Many of us are waiting with baited breath for the release of the JFK assassination files and I will do an in-depth article once they are released to the public.
In the meantime I’d like to revisited a more recent event and that is 911.
I’ll admit to those who don’t already know that I am would probably be called a “Truther” a term that has now been used as a pejorative by the mainstream media to describe anyone who doesn’t accept the official story, much like “Conspiracy Theorist” was used to denigrate anyone who didn’t buy the lone gun man theory regarding the Kennedy assassination. A term that has survived despite the fact that the House Select Committee on Assassinations or the HSCA concluded that a conspiracy was involved in the death of JFK.
Something I’ll take up in a later article but for now let me just say that despite the fact that Congress carefully researched the matter that the “lone gunman theory” proffered by the Warren Committee is the only conclusion that has seemed to have survived in what is called the “mainstream media”.
Much the same as the highly politicized 911 Commission came to what I call the “official conspiracy theory” that nineteen hijackers were involved in the incident we call “911”.
The Path to Truth
I think everybody who has joined the so called “Truther” movement has come to it from a different path. There is a very good video I recommend seeing the documentary called 911: The Falling Man.
Myself it was the fact that the FBI was able to recover a passport they claimed belonged to one of the alleged hijackers which seemed more than mere serendipity.
Let us travel back in time to fin de siècle that is the end of the twentieth century and beginning of the twenty first before Airports became the oppressively Orwellian high security nightmares they’d become under the so called “Patriot” Act.
Passports weren’t required for domestic flights. So why was one of the alleged hijackers carrying a passport?
According to my limited knowledge of the Quran it isn’t required to enter the gates of Jannah either. So again why was the alleged hijacker carrying one especially since no such name shows up on the passenger manifest?
Such an incongruity what we call an “outpoint” caused me to question the official narrative followed by the eerie silence from Al Queda or any other terrorist organization claiming responsibility for the attack.
Here he have a devastating act of asymmetrical warfare carried out with awesome precision that any self respecting terrorist would be enthusiastically proclaiming yet no one claims responsibility? Very strange indeed!
Another nail in the coffin of the official story that followed the fortuitous fire proof passport “discovery”.
I read various books on the subject such as David Ray Griffin’s A New Pearl Harbor and argued with suspected Government trolls on the usenet newsgroup Alt. Conspiracy along with my “truther” allies as such who continually wanted to direct the argument to controlled demolition and not to what seemed more important to me and that was motive and opportunity.
If this was a staged event or “false flag” or as one famous book suggested an act of “Synthetic Terrorism” then who would benefit?
The answer didn’t take too long to find.
It’s interesting that many parallels were drawn between the what happened on September Eleventh 2001 and Pearl Harbor just several months before its sixtieth anniversary by the mainstream media.
Of course we are all told in school that it was a “surprise” attack but the fact was it wasn’t really that much of a surprise according to Robert B Stinnett’s well researched book Day of Deceit.
There we find that the US Government under Roosevelt was trying to provoke an attack by the Japanese which they finally succeeded in doing on December Seventh 1941.
Let us read what the authors of PNAC have to say about Pearl Harbor:
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Like Roosevelt who had promised his friend Churchill that he would change America’s attitude toward the Second World War. The writers of PNAC were dismayed by America’s non-intervetionalist or isolationist bent and it seems were searching for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event”.
L Ron Hubbard in various policies mentions how lackadaisical the US Government was when faced with a deteriorating situation with the Empire of Japan an Axis nation at the time.
Almost as if Roosevelt wanted Japan to attack American interests abroad, although he doesn’t come right out and say this.
The difference I see between the original Pearl Harbor and what became known as the “New Pearl Harbor” was that Roosevelt wanted to force the Japanese into firing the first shot while 911 almost seems contrived in some way like for instance we have the World Trade Centers impossibly collapsing into their own footprints after being struck with fuel laden aircraft. Something that is frankly physically impossible and has never happened before in the history of aviation and architecture!
I’ll discuss this later but first let us delve into how such an event can be precisely planned to occur as opposed to allowed to happen of which we do have precedent that thankfully was never carried out called Operation Northwoods.
Here is the actual plan from the original document:
A. Incidents to establish a credible attack:
(1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base: start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires – naphthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.
Seems they had no concern of the possible deaths and casualties they may have caused lobbing mortar shells into their own base in Guantanamo or sabotaging one of their own ships.
But what is really revelatory here is their plan to use drones in the place of civilian aircraft:
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 the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.
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 be 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.
One wonders what they’d do with all these passengers who might talk about their experiences?
That aside the fact is that “drone” aircraft played an important role in this charade and even back in the early sixties they felt confident that they’d get away with such a deception which brings us back to 911 and a point I feel is being missed by most of my fellow “truthers” since they seem to fixate totally on controlled demolition and not on the planes themselves which may have been modified prior to the “attack”.
Like Toto on Fantasy island calling out “It’s a plane!”. It seems that planes did actually hit the targets involved not holographs as some researchers have suggested or cruise missiles as others claim.
The question is why didn’t these civilian aircraft crumble like a beer can when striking structures like the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon?
The fact is that commercial aircraft are not all that durable. Take the example of the Air Mexico airliner that ran into a small private Cessna near Los Angeles a couple of decades back.
We look above and we can see it is possible that these either weren’t the same planes that left the various airports or that they had been modified in some way in order to breach the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers.
How could be explained by the use of either Depleted Plutonium or Uranium. Again notice the flash when the second plane hits the World Trade Center.
Does the idea of using depleted uranium or plutonium seem far fetched?
Check out this article entitled Depleted Uranium and the Boeing 747 airplane program