isnt free. Its already payed for on somebody’s bill for electricity. I mentioned it because it shows Stevens sense of humour. And you might view it as making a mockery of those who dream about Tesla’s never invented marvel.

    3. Dachsie (btw I have two of the little boogers) 🙂 I think 911 was a huge psyop event with so many layers to it, we will never know the whole truth. It was all the things that have been revealed, like war, terror, fear, that are always successful in getting most of the public to give up rights that they should never even be asked to relinquish; the government cronies get filthy rich by endless wars, but their sons aren’t the ones that come home in body bags. PNAC wanted another Pearl Harbor and they got it, the elite want their NWO, so the old world order must go and with lots of chaos to birth the new order. And that’s exactly what we have seen since then.

      I know there is also a dark spiritual force that is directing the elite, just as there was with Hitler. They are occultists of the first magnitude, and the numerology that was encoded into the 911 event is undeniable. The buildings that were destroyed have connections to the occult. The remains of those killed in the WTC were taken to Freshkills Landfield until they could make identifications. I believe this was a massive blood sacrifice that was performed in accordance with the ritual of destroying the pillars that separate heaven and earth, the north and south towers being the pillars. The elite actually believe they will bring back the “golden age”, when men and gods walked the earth together. I certainly don’t believe that, but they do. There is even some pretty good reasons to believe the WTC towers were built to be destroyed. If you’ve never seen it, check out the NYC church called St. John the Divine…it is covered in images of death and destruction, along with demonic beings. Why would a church do that?

      1. Freemasonic numerology you bet.
        Fresh Kills comes from dutch for fresh water source.
        Where did you read about the dead being brought there?
        I heard the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Adm)personell in full protective suites including cover for eyes and ears handled decontamination there. I think I read they first had the steel sent there for decont. Steel which seemingly fell down already in convenient lengths for lorry transport.

        1. About the video. (My kids were disturbing me talking backwards so I hardly could follow) but she discusses directed energy and the Rockefellers. The R were the ones who had to ordain a demolition plan. According to Khalezov controlled demolition inc chose nuclear demolition back in the late 60s.( As you may no that same company was also selected to take care of the handling of wtc after 9/11)
          That was the only economically viable manner to deal with the thick core.
          Conventional demolition without nukes would be extremely costly and also riskier. Sometimes conventional demolition fails and that couldnt be afforded with those high rises. Melting the core with nukes and the thing nicely implodes. Anyway she says directed energy and wonders what kind. I didnt follow it to the end. But if you use directed energy as a eufemism for nukes its ok.

        2. I read about Fresh Kills in a book entitled, “The Most Dangerous Book in the World, 911 as Mass Ritual” by S.K. Bain. Here is a little bit of it:
          After 9/11, about two million tons of material from Ground Zero was taken to a nearby landfill for sorting, where thousands of detectives and forensic evidence specialists worked for over 1.7 million hours to recover remnants of those killed in the attacks. More than 1,600 personal effects were retrieved, and over 4,000 human remains recovered, and from those remains, 300 people were identified. The remaining debris, which in all likelihood contains fragmentary human remains, was buried in the landfill. And the name of this place where the pieces of what we now understand to be sacrificial victims were taken? (Prepare yourself for the most egregious instance of mockery in the entire script for the 9/11 MegaRitual…) Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island.

        3. Maryaha
          Sounds credible. Two million tons. I think all the steel weighed much less. I guess that means they were exposed to all the radioactivity if there were nukes in the demolition. It means their carefully covered ears and eyes make sense as protection against contamination during the processing of all the material. I guess they must have special protocols to follow at the end of work.

        4. Regarding the “ritual sacrifice and Fresh Kills” idea, a vague memory of mine was prompted by your comments, maryaha. I consider the following fact related, though some may consider it a real stretch.

          Not only did Rockefeller money build the World Trade Center, the Rockefellers donated the United Nations Headquarters land, land that originally was used for a slaughter house.

          The Rockefellers also funded Planned Parenthood, the Eugenics Society, and the Population Council, and all these eugenics / population eradication programs look a lot like human sacrifice too.

    4. I don’t want credit for any brainstorm I might have had but I was immediately skeptical at the Roth declarations as to many key points and questions about the plane dynamics regarding passengers, flight attendants, and pilots. Likewise, I was struck by her last name…..it was Zio all the way and my sixth sense told me “beware”.

  2. “it makes sense that the orchestrators had a private live-camera view to ensure everything was going as planned” but then again there was purposeful chaos with terrible acting and plot lines. Maybe the perpetrators think this operation was a success in terms of tax dollars spent on arms, and depriving everyone of basic rights, but anyone with a really good military brain would have planned a much tighter scenario and executed it better. It shows how incompetent our military has become.

    1. Of course there was a crew there to video the event from beginning to end. The so-called “dancing Israelis” admitted on live Israeli TV that they were there to document the event, and that’s just what they did. The “dancing Israelis” were spirited out of the U.S.A. back to Israel (along with scores of other Israeli criminals) by Michael Chertoff (an Israeli so-called dual citizen) after being detained a short while. They all worked for the Mossad, of course.

  3. At the height where the holes appeared officially attributed to the planes the steel wasnt so thick. Perhaps as little as 1/4 inch. That thin steel was embedded in something else softer. But the actual hole as seen after the smoke vanished looks like the wing wouldnt have been able to penetrate the wall from tip to tip. That alone smells hoax. And they nearly perfected the hole but not completely. The only reliable picture of the ‘crash’ shows aluminum panels belonging to the building thrown outwards and no sign of a plane. This proves explosives were mounted somewhere inside those panels. A real plane would have partly penetrated the wall but would have been shredded in the process. That would have made it difficult to believe that the plane had delivered a nuclear warhead inside the building. According to Khalezov the fear of an impending nuclear explosion high above NY motivated the demolition. He claims this was a quick decision made after an unexploded nuclear missile landed in the Pentagon.
    Thus according to Khalezov those who unleached the demolition were fooled by the perps. K claims that before 9/11 a man appearing under the name of Michael Hariri (of Mossad, infamous druglord and murderer) asked K whether he remembered the emergency nuclear demolition plan for wtc. And K said yes, he learned about it in connection with his previous role as a nuclear security officer in the USSR since the US and the USSR shared info about civilian applications of nukes. The actual demolition is believed by many to have been carried out with conventional cutter charges together with a couple of mini nuclear bombs. K believes the old plans using a big, 150kt fusionbomb deeper down was the method used. But some observers claim that such bombs were used already in the late 60s to dig out the ‘potholes’ seen after the rubble had been removed from wtc. Ie the ground may have been dug out using nuclear bombs as part of the plowshare project involving civilian uses of nuclear weapons and championed by Edward Teller. The project ended in 1973 after a public outcry.
    The witness says he overheard conversations about it in younger years when his elder relatives talked about it and he also claimed there were articles about it in popular scientific literature. K also claimed to once have seen blueprints showing such demolition plans. More: K claims that after he came forward with his web-activism about it some physicist published a strange text, according to K falsely backdated to before Ks appearance and showing a similar arrangement only with the crucial difference that instead of a fusion bomb there was a nuclear reactor but otherwise the geometry was the same.
    Leaving the details about the actual demolition aside K has an interesting perspective and it makes a great deal of sense.
    911thology.com There is at 10% from the bottom of the page a zip file the third trutht v4
    (I think som other files he asks for help with may have been sabotaged because it didnt make sense when I read it but he may have updated it now.)

    1. I should add that K argues that freemasonic networks play an important role carrying out the plot and provides proof for what appears to be worldwide Orwellian rewriting of history by altering entries in all accessible copies of widely used dictionaries. This he claims is carried out by producing fake backdated copies substituting them for the originals and even keeping an eye on second hand outlets. All to make sure nearly nothing remains except privately owned copies. The word ground zero had according to K before 2003 only the meaning~ the locus of a nuclear explosion. While after ~2003 older copies falsely appearing to be genuine dictionaries from the 80s or 90s now had two additional explanations for ‘ground zero’ no longer just related to nukes.

    2. I wish the considerable talent in investigation, research and discernment of this forum would be targeted at uncovering one of the cruelest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people and on the world, and that would be the fact that a nuclear bomb is not possible, that all photographic and video evidence of so-called “nuclear explosions” show evidence of fakery, that all the so-called inventors and promoters of the “nuclear bomb” were Zionist jews, including Szillard, Oppenheimer, and Einstein, with an interest in promoting the US’ military power in the world in order that it could become the world “police” in promoting the Zionist agenda (which is exactly what the US is doing right now). In war, the belief in an opponent’s power is the same thing as power itself. Neither fission nor thermonuclear (“H” bombs) actually exist, except in the minds of the people themselves.

      Thermonuclear fusion is not physically possible. All videos of “thermonuclear explosions” show evidence of fakery. Notice that by this time, it was predicted, that there would be fusion power plants everywhere, and that electricity would become “too cheap to meter”. This hasn’t occurred because fusion is not possible on a large scale (beyond nano-sized laboratory experiments).

      Here is a good place to get started:


      1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 70 years ago not destroyed by atomic bombs 1945. The Japanese in their simple wood/paper shanty houses in the two towns were killed and burnt by US napalm carpet bombings. The rich Japanese lived in the suburbs!

      2. That two atomic bombs exploded 70 years ago in Japan 1945 were just US wartime propaganda lies (false information) to impress the Soviet union. Stalin wasn’t fooled. He (or his deputy Beria) invented/faked his own atomic bomb 1949.

      3. The 70 years old lies from 6 August 1945 are of course still working kept going strong by several governments, crazy generals and plenty physicists incl. Nobel prize winners that cannot get any better jobs than lying for their governments – the only real job many physicists can get apart from being low paid school teachers – and by mainstream media of course that are experts in publishing false info to brainwash you.

      4. The USA uses billions of dollars to maintain the hoax. Russia doesn’t spend a rubel or kopek to keep the show going.

      5. France and China faked their atomic bombs in the 1960’s.

      6. 10 000’s of atomic bombs have since 1946 been built, transported around, mishandled, dropped by mistake by incompetent soldiers but none has ever exploded. Reason is that an atomic bomb cannot explode. It is physically impossible as shown by me in this article.

      7. Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, ICBMs, do not work either. A thermonuclear war is therefore not possible!

      8. Nuclear arms are very safe and secure! They cannot harm anything. But it is illegal to say so!

      9. The Islamic Republic of Iran is trying since 30 years to fake an atomic bomb that Stalin did in four years 65 years ago assisted by Gulag prisoners and Wismut AG of Aue, Saxony.

      10. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, and its boss Yukiya Amano and the dictator of North Korea are part of the hoax. Just ask them about it. They are paid to lie about atomic bombs. Just laugh at them and refer them to this web site.

      11. The good news is that atomic bombs or A-bombs do not work and are nothing to be afraid of. What to be afraid of are politicans and military believing in A-bombs!


        1. I do, indeed, deny that the sun is fusion-powered. If you study the evidence and observations at https://www.thunderbolts.info you will see that the sun and all stars and galaxies are electrically powered by vast Birkeland Currents of plasma moving throughout the Universe. Wherever charged particles (plasma) are moving through space, we call this electricity. Any fusion which may occur is at the sun’s surface, and is caused by immense electrical forces.

        2. THX the electric universe theory is easily refuted on the grounds of basic energy considerations. About 1000 times to low energy is in that cosmic ‘capacitor’.
          I dont remember the exact numbers it might be over a 1000x. If you insist I might check my previous notes but I promise you its a dead end.
          Its surprising for me how laymen always stumble on the fundamental law of energy conservation.

        3. I’m offended by you calling me a “layman”, although using the term, which originated from religion, is fitting for so-called “scientists” who are actually religionists. Defenders of outdated “science” also often use the word “heretic” (as they did with Halton Arp), and many other such phrases derived from religion.

          However, if you have a conservation of energy argument against the Electric Universe Theory, I would certainly like to see it. A simple link or links would do.

        4. Your laymanship is proven by the fact that you didnt feel the necessity to study the energy considerations.
          The cosmic capacitor had something like 10GW of power if I remember correctly. According to a NASA dokument some 600kA * 30kV=18GW ok that order. That is comparable to the power of a hurricane. Compare that with the total influx of solar energy assuming 30% absorption 1.39kW/sqm * 0.3pi(6.36E6)^2=5E16W=50millionGW
          And that power is less than 1 billionth of the total solar output
          The Nasa data were taken from someone who believed in the electric universe until I wrote to him and then he removed that document.
          I probably saved it on my computer but this is my surfplate.
          If you insist I may look it up for you on the web. But I think it would be good for your learning if you have a go at it yourself and check the numbers.

        5. Never mind, I think I found what you are referring to. I had passed over this website, because nobody at the Thunderbolts Project has ever claimed anything about “creationism”. However, I’ll go over these arguments and make my own judgment.

          Here’s the link I found:

          Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Challenges for Electric Universe ‘Theorists’…

        6. lol, yes I did briefly peruse the “debunking” provided by this individual, however he makes some very major errors in his “debunking”.

          First of all, the Electric Universe Theory is not “bunk”, and so anyone interested in “debunking” it is on a false course.

          Secondly, this guy, who mostly attacks “creationist” people and their beliefs, somehow equated the Electric Universe Theory with creationists. That is simply not true, there has never been any connection with creationism and the Electric Universe Theory.

          Okay, so now down to the science…. This guy uses an electrostatic model to “debunk” Electric Universe Theory, hypothesizing, using an anode ball and the rest of the Universe as his model, that electrons must be accelerated to “relativistic” velocities in this electric field. He even theorizes himself that the only input to the solar energy system is “cosmic rays”, which ignores the huge evidence, through radio telescopy, the filamentary structure of the Universe, and how those filaments are Birkeland Currents of electrical power. He completely ignores the shielding effect of double layers, which is a fundamental and well-known property of plasma (we see it even in neon lamps), wherein the inner electric charge is shielded or protected from the outer electric charge by an impinging double layer of plasma. This double layer is the reason why plasma was called “plasma” in the first place! Because the double layer is formed as if it was a cell wall. Outside the double layer of the sun, the electric field is very weak, and the electrons travel (i.e. “drift) very slowly towards the sun, causing a mostly steady current. Disturbances in this steady current are the cause of Coronal Mass Ejections and Sunspots. It is well-known science that the majority of the voltage drop of an electrical circuit in the plasma universe (proven by laboratory experiments) occurs across these double layers. Your “debunker” has no understanding of this phenomenon whatsoever.

          Lastly, he challenges the EU people to come up with a source for the EMF (Electromotive Force) which powers the Universe. We don’t know. We don’t know where the ultimate source for this power comes from, but we do know that it is not “black holes”, “dark energy”, “dark matter”, “neutron stars”, or a bent “time-space continuum”.

          How many ways must the current “consensus” view of scientific knowledge must be falsified before those entrenched individuals will give up and admit that their “knowledge” is flawed? Well, I actually have an answer to that question.

          The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) was originally printed as an article in the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, published by the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle. In this book, Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linear accumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodic revolutions, also called “paradigm shifts” (although he did not coin the phrase), in which the nature of scientific inquiry within a particular field is abruptly transformed. In general, science is broken up into three distinct stages. Prescience, which lacks a central paradigm, comes first. This is followed by “normal science”, when scientists attempt to enlarge the central paradigm by “puzzle-solving”. Guided by the paradigm, normal science is extremely productive: “when the paradigm is successful, the profession will have solved problems that its members could scarcely have imagined and would never have undertaken without commitment to the paradigm”

          Max Planck:
          “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

          This shows the self-service and political correctness that “science” uses to prevail its ideas on the world. Pasteur was a complete fraud, Einstein was a complete fraud, Freud was a complete fraud, and all of their followers are frauds by virtue of their ignorance. There are many examples.

          This is not a mere exercise in philosophical discussion, there are millions of lives at stake in beLIEving in these “scientific” frauds. By the last numbers published by the medical establishment in 2012, for example, 861,000 people died prematurely because they took their medical treatment properly, according to current medical “science”, and their opinion on how to treat disease.

          But yes, I know this goes far afield of the Electric Universe Theory.

          The fact is that the EU Theory makes sense, much more sense than the gaslight era theories of men who were not even aware of electricity. It has predictive power (predictions | thunderbolts.info
          https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eu-guides/predictions/ ) which have been proven to be correct (although ignored by the mainstream, career-protecting “scientists”)

          There is no denying that gravity is 1,000 billion billion billion billion times weaker than electricomagnetic forces. There is no way you can deny that it is an Electrical Universe, unless you poke your head in the sand and deny that there is any electrical current in space, and then you have lost, because the evidence of electrical forces in space is everywhere, literally everywhere.

        7. What Individual? I wasnt referring to any debunker. On the contrary he claimed that the electric aspect dominated and I argued against it like I did above. And noone denies that there are electric phenomena out there. But the force from the two types of charges + and – cancel in most cases and the net result is a dipolar or multipolar type of force having a much shorter range. Gravity doesnt have that character and therefore Gravity dominates even though electricity is much stronger for a single charge.
          The sun has a net electric charge since electrons escape more easily than protons. The Corona has a much higher temperature and apparently thats where many of the escaping electrons originate. Thus the suns magnetic field indeed increases the charge of the sun by heating electrons. The reason why the electric aspect of the universe has attracted many physicists is, I believe, a faint hope that there might be a so called scalar field component that might ‘explain’ gravity. No proof of a scalar field exists and gravity according to the so called general relativity theory has very different mathematical properties from electromagnetism. Gravity according to GRT has a bending effect on space-time which EM doesnt have. EM curves space in a simpler manner, like a cone, while gravity bends it more like a sphere. A cone may be deconstructed into straight lines while a sphere cannot so gravity according to GRT is qualitatively different despite both having a 1/r^2 dependence for individual charges. GRT appears to be in agreement with such weird phenomena as black holes. So it is believed to be correct as long as nothing better has come up.
          Therefore if electromagnetism is to ‘take over’ it probably needs to be modified to include some of the complexity of GRT. That might be the elusive universal field theory. It would probably be part of a higher dimensional reinterpretation of the present ‘established’ framework.
          So it wouldnt really be the electric universe anyway. Both mechanical forces and electromagnetism seem to correspond to 4dimensional math. In 4D there is a type of rotation not familiar from 3D. It is defined by a 6D directed quantity while there are two types of rotations each characterized by 4 quantities. It is unfamiliar since it entails rotation around surfaces as well as 3D subspaces. Our intuition tells us rotation must be around an axis but in higher D there are qualitatively new types of rotation. This has never been fully applied to reinterpret the laws of physics which actually still use a framework from the days of Decartes. String theory doesnt really challenge this at all.
          Established physics was hardwon and it works so reinterpretation is not a priority but its probably necessary to develop understanding.

    3. Re: Pat’s claims of “levitation” on 9/11. This is standard operating procedures of injecting obfuscation, deception and the unbelievable for intelligence agents, and their assets and agents provocateurs. Compare Oklahoma City Bombing, unanswered questions #2 from rense.com:

      “When the word first got out that no Federal agents had been present in the building, the BATF produced its Resident Agent Alex McCauley who told a long story about his own heroism and that of a fellow ATF man who allegedly fell three floors in an elevator, walked away from it, and then helped rescue others trapped by the bomb. This was quickly exposed as a fabrication in an angry interview by building maintenance supervisor Duane James, who described McCauley’s story as “pure fantasy”.


      As they say, good catch Pete!

      1. These are not MY claims, Peace. They are the testimonies of individuals who were walking down the sidewalk when the event happened, that Dr. Wood reproduces in her book. How am I supposed to know what to make of it?

        Many strange things happened, and she compiles it all, sorts through it and tries to make sense of it. There were, for instance, what she terms “strange fires” all around, that were not hot, and did not burn the paper that they were “burning” amidst. What does that mean? I don’t know, and neither does Dr. Wood.

        How you can construe this as “standard operating procedures of injecting obfuscation, deception and the unbelievable ” is beyond me. It’s just examining evidence that has otherwise gone down the memory hole.

        She, alone, so far as I can tell, has examined the unbelievably weird patterns of damage sustained by thousands of parked cars, some may blocks away.

        There are lots of things like that, things never seen before–or since.

        Dr. Wood, a scientist specializing in the nature of materials, concludes that the only explanation that fits all the evidence is a technology using a kind of physics not taught in school. Fine with me.

        It is exactly the same situation as the 9/11 researchers who obsessively focus on the twin towers, and push the thermite hypothesis, but resolutely refuse to say how WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6 acquired their perplexing patterns of damage. In other words, it is those who oversimplify what happened that morning by ignoring evidence they don’t understand who are guilty of obfuscation and deception–not Dr. Wood, and certainly not me. People who reject Dr. Wood’s hypothesis, but ignore the strangest elements of evidence, can safely be dismissed as not serious. If Wood is wrong, fine. Explaining the weirdest evidence–all of it–by another theory.

        Lophatt says tiny little nukes can explain much of the evidence. If their use can create fires that are not hot, do not burn paper; if their use creates bizarre field effects that pick up people and carry them many yards away and set them safely down; if they do to cars what was done that morning; fine with me. I don’t know enough about it.

        Dr. Wood concludes that a technology we don’t know about was being demonstrated on 9/11, technology Tesla demonstrated a hundred years earlier–and when he died, the secret government confiscated all his documentation. They’ve had plenty of time to perfect and fine tune it. Makes sense to me.

        1. There are free energy concepts in established physics. Free in that case means accessible and accessibility depends on the circumstances. Therefore there are a couple of different definitions of Free<=>accessible energy.
          Tesla was intrigued by the new quantum mechanics and the occurence of zero point energy. He and others have held hopes that you might extract that energy. That would be the elusive free lunch.
          But elas, it is an overinterpretation not onherent in the much tested and thus established quantum mechanics. Energy to be extracted must correspond to a quantum mechanical system undergoing a change of state, and very important: it must be a change from a state characterized by HIGHER energy to lower! And zero point energy does not fulfill that requirement. Zeropoint energy for normal matter is a fluctuation around zero due to the so called uncertainty principle. The confinement of atoms within a small spatial region, as is always the case in solid matter, forces an uncertainty of momentum for quantum particles. This uncertainty appears as a random distribution of velocities back and forth within the confining volume. But there is no lower state than the zero point. Thus there can be no energy extraction. Tesla was hoping but he wasnt a theorist. And like every inventor he wanted sponsors. Vacuum fluctuations are hoped by some enthusiasts to provide an infinite source of free energy. If they were right the universe would be unstable but it isnt so they are wrong. It has more to do with the publish or perish aspect than with science.

        2. Well, Peter, I’m no physicist. I like reading stuff like this, but can’t really have a valid opinion.

          Dr. Wood, of course, is a scientist, and she examined all the strange evidence, along with the obvious evidence, and concluded that normal physics can’t explain it. Her book presents the evidence very clearly.

          She might actually be in agreement with you, to some extent, come to think about it. Toward the end of her book she relates the VERY strange episode of hurricane Erin, an astonishingly energetic storm which made a bee line directly westward and then stopped, parked just east of Long Island. The skies remained perfectly clear over Manhattan, although it was raining at JFK. Immediately after the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings, Erin put her transmission in reverse and sped directly east, back out into the middle of the Atlantic.

          She implies that the technology in question tapped Erin’s astounding energy matrix, that THAT’S where the energy came from to “dustify” all that steel and porcelain. But then the book ends, without her really explaining that possibility.

          Sofia Smallstorm, in conversation, told me that in an interview with Wood she tried very hard to get her to explain her Erin-energy-drives-the-destruction idea, but she could not get her to do it (I’m probably oversimplifying what Sofia said, but that’s basically it).

          I don’t mind, incidentally, if a mystery-examiner throws out possibilities, and it takes years of thought to work them out. This one, it seems, is getting quite long in the tooth. Perhaps she dropped the subject.

        3. The Erin connection is indeed remarkable but a plausible explanation is that the perps who knew they were going to use nukes, now had a chance to prove and test the usefulness of weather control, performed by other means than by what caused the events at wtc. More precisely they could substantially decrease the radioactive downfall over Manhattan and instead being distributed( and thus diluted)over a much wider area. This would be a very tempting experiment for the MIC.

        4. I believe that Dr. Wood is part of a MIL/Intel PSYOP pushing phony DEW claims to cover real false flag operations like 9/11, as well as gang stalking and other rogue government Programs. As you may know, I blog about the gang stalking Program and its causal nexus to the exponential increase in mass shootings seen in recent years.This same DEW crap is being pushed by FBI/CIA/Military Intelligence. Dr. Wood is in the same camp as disinformation agents like former military intelligence officer Bridget S. Howe, and Dr. John Hall. 9/11 was as clear a USG operation as was the JFK conspiracy. What better way to marginalize real research into this area than to conflate it with palpably unbelievable claims of levitation, etc. There were credible accounts of victims being blown for a city block on 9/11. This can be explained by the rigged explosives rather than space-based ray guns. I believe that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are correctly dismissing Dr. Wood’s claims as bogus disinformation.

        5. Have you read the book, Peace?

          What, in it, is not simply the pictures themselves?

          And tell me what pages she mentions “space-based ray guns.” It’s been years since I read it, admittedly, but I could swear she never mentioned that. I freely admit my memory could be faulty. Help me out here.

        6. I wouldn’t call your Wiki link “a good synopsis of her theory”, but this quote from there is certainly accurate: “She consistently declines to speculate about the exact nature of the weapon involved[4], where it was situated or who operated it. Her position is that, as a scientist, her role is to determine what happened that day. Others might or might not address those more political questions.”

          She certainly has many detractors. But the book is just a pile of indisputable facts, with some effort to make sense of them. No one, so far as I know, has dealt with the pile of facts; they always attack her, the person, or the effort she has made to make sense oft facts.

          As I have repeatedly said, I don’t care which theory is true. But if your theory can’t explain the levitating people, the fire that isn’t hot, the cars, or the intense desire for the people who threw themselves out to the towers to remove their clothes (while in the air), Dr Wood has to remain the best game in town. Any theory that ignores the weird stuff is worthless. She might be wrong, but her detractors never deal with the weird stuff. That makes one wonder.

        7. In, hopefully, my last attempt at this, I’ll try to keep it very simple. Patrick is absolutely correct in saying that Wood’s detractors never address the evidence.

          The evidence is plainly there. Materials do not turn to dust and/or form new conglomerates without the application of extreme forms of energy.

          This phenomena has been shown in nuclear testing. I have no serious data on other types of “directed energy” devices. Frankly, given the importance of the event, would they risk untried devices? I don’t think they’d risk airplanes either, and they didn’t.

          There are all manner of claims out there about secret devices. Here’s one:


          It is very interesting and he is a gifted writer. I have no idea if such a thing exists or the event described happened. If it is, and it did, this might fill the bill as well.

          The problem is, Shimatsu has spun a few tales in the past, even about German special forces being responsible for Sandy Hook. That sounded well thought out and plausible as well, at the time.

          So, one can ignore the thousand-pound gorilla in the room (the evidence), and pontificate all one wants. Unless the theory addresses the evidence it’s a non-starter.

  4. In Vanessa Minter’s interview at 13:40 all of a sudden she starts talking about just a year earlier she was a spook working on terrorist drills and was the money man. Then she goes into this whole thing about how she couldn’t believe they let her go because she would be “Free” to talk. ? Spook.

    Then of course all the FBI guys were involved in OKC and other crimes prior to this gig. One Big Happy Terrorist Family.

    Planes and People IMO:

    All 4 planes were painted as 11, 93, 175 and so forth. That’s why the transponders were turned off. They Weren’t really 11,93, 175 and such.

    All remote controlled.

    I’ll go as far to say none of the real people that day who were flying to Los Angeles had any idea they were part of 911 to this day and Never entered the fake CIA planes and therefore no one was really killed or dropped off on some military base because the manifests were fake to begin with and it was a drill.

    1. And 1 more thing. None of the Painted CIA planes hit the Towers or Pentagon nor crashed in Shanksville.
      They were just part of the physical diversion.
      Not that anyone really cares.
      The crazy mysteries are better folklore.
      The Buildings were wired with state of the art explosives and very clean low radiation devises we have never seen displayed by our Govt. that demolished the buildings, All of them. That’s why so many can’t understand. And then we hear theories like Judy Woods (which is a good one) because we simply Don’t Know. New Technology we have never seen displayed.
      It was quite a feat

      1. Yes that seems to be where its converging.
        Judy however collects every seeming fact as if none of it could be conjured on purpose to mislead. She ends up with too many conditions on to few variables and then logically concludes that this must be something unheard of. Then she runs off the cliff by adhering to the free energy hoax. She should have skipped the paper paradox as well as the apparent dustification of steel which never happened. No one knows for sure what happened to the cars. That could have been a separate ploy and doesnt necessarily have the same explanation as the vanishing parts of the buildings. The perps surely wanted to confuse.
        The focus must be on the gross anomalous effects on the buildings like Patrick argues.

        1. And, all the main explosions that “vaporized” the content of buildings came from the basements of each building.

          All eye witnesses said the sub-floors were gone before the buildings fell.

          Proof that state of the art explosives were employed can be seen with the naked eye and sounds. The most obvious moment (for the deniers) is when Tower two’s Cap Stone starts to list and go into free fall.

          The observers controlling the demolition, quickly detonate massive explosives to counter the cap to building center.

          Just as with pentagon, anything non metallic didn’t burn. If you can recall, at the Pentagon that woman that survived the blast. She jumped right into the blast zone unharmed and her desk and papers weren’t even singed. She sued the govt.

          No ones gums bleed or got sick from radiation exposure (or did they?)

          It was the cleanest most powerful bomb we have ever witnessed.

          It was all the above that took those buildings down. Not just one technique.


        2. There sure was a nuke underneath but there may have been more small ones further up. The concrete high up pulverizes in the air. If there was intense radiation the moisture inside the concrete would vaporize and cause the dustification without the mechanical shockwave from a comparable conventional bomb. A nuke for this purpose would preferably nearly fizzle away the neutrons. Like a reactor gone critical but not blown appart.
          There was a very high rise in cancer probability per unit time for the rescue workers. Thousandfold. But that doesnt lead to acute radiation sickness. To avoid that they had dosimetres checked every day by a doctor, Allison Geyh, said to later have died from leukemia at the age of fifty. As the reading approached the limit the personnel were taken off service and new ones came.
          Officially those dosimetres were used for a different purpose but that is not credible. Initially the authorities forbade entrance to the wtc area and covered it with sand. Normal protocol for decont. Shortlived isotopes then vanish. Many truckloads of equal portions of an ionexchange chemical arrived. It is intended for decontamination. NNSA and Controlled Demolition Inc handled it ackording to protocol. They were prepared.
          Compare Hiroshima. It was drinking the water from the black rain which killed many of them.

        3. Yes, I couldn’t agree more. While we obviously do not have the plans for this little event, we can make intelligent guesses. I generally think “what would I do if I had to do this?”.

          This was obviously quite an engineering feat. Dropping (or sublimating) buildings in downtown Manhattan is cheeky. One might use the word “Chutzpah”.

          Much has been made of the thermite (thermate?), issue. I could see using something like that to cut the outer beams so that they would fall into the maelstrom and join the material that was sublimated there.

          The physics are known. I wonder if they tested their theories prior to the event. It would be risky not to.

          I had quite a discussion with Patrick once about this. I like Judy Wood’s presentation in that it looks at the evidence. I do not personally subscribe to the “directed energy” in the way she more or less describes.

          A nuclear event such as this is a form of “directed energy”. It is a known quantity. Either way, that is what would be required to get materials to behave as the evidence shows that they did.

          I don’t engage in rooting for anybody’s team. Wood’s work would have been better had she avoided Hutchison. She completely dismisses nukes. How strange. The evidence is there.

          I think for a large number they simply do not understand this. They think “boom”. If they look at the dissolution of materials and the decay patterns in the residue, there aren’t too many known choices.

          If there is another device that is controllable, dependable and capable of producing the same molecular dissolution, fine. The central issue is that something did. We know that one such source exists.

          They were not “brought down” (period), or “demolished” by the use of conventional explosives or highly energetic materials. The damage confirms that. No amount of thermite (or the mystical thermate), would produce that result.

          If the analysis proves that there is thermate residue, it only proves that the material was part of the project. It certainly was not the cause of the result.

        4. I suspect the motive for bringing in thermite is its high temperature. That way you may cover the tracks of the nuking creating vaporized metal. Cutter charges are extremely effective as I understand it. There is a high speed explosion temporarily liquifying the metal and before this condition has time to relax a part of the arrangement travels right through like a knife through butter. A neat and clean cut results. No need for anything else, save the chemical traces which might be revealing I suppose.

        5. The problem is with the video evidence. Whatever use of thermite had to be very minimal. This is because it is very, very bright, and we see none of that in the pictures.

          I wouldn’t be surprised if they shipped in pre-cut steel beams, and stored them somewhere in the buildings, for show.

          But again, everyone who thinks WTC7 is the final word that proves the official story is stupid, WTC6 (as well as 3,4, and 5) ends the “controlled demolition” solution.

          As I have said many times (largely because lophatt persuaded me) Dr. Wood could be wrong to conclude it was Tesla technology–I can’t know–but she has correctly argued that any theory that does not answer ALL the evidence is unworthy of our support. Building 6 is so obvious an example it makes one’s eyes bleed when looking at pictures of its damage, and contemplating the fact that no one ever talks about it.

        6. Patrick
          “she has correctly argued that any theory that does not answer ALL the evidence is unworthy of our support.”
          She better have the info correct then. Judy believed the steel dustified. It did not. It was transported to China. (And btw there has been alot of talk of the people dustifying and only pieces less than a mm were found on some other building.
          In reality they uncovered more than half of the bodies. And they didnt necessarily want to continue for much more time. The NNSA people had full protection gear against radioactivity. But some of the nastier types of radiation gets through. Presumably there was a deadline for health reasons so the rest of the wtc remnants could be overlayed.)
          And second, the perps may have inserted misleading clues.
          This is, after all, the MHB!
          Better stick to the most striking aspects.
          Cars may even burn for other reasons than the collapse.
          And the paper, please dont make that a crucial issue.
          If you insist on having one cause for all observations while there might be independent explanations the problem is what mathematicians refer to as an overdetermined problem and thus insoluble.

        7. APB out for Toni STAT !

          “But again, everyone who thinks WTC7 is the final word that proves the official story is stupid, WTC6 (as well as 3,4, and 5) ends the “controlled demolition” solution.”

          No one who has been studying 9-11 at all “thinks WTC7 is the final word that proves the official story is stupid.”

          “Building 6 is so obvious an example it makes one’s eyes bleed when looking at pictures of its damage, and contemplating the fact that no one ever talks about it.”

          No one who has been studying 9-11 at all contemplates “the fact” that “no one ever talks about Building 6.”

        8. It was a generalization I was making, dachsie, not a comprehensive history.


          People like Dr Stan routinely argue(d) that Building 7 is all the proof you need that 9/11 had to be an inside job. It is almost a cliche.

          But tons of people who know that 9/11 was an inside job continue to point to WTC1 and WTC2, and argue that it was controlled demolition that did it.

          Where have you been? Don’t you know that?

          To get these thermite-on-the-brain people away from their false reasoning, I point them to WTC6 (and 3 and 4 and 5, although they are less visually arresting). Crickets. Every time.

          Silence, because no one has been told about building 6. Did you not notice that WTC6 is never, ever brought up? Lophat is the only one who has presented a theory about WTC6, around here, and he pointed to a VT article that argues that tiny little nukes–lots of them–did the job. So there’s that. But buildings 3, 4, and 5? Crickets.

          I don’t know how “Toni” can come to your rescue on this one.

        9. Patrick
          wtc6 is not more difficult to explain as the result of a mininuke than the much more dramatic collapsing bigger buildings. Silence doesnt mean there is no solution only maybe not the immediate sense of priority.

        10. “I don’t know how “Toni” can come to your rescue on this one.” Of course you would not know. I do not need anyone to “come to my rescue” but I just do not feel like devoting any of my limited energy to unraveling your usual twisted logic.  Since Toni is so good at that, I offered her an invitation to take a shot at it. Thanks for the chuckles from your  “don’t you know that?” and “I was making a generalization” comments.

          I would recommend you research who it was that weaponized the term “controlled demolition” and who are the people and groups that push the idea that all 7 of the WTC buildings were destroyed in the same way.   “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.”John 1:5 

        11. I don’t know, Peter, if “wtc6 is not more difficult to explain as the result of a mininuke than the much more dramatic collapsing bigger buildings.” Fine with me if that’s the case. It’s just that it is never done.

          WTC6, after the event, has a systematic pattern of circular holes in its midst, with none of the material that used to be the building remaining. These nukes might be capable of drawing curved lines, as they vaporize very carefully portions of buildings. The other unmentionable buildings were partially vaporized along very straight lines. Maybe they were playing with us, or testing the capabilities for their own use–or both. But I still think Tesla technology, which has never been announced, could easily explain all that building-carving, and vaporization.

          You say “Silence doesnt mean there is no solution only maybe not the immediate sense of priority.” Not so much. If we want to know what happened (the “who did it” question comes much, much later) we need to not ignore what happened.

          How about this. Thought experiment. Let’s ignore the MSM for a moment. We were all traumatized by images of WTC1 and WTC2 going away, with huge fire balls and cauliflower clouds. What if we only saw images of WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6? What if we all decided to only focus on those ignored buildings from now on? How would that change the conversation?

        12. A couple of years ago Foreign Policy had articles about abuse in handling nukes. There was mention about the (Davy Crocket?) nukes I think. They were battle field nukes with a magnitude 1/1000 of a Hiroshima bomb. According to Veterans Today hundreds of them were smuggled out of the Us and the Bush gov allowed it or at least didnt handle it correctly. According to VT there were many aged nukes in need for recommission. You have to cleanse the material in order to make it explode as intended otherwise neutrons are reabsorbed before fissioning the material. But there are other options. You might consider letting them fizzle. Placing them in some encapsulation which would enhance the directionality essentially creating an extremely hot torch. But not the instantaneous release of the energy.
          Just a sketch by me. There might be many better ways to do it. And there are undoubtedly secret variants of nukes.
          It is tricky yet not impossible to achieve a high degree of directionality.
          Likewise it is tricky yet not impossible to prolong the energy release.
          Normal mininuke: energy release in less than a microsecond.
          Putting a layer of material around it there is a delay due to the thermal inertia. Shaping that layer and you get a directional effect.
          R & D no big deal with the right budget.

        13. “I would recommend you research who it was that weaponized the term “controlled demolition” and who are the people and groups that push the idea that all 7 of the WTC buildings were destroyed in the same way. ”

          Dachsie, I was unaware that ANYONE had ever pushed “the idea that all 7 of the WTC buildings were destroyed in the same way. ” Wow. I’ve been following the 9/11 story from the start, and the only person I ever heard talking about seven buildings being destroyed is Judy Wood. There people talk about 3, 4, 5, and 6? Too bad you are so cripplingly busy; it would be nice to be directed to sources. I’d love to know where you get your information.

          As for the “who,” Judy Wood does many astonishingly great things in her book, but perhaps the most important is to put our priorities in order.

          First, we must establish if something actually happened. We can know that 9/11 DID happen, because the twin towers turned into dust and blew away, and the rest of the buildings were destroyed. You could go there and see for yourself.

          Second, we must establish WHAT happened. We still do not know that.

          Only after that can we have any hope of finding out who and why.

          We are still trying to find out what happened.

        14. Here is one of my resources that will show you that Dr. Judy Wood claims all of the WTC buildings were destroyed in the same way, the same way as per her theory.  (As I vaguely recall, the main “evidence” that proves her theory about Building 7 is the “lathering” on one side of the building.  I do not recall her mentioning anything about the height of the Bldg. 7 rubble pile and the dip in the roof right before it went “down.”  However, it has been a long time)

          It is a personal email to me of January 1, 2008 from Dr. Wood. Jan 1, 2008 Judy Wood To  Jan 1, 2008 They DEWed WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

          WTC7 had to be destroyed so that they wouldn’t have the same problem they have with Bankers Trust.  Bakers Trust got infected and the Millenium got infected.

          Thanks for being one of those people who really thinks.  🙂


          ____There are other individuals who have promoted the idea that if bldg. 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition, then the Twin Towers were controlled in the same way, and that is a variation of universalizing the WTC buildings all being destroyed in the same way.  (Dr. Alan Sabrosky is one of the people who promoted this idea.) ______________

          Your  “you are so cripplingly busy”  comment to me is a perfect example of how youtwist words and why your form of argumentation vexes me.  What I said was that I had “limited energy”and that is the most true and complete and correct description  I can give of my physical condition.  I have to spend my energy resources wisely.  “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.”John 1:5 

        15. If I understand you correctly, dachsie, you are saying that Dr. Wood–who is the only person I know of that has ever addressed the question of the destruction of WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6–said all the WTC buildings were destroyed the same way. I’ll be that’s true. The question is, has anyone else said that?

          Dr Wood takes all the evidence and tries to make sense of it. Her conclusion might be wrong. I certainly don’t have her scientific background, so how am I supposed to know?

          But if someone has a theory, and neglects to explain how WTC4, for example, acquired its peculiar pattern of destruction, I can safely expel him from the queue of potential explainers.

          Dr. Wood remains front of the queue, because she does that.

          People levitated that morning, carried hundreds of yards through the air, and returned to earth unharmed. People on the Brooklyn Bridge felt the ambient temperature drop dramatically. Weird phenomena.

          If nuclear technology can do these things, I’m fine with that. I don’t care. But Wood is the only person I know of who makes certain that that evidence stays in the list of things to deal with.

          Do nuclear events make people levitate, and carry them along a few blocks, landing them safely on the ground? How am I supposed to know? Many people reported that experience that morning.

          Tesla technology might do that, as it uses a different model of physics. That is what Dr. Wood is saying.

          Maybe someone else is talking about buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6. Tell me who they are.

        16. Don Fox and Dr. Fetzer have discussed ALL of the WTC buildings many times. Here is one World Trade Center | Donald Fox

          |   | |   | |   |   |   |   |   | | World Trade Center | Donald FoxPosts about World Trade Center written by Don | | | | View on donaldfox.wordpress… | Preview by Yahoo | | | |   |

          Many others have discussed the other WTC buildings. 

           “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.”John 1:5 

        17. Patrick
          Where is your skepticism today? People levitating… Honestly what kind of game are you playing at this moment Pat? Is this some kind of damage control because we’re dealing with forbidden subjects? And you somehow take unto yourself the duty to act a clown to protect us or what’s the matter here?

        18. Dachsie, what are those vertical lines supposed to represent?

          And Peter, Dr Wood reproduces, verbatim, the testimony of people who experienced those things that day. Why did those people lie about that? Why has no one ever told of such an experience before? Could it be because no one had been subject to an experiment like that before?

          I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Neither was Dr. Wood. She’s just compiling the evidence, and trying to make sense of it. Like any genuine scientist would do.

        19. Judy does none of those things like a genuine scientist. Only like a genuine gatekeeper.
          And you cant be serious. So this must be gatekeeping on your part as well. I think I’ll opt out from this thread.

        20. Apparently, we are talking past each other, or I simply misunderstood your position. I too believe that the steel was largely “dustified” i.e., sublimated, changed, and the vast majority of it went up, up and away.

          All that was “hauled to China” were the remnants of the lower few floors. That was all that was left. I am not particularly concerned about Dr. Wood’s motives. She quite correctly observed many things and noted them. Others she rather mysteriously refuses to look at.

          Equating thermite with the type of energy produced by a thermonuclear device is a stretch, to say the least. In truth, it only takes one look at the “spire”, which is an enormous beam turning to powder and blowing away to know that nothing conventional did that.

          Thermite will indeed melt steel. If that was somehow coated over all the surfaces you would end up with an enormous puddle. On top of that would be charred remains of people, file cabinets and yes, toilets.

          That is not what we find. We find a much smaller pile of debris than can be explained and enormous craters that are virtually empty of debris. Where did it go? Please don’t tell me “the thermite did it”.

          The molecular bonds that held all those various materials in their normal states were broken, suddenly and universally. The heat is a byproduct, not the cause. Don’t mistake that statement. There WAS unbelievable heat. But the material wasn’t melted, it was disassociated.

          I can’t argue a negative and say that no such device exists, other than a nuclear device, capable of doing this. Whatever it was did its work. That something was most certainly not thermite.

          As I said, I wouldn’t be surprised if they used thermite for specific reasons. If the energy was concentrated in the core (as I think it was), they may have wanted to topple the outer portions into the inferno.

          I’ll stick with my version unless I hear a better one. The evidence is extraordinary. Refusing to look at it doesn’t make it go away.

        21. The spire dustifying was a visual illusion. The steel bar fell in the direction from the viewer hidden by a cloud of real dust.
          I’m not ‘equating thermite’ but the tiny metal particles from vaporized steel would have a resemblance with metal affected by the heat of thermite. Since this was undoubtedly prepared in advance they could have figured out what kind of additions they needed to produce the intended result. The heat came from the nukes. 1500 C at the bottom, where the core melted. Cutter charges were heard exploding in some nine different groups whereof eight the last minute before collapse. Nukes dustified the concrete. Steel fell vertically, it was a well controlled demolition and concrete was dispersed laterally. It was 27 times 60 times 60 cubic meters below ground. With 10% packing it would house all the steel assuming most of the concrete had blown away. What you see in the pictures was on top of that.

        22. In addition, the 1500 C was five weeks later as reported by an expert from Controlled Demolition Inc. So right after the collapse it was still hotter and an unknown portion of the steel originating further up probably melted resulting in a magmalike mixture. It would seem easier to just overlay it with concrete. And this was probably the idea long ago when the (nuclear) demolition plan was made slightly overoptimistically: Ideally the whole building would just vanish in the hole whereafter it would be covered with concrete, thus protecting against residual radioactivity. On paper a neat solution.

      2. Excuse me, Ric. This is a reply to dachsielady’s comment here (http://tinyurl.com/reply-to-this-comment) to which I’m not able to reply directly.


        dachsielady said:
        QUOTE “APB out for Toni STAT !” UNQUOTE

        I laughed when I read this, dachsielady, because I know the exasperation you’re expressing. Thank you for thinking of me.

        To adapt an old adage, arguing with Patrick is “like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

        Patrick continues:
        QUOTE “I don’t know how “Toni” can come to your rescue on this one.” UNQUOTE

        Come to your rescue? Excuse me? I laughed again when I read that.

        Unilaterally, Patrick claims his victory over you, little dachsie who are, in Patrick’s words, too “cripplingly busy” to argue well, and in any event, way past saving by your own or anyone else’s efforts. His insinuations are as tedious as they are blind.

        I always thought that when Patrick calls you dachsie, it was like he’s patting you on the head. His feigned intimacy is meant to diminish. It’s part of the overall demeaning swagger he affects, and that he insists is so amusing.

        And what’s with the scare quotes around my name? Is there something dubious about me? Am I the so-called “Toni?” Is “Toni” certainly not the name Patrick would have given me had he had HIS ‘druthers? Is it irony? Contempt? What?

        He doesn’t say and that’s the point. Scare quotes have been described as “the perfect device for making an insinuation without proving it, or even necessarily making clear what you’re insinuating.”

        Patrick’s posting habits are dysgenic to the threads in which he engages. He filibusters till commenters are disgusted with commenting. He’s a drain not just on your limited energy, dachsielady, but that of MHB itself. It’s no wonder people are discouraged from posting.

        1. “His feigned intimacy is meant to diminish.”

          No, it’s familiarity. Friendly. I like her.

          “Is there something dubious about me? Am I the so-called “Toni?” Is “Toni” certainly not the name Patrick would have given me had he had HIS ‘druthers? Is it irony? Contempt? What?”

          I don’t know why, but you seem to have taken a disliking to me at an early stage. I remember your first interaction with me was to help me understand the truth about Big Rock Candy Mountain and the lore of the Hoboes. I was grateful, and thought we were friends. But things went south, on your part, very fast. You took on a hostile, adversarial tone and stance at every opportunity. I did not earn that, so I wondered why. Then, happenstance produced the revelation that I can read comments in moderation, and your hostility toward me flashed into real fire.

          So, you can call my putting your anonymous moniker in quotes “scare quotes” if you wish, but it was intended as an expression of distrust. You certainly have earned it.

        2. Good to hear from you, Toni.  Stay around please.  You elevate your conversations. Next FreeForm Friday, I will post a link to a great show I heard last night summarizing our current sad situation — geopolitically and domestically, with one “false flag” after another.   “and the light shines on in the darkness and darkness could not overcome it.”John 1:5 

    2. I also wanted to add searching for pictures of these so called victims, like Betty Ong as with most of these events seems troubling.

      Betty Ong has only 1 picture of her used in many different settings, backgrounds and such. I think I saw a “young” pic of her but wasn’t sure.

      There’s a good Video out there that does face comparisons with all the 911 victims.

  5. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/us/pennsylvania-flight-93-memorial-fire/

    Flight 93 Memorial (Shanksville, PA) mysteriously caught fire in October 2014.

    Three support buildings burned, destroying “9/11 Memorabilia and items carried by Flight 93 passengers.”


    In other words, the government burned 3 empty buildings to hide the fact that Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville, PA.

    If any court proceeding ever demands to see those personal items, the government will claim “they were destroyed in the fire when the Shanksville Memorial burned.”

    In other words, those “personal effects” were manufactured by CIA to give the impression they were carried by “passengers” of Flight 93 which “crashed in Shanksville, PA.”


    The coroner (Wally Miller) reported NO BODIES, NO PLANE WRECKAGE, and “Not a single drop of blood.”

    Aircraft wreckage was nowhere in sight. In its place, someone dug a trench and tossed some scraps of debris to give the impression something “Crashed there.”

  6. Some people that research these conspiracy topics to search for truth are rewarded with “psychiatric reprisal” which is another term for gangstalked. Mr. Tracy is familiar with this from the cases of Myron May and Aaron Alexis being “targeted individuals”.

    I believe the perpetrators of gangstalking, in some cases, are related to the people who were behind these grizzly attacks on WTC. They act with impunity perhaps to further the “lone wolf” terrorism agenda and antagonize society.

    Did anyone notice that the Republican Party elephant logo turned its three stars upside down. It has gone dark side!

  7. Every time the Towers come up, several in these comments fry their brains out trying to defend Judy Woods, so much so it’s almost comical. This website was offered, at my request, a counter-Woods article to be contributed by Crockett Grabbe, and it was refused. So much for free speech. I was present when Grabbe demolished Woods right after her presentation, and the late Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force – Director of Advanced Space Programs was also part of the forum and he never endorsed any part of Wood’s presentation.

  8. I’ve never felt arguing over the “how…” questions re 9/11 was productive; a view I fleshed out more fully in this discussion thread: “Critical of JFetzer & JFriend’s No Planes @ WTC campaign”:


    As to whether “Arab Muslim Hijackers” played any serious role in 9/11, David Ray Griffin: “Was America Attacked by Muslims on 9/11?”


  9. Although I’m a newcomer to these comments, I’ve been visiting James Tracy’s web log since the Sandy Hook event. Also, I have achieved, late in the game, a state of half awakedness and I remain uncertain that it’s any better than the state of fast asleepness.
    For several months I’ve immersed myself in research about “mental illness.” I believe this phrase, much like the word “terrorism,” should never appear in public without quotation marks. This would serve warn the readers/viewers/listeners that they should regard everything under those headings with extreme suspicion.
    My reading has for the most part has focused on the invention of and marketing of mental illnesses. I began with the premise, advanced most convincingly by Thomas Szasz, author of The Myth of Mental Illness and many other books, that mental illness, like other boogymen, is a convenient (and profitable) fiction. He does not see psychiatry as a science that has evolved slowly and naturally over the centuries. He suggests instead that it proceeded with force from the times of witchcraft and heresy. Back then they had the Malleus Malefacarum, and nowadays we enlightened folks have the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. For those who don’t know the book, it is the “official” catalog of “psychiatric diagnosis” and it contains something like three hundred flavors of mental maladies. It’s quite a menu to say the least. The latest version of it, by the way, the DSM-V, appeared a couple of years ago. It’s a sizable book, just under nine hundred pages long.
    There’s a point here somewhere. In the course of my research, I’ve read several recent books about psychopathy, a word I’d much rather read than pronounce. Among the lesser of these, although carefully marketed and therefore well received, is a little ditty called the Psychopath Test by Jon Ronson.
    Whenever I read books that are suspect at best, I a) borrow it from the local library, and b) get through it as quickly as possible. After an hour or so, and two thirds through the book, I found “Chapter 8: The Madness of David Shayler.” For this discussion, it doesn’t really matter who he is or isn’t, although it’s easy enough to do some quick internet “research.” He has arrived for a clear purpose. He’s here to portray, as clearly (obviously) as possible, that beloved stock character, The Conspiracy Theorist, in the worst possible light.
    He belongs to a group, and I’m sure in this big world there is such a group, that is the 7/7 equivalent of the 9/11 twin towers no plane crowd. Apparently he and his mates claim there was no Tavistock bus bombing on July 7th, 2005. The author uses him in classic straw man fashion to ridicule all questioning of official storyland. Here’s a sample from a few pages into the chapter: “These conspiracy theorists [those who question the 7/7 narrative] were part of a much wider group-the 9/11 truth movement-which had become vast. Conspiracy theories were no longer to be found, as they had pre 9/11, on the fringes of society. Now everyone knew someone who was convinced that 9/11 was an inside job…Only the most extreme magical thinkers among them were 7/7 conspiracy theorists, too: while 9/11 obviously wasn’t an inside job, 7/7 OBVIOUSLY wasn’t an inside job.” I haven’t read much or watched much about the events of July 7, 2005. But I’m sure that the people who have studied the day know that there was an attack.
    We’re all aware that, nowadays, the ad hominem attack is the primary and most effective weapon in the never ending battle against heretics and conspiracy theorists. I don’t like the term, but I it’s preferable to the treatments doled out during the Inquisition. We also know that the term conspiracy theorist exists solely to discredit a group of people. In this age of political correctness and verbal correction, it remains a perfectly acceptable epithet. Now add to that, the conspiracy theorist is crazy, i.e. “mentally ill”, and that “mental illness” is, or so we’re told, the epidemic of our time. I’m sure that when the Malleus Malefacarum was the law of the land, no one dared to speak well of the aforementioned witches and heretics. And now psychiatrists can arm themselves with the DSM-V. I’m frankly surprised that they, the vast team of experts that compiled the book, failed to include Conspiracy Theory Disorder, but I’ll bet they discussed it.
    I know Ronson’s book enjoyed a substantial readership. I’d like to think that a few people saw through the trickery and recognized that the book for what it was. I think it’s particularly revealing that, in a book he tells us is about psychopathy, he devotes a chapter to David Shayler, who, erratic behavior notwithstanding, doesn’t actually do anything psychopathic.

    1. I’m so glad you brought up Thomas Szasz; I’m sure I’ve heard of him, but I looked him up on YouTube and watched a video (medicine and socialism) to refresh my memory. Holy cow: he’s the guy. His point about how detrimental the government’s involvement in doctors’ licensing can’t be overstated, nor can the dangerous role of psychiatry in the implementation and administration of any communitarian society. Actually, he brought up so many good points, it’s impossible to address them all.

      I started waking up to the whole doctor scam about ten years ago. Without getting into whether the disorder actually exists or not, I’ve been diagnosed with and am being treated for ADHD. After my previous shrink–whom I loved–retired to raise her child, I had to find someone new to manage my prescription refills. My regular doctor recommended a guy who’d apparently pioneered the TOVA system (computer software that utilizes a kind of “click on the dot” game) to “scientifically” diagnose ADHD. What a racket! The testing procedure (not covered by insurance, naturally) cost around $1500 (never mind that I’d already been diagnosed and successfully treated for ten years at that point), and then each monthly office visit (3 minutes, max) to get my prescription refill cost about $100 a pop (insurance did cover this). The waiting room was always FILLED with well-meaning parents and their drugged-to-the-gills children.

      Aside from the philosophical and ethical travesty of drugging likely-healthy children; aside from whether mental illness even exists (probably not), this doctor was nothing more than a drug dealer, an intermediary between patient and pill. “Ridiculous!” you say. Well, I have to ask: How, exactly, is a doctor…especially a psychiatrist…different than a drug dealer? I had a shrink that prescribed me pot (both Marinol–an actual “pot” pill–and the real thing) and speed (Adderall). From my own, admittedly limited, experience, drug dealers are actually cheaper (no $100 service charge), more convenient (easy to reach/same day service), and more efficient (no endless waiting rooms). Expertise, you say? I beg to differ: most of the psychiatrists I’ve seen (and in this my experience is virtually unlimited, I’m sorry to say) spent less time with me than the few drug dealers I’ve dealt with. And generally speaking, the dealers’ product is just as good.

      In 2007, my husband (the good professor) had his own bout with a nearly-always fatal disease (HSE) that was failed to be diagnosed accurately or in a timely manner. The countless doctors we saw–many of them “specialists”–either did no good at all or nearly killed him (with no benefit) with their “treatments”. We’re still struggling with the aftermath, our faith in the medical profession obliterated.

      While I believe that most doctors (like most teachers, or most law enforcement officers) are well-meaning (if occasionally negligent, overworked, or even greedy), the entire medical institution is corrupt; like the educational, judicial, and correctional systems (to name just a few), the entire medical paradigm is wrong, built on a faulty foundation. Szasz is one of the only people I’ve heard allude to this.

      [Note to giovannidellaporta: It might be your word processor, but it would make your posts much more readable if you would break them up into paragraphs. You have very good things to say, but I suspect some people bypass posts that appear as a wall of text.]

  10. I still think the passengers were faked. I doubt there were any planes at all.
    Betty Ong. Is that a Chinese last name? I think D.R.Griffin was right that actors or voice morphing was used. Mark Bingham ‘s family seem fake.

  11. Interesting addition to the evidences on 9/11/2001. The question of the fate of the passengers has always been a mystery. To slaughter the air crews and live passengers of four aircraft seems a monstrous proposition but to bring down the three office towers and kill so many more in those acts shows the utter disregard for human life by the perpetrators. I remain amazed that so many have not clued in to at least some aspects of 9/11/2001 that show that the official narrative is not telling the truth.

  12. Thank you, Recynd77, for the kind words. Yes, I’m sure the formatting issued caused many to ignore my comments. (Or was it just considered a long non sequitur?) I realized after the fact that I should have used block paragraphs instead of indents.

    Regarding the refusal to see the obvious truth, so often noted by people here and elsewhere, I never really believed there could ever be enough evidence to prove something to someone who wishes not to see it. And I wouldn’t underestimate the rage that might might ensue when someone presses the point.

    1. giovannidellaporta, I too very much appreciated your comments. I would add one term to your list of terms we should be suspicious of and that term is “science.”

      And Recynd77, thank you for sharing your journey.

      As far as each of us “taking control” or our minds and our “mental health” situations, I recommend to you John Hammell’s story of how he was diagnosed with some form of “schizophrenia”, classified as a full-blown “psychosis”, and spent four years in a mental hospital.

      There is something called “orthomolecular medicine” that incorporates nutritional supplements and dietary changes.

      Read about it here…


      John is “cured” today from the incurable “mental illness” of “schizophrenia.”

  13. Here is the latest what I consider to be disinformation campaign to suppress the nuke theory of 9-11. This one was linked from Rense.com yesterday. (I am familiar with the multi-millionair Mr. Schwarz as he came to my town about ten yeas ago and went on local public access TV doing his conservative/conspiracy talk.)

    Why So Many 9/11 First Responders Have Cancer


    Why Do So Many ‘9-11-2001’
    First Responders Have Cancer?

    By Karl W. B. Schwarz

    Now the general message of this piece is that all these first responders with cancer got the cancer SOLELY because of asbestos in the air when the buildings’ destruction put much dust in the air.

    The selling of this idea is certainly helped along when you have a person with a name like Schwarz calling a person with a name like Larry Silverstein a “Zionist Jew weasel.

    It is the same old kind of prestidigitation – this time with only an article – that I mentioned earlier regarding New York Times best seller books that show up over the years long after an event to push one theory over all others in the arena of truth searching of the event.

    The original false event vaccination against truth apparently needs a booster shot pro re nada to reinforce the innoculation against the truth.

  14. Thank you to James Perloff for a very interesting read. I’m sure it’s helped to solidify some suspicions and clear up some confusion about flight 11 and related issues. 9/11 is a thorn in my side. I no longer pursue action with the intent of using 9/11 as the leverage to expose this general type of corruption. But in no way do I wish the debate to end. If anything, the needed leverage might emerge even by accident.

    Just coincidentally, last week I spontaneously immersed myself in the purported pilot of flight 11, John A. Ogonowski as part of an unrelated investigation. It is very confusing looking into this man as so many strange story elements give rise to possible theories. Is he still alive, posing as his brother? Did he ever exist at all? There are doctored photos, odd background details, inconsistent testimonies that all combine to confuse. Thankfully, most of these oddities can be cleared up and a picture does emerge of what likely occurred. However, much remains to be explained.

    How this man and his involvement could be helpful to others looking into the flight 11 issues and the greater 9/11 conspiracy and how it was organized begins with a few details from the fateful day itself. First, there is MUCH conflict in testimony related to which pilots were assigned to flight 11, which weren’t and which had been bumped for the flight. Senior pilots have the option to bump other pilots from some flights during a certain window of time. John’s wife, Peggy actually joined the LetsRoll forum to make a single post for the purpose of clearing up the matter. She claimed that John had been assigned all along and that no bumping took place. She was firm in her conviction and it resonated as she was an AA flight attendant at the time and fully aware of how the assignments worked at AA.

    But, it turns out she is wrong or lying. There were actually 2 pilots that gave very detailed accounts of having been bumped by both John and the co-pilot just the day prior. This has led me to suspect that John was following orders in a military fashion, especially considering that he had a scheduled affair relating to another venture of his scheduled for 9/11 he would likely have preferred attending.

    What would have motivated Peggy to tell such a lie? And, why of all the various plot lines did she feel this particular issue was most concerning? It’s very interesting and may relate to Peggy’s ongoing financial status.

    When analyzing 9/11 or other conspiracies, it’s not always possible to draw conclusions from the scraps of evidence they allow to remain in the public forum. But, it can sometimes be very helpful to look at prior activities or relationships. In the case of John Ogonowski, these relationships begin with his extensive military background. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was a kind of sleeper military officer on 9/11. Whether he flew a plane on that day or not, he may have know in advance a day would come when he would be called to go into hiding.

    Where things became far more clear is when I realized that John had established a government subsidized program to aid foreigners with instructions in agricultural methods. He would give away acres of his property to mostly east Asian immigrants and teach them farming techniques. Setting aside the fact that it doesn’t make all that much sense to teach farming techniques to people who aren’t likely to make a living in farming here in the states and wouldn’t reflect the climate of their countries if they planned to return, one thing’s still fishy about this. This smells very much like a foreign spy training operation, which only gets more obvious when you see that World Vision is one of the program’s sponsors. John, it appears was doing a lot more “stuff” that identified him as subversive before 9/11.

    Looking into the property records for his 130+ acre farm plot in Dracut MA was very interesting. John had not appeared on the documents after the early 90s, his wife was. Shortly before 9/11 she transferred the property into a trust bearing her name. John’s “death” would not be a property-related issue. But the best part is seeing that the property was originally owned before selling it to John by AVCO. AVCO is the parent company of American Airlines! I actually learned a great deal about the airline industry just in researching this. I now suspect that American Airlines, AVCO and their many subsidiaries over the years since the late 20s were really government front corps.

    Why it’s also interesting to see the proof of AVCO selling the property to John back in the late 80s is that it means there shouldn’t be stories telling of family members growing up on the farm any time before then. But we do see various media reports that provide all kinds of historical back story. His own daughter recalls how she grew up on that very farm.

    It’s all a rich tapestry, eh?

Leave a Reply