Mark H. Gaffney
http://www.the911mysteryplane.com/
July 7, 2009
The evidence was crucial because it undermined the official explanation that Hani Hanjour crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at high speed after executing an extremely difficult top gun maneuver. But to understand how all of this played out, let us review the case in bite-size pieces…
In August 2004 when the 9/11 Commission completed its official investigation of the September 11, 2001 attack, the commission transferred custody of its voluminous records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).[1] There, the records remained under lock and key for four and a half years, until last January when NARA released a fraction of the total for public viewing. Each day, more of the released files are scanned and posted on the Internet, making them readily accessible. Although most of the newly-released documents are of little interest, the files I will discuss in this article contain important new information.
As we know, the 9/11 Commission did not begin its work until 2003–––more than a year after the fact. By this time a number of journalists had already done independent research and published articles about various facets of 9/11. Some of this work was of excellent quality. The Washington Post, for example, interviewed aviation experts who stated that the plane allegedly piloted by Hani Hanjour [AA Flight 77] had been flown “with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.”[2] Yet, strangely, when other journalists investigated Hani Hanjour they found a trail of clues indicating he was a novice pilot, wholly incapable of executing a top gun maneuver and a successful suicide attack in a Boeing 757. By early 2003 this independent research was a matter of public record, which created a serious problem for the 9/11 Commission…
By all accounts Hani Hanjour was a diminutive fellow. He stood barely five feet tall and was slight of build. As a young man in his hometown of Taif, Saudi Arabia, Hanjour cultivated no great dreams of flying airplanes. He was satisfied with a more modest ambition: he wanted to become a flight attendant. That is, until his older brother Abulrahman encouraged him to aim higher. Even so, Hani Hanjour’s aptitude for learning appears to have been rather limited. Although he resided in the US for about 38 months over a ten-year period that ended on 9/11, Hanjour never learned to speak or write English, a telling observation about his capacity for learning. As we will discover, he actually flunked a written test for a driver’s license just weeks before 9/11.
While it is true that Hanjour trained at various flight schools in the US, the evidence shows he was a perpetual novice. Hanjour dropped out of his first school, the Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, located in Oakland, after attending only a few classes. Next, he enrolled at Cockpit Resource Management (CRM), a flight school in Scottsdale, Arizona. But his performance as a student at CRM was less than adequate. Duncan K.M. Hastie, owner of the school, described Hanjour as “a weak student” who was “wasting our resources.”[3] After several weeks, Hanjour withdrew from the program, then returned in 1997 for another short period of instruction. This on and off pattern of behavior was typical of the man. Hastie says that over the next three years Hanjour called him at least twice a year, and each time wanted to return for more training. By this time, however, it was obvious to Hastie that his erstwhile student had no business in a cockpit. Hastie refused to let Hanjour come back. “I would recognize his voice,” Hastie said. “He was always talking about wanting more training. Yes, he wanted to be an airline pilot. That was his stated goal. That’s why I didn’t allow him to come back. I thought ‘You’re never going to make it’.”[4]
Rejected by CRM, Hanjour enrolled at nearby Sawyer Aviation, also located in the Phoenix area. Wes Fults, a former instructor at Sawyer, later described it as the school of last resort. Said Fults: “it was a commonly held truth that, if you failed anywhere else, go to Sawyer.” Fults remembers training Hanjour, whom he describes as “a neophyte.” He says Hani “got overwhelmed with the instruments” in the school’s flight simulator. “He had only the barest understanding of what the instruments were there to do,” said Fults. “He [Hanjour] used the simulator three or four times, then disappeared like a fog.”[5] I must emphasize to the reader, I am not making this up. Other accounts by Newsday, the New York Times, as well as the FOX network, all confirm that Hani Hanjour was at best a novice pilot.
Evading the Language Requirement
In fact, because fluency in English is required to qualify for a US pilot’s license, Hanjour’s atrocious English should have barred him from ever obtaining a license. But it seems that Hanjour exploited a loophole in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) system, which for years has outsourced the pilot certification process. According to a June 2002 story in the Dallas Morning News, Hanjour was certified in April 1999 as an “Airplane Multi-Engine Land/Commercial Pilot” by Daryl Strong, one of the FAA’s 20,000 designated pilot examiners.[6] Although an FAA official later defended the agency’s policy of using private contractors, a critic, Heather Awsumb, took issue with it. Awsumb is a spokesperson for the Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS) Union, which represents more than 11,000 FAA and Defense Department employees. She pointed out that the FAA does not have anywhere near enough staff to oversee its 20,000 designated inspectors, all of whom have a financial interest in certifying as many pilots as possible. Hanjour probably evaded the language requirement by finding an examiner willing to ignore the rule. Said Awsumb: “They receive between $200 and $300 for each flight check. If they get a reputation for being too tough, they won’t get any business.” According to Awsumb, the present system allows “safety to be sold to the lowest bidder.”[7]
Later, Hanjour’s horrible English prompted one flight school, Jet Tech, to question the authenticity of his FAA-approved pilot’s license. Jet Tech was another school in the Phoenix area where Hanjour sought continuing instruction. Peggy Chevrette, operation manager at Jet Tech, later told FOX News: “I couldn’t believe that he had a license of any kind with the skills that he had.”[8] She explained that Hanjour’s English was so bad it took him five hours to complete an oral exam that normally should have taken about two.
But it wasn’t just his poor English that failed to impress. In his evaluation the Jet Tech flight instructor wrote that the “student [Hanjour] made numerous errors during his performance and displayed a lack of understanding of some basic concepts. The same was true during review of systems knowledge….I doubt his ability to pass an FAA [Boeing 737] oral at this time or in the near future.” The 737 instructor concluded his evaluation with a final entry: “He [Hanjour] will need much more experience flying smaller A/C [aircraft] before he is ready to master large jets.”[9] The 9/11 Commission Report fails to discuss or even mention this negative written evaluation, even while presenting Hanjour’s substandard performance in a Boeing 737 simulator as sufficient evidence that Hanjour could fly a Boeing 757, an even larger plane![10] The wording of the final report succeeds in giving this impression, however dubious, even while obscuring the facts: an amazing achievement of propaganda.
Early in 2001, Peggy Chevrette, the operation manager at Jet Tech, repeatedly conveyed her concerns about Hanjour to the FAA. Eventually John Anthony, a federal inspector, showed up at the school and examined Hanjour’s credentials. But Anthony found them in order and took no further action. The inspector even suggested that Jet Tech provide Hanjour with an interpreter. This surprised Chevrette because it was a violation of FAA rules. “The thing that really concerned me,” she later told FOX News, “Was that John had a conversation in the hallway with Hani and realized what his skills were at that point and his ability to speak English.”[11] Evidently, the inspector also sat in on a class with Hanjour.
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The “Scouting” Flights
We know that in the months before the September 11, 2001 attack Hani Hanjour rented planes at several small airports on the outskirts of New York City and Washington DC. The 9/11 Commission Report mentions these local flights and suggests that Hanjour was scouting the terrain: familiarizing himself with possible suicide targets.[15] But the record also shows the same pattern described above. For example, on May 29, 2001 Hanjour rented a plane at a small airport in Teterboro, New Jersey and flew “the Hudson Tour,” accompanied by a flight instructor. However, the next day, when Hanjour returned for a repeat flight the same instructor “would not allow it because of Hanjour’s poor piloting skills.”[16] The 9/11 Commission Report actually cites this incident, but in a context that diminishes its significance.[17]
The pattern played out again on August 16-17, 2001 when Hanjour attempted to rent a plane at Freeway Airport, in Bowie, Maryland, about twenty miles from Washington. Although Hanjour presented his FAA license, according to Newsday the Freeway Airport manager insisted that instructors first accompany him on a test flight to evaluate his piloting skills. During three such flights over two days in a single-engine Cessna 172, instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner observed what others had before them. Hanjour had trouble controlling and landing the aircraft. Afterward, Baxter interviewed Hanjour extensively about his flight training and experience, and also reviewed his flight log, which documented 600 hours of flight time. On this basis she and Conner declined to approve a current license rating until Hanjour returned for more training. On their recommendation, Freeway’s chief instructor Marcel Bernard refused to rent Hanjour a plane.[18] Notice, this was less than a month before 9/11. When I reached Bernard by phone he confirmed the details of the story by Newsday.[19] So did Ben Conner when I spoke with him.[20] Conner also emphasized that the issue was not simply Hanjour’s poor English. It was everything, i.e., his general ineptitude.
Curiously, The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges Hanjour’s poor English and sub-standard flying skills. The report even mentions that flight instructors had urged Hanjour to give up trying to become a pilot.[21] Strangely, however, another passage (in a footnote) describes Hanjour as “the [al Qaeda] operation’s most experienced pilot,” suggesting that the commission had a mixed opinion about Hanjour.[22] In the end the official investigation evidently interpreted Hanjour’s FAA license as sufficient proof that he had “persevered” in overcoming his issues.[23] The word “persevered” is straight out of the report.
But why did the commission ignore the multiple open-sourced accounts cited above, all mutually corroborative, indicating that Hanjour would have been lost in the cockpit of a Boeing 757 and was barely qualified to fly a single-engine Cessna? It is notable that The 9/11 Commission Report fails to mention the negative written evaluation by Hanjour’s Jet Tech flight instructor. The omission is serious because a glance at the timeline shows that Hanjour’s 5-6 weeks of training at Jet Tech occurred in February-March 2001, that is, after he had already earned his FAA license. Perseverance obviously was not enough. The instructor’s negative evaluation was based on Hanjour’s actual skill-set at the time, license or no license. Nor does the final report so much as mention Hanjour’s test flight at Freeway airport, or the fact that he failed it. These are telling omissions. Obviously, the commission screened out testimony that conflicted with the official narrative of what happened on that terrible day. But there is more to the story. As we are about to learn, the recently released 9/11 files have raised important new questions.
The Other Flight Instructor
It turns out that just three days after Hani Hanjour failed a flight evaluation in a Cessna 172 at Freeway airport he showed up at Congressional Air Charter, located down the road at Gaithersburg airport, also in the Washington suburbs. Once again Hanjour attempted to rent a plane, and again he was asked to go up with an instructor for a flight evaluation to confirm his flight skills. The plane was the same: a Cessna 172. Yet, on this occasion Hanjour passed with flying colors and, later, this other instructor gave testimony to the 9/11 Commission that turned out to be crucial. The final report mentions the instructor’s name only once in a brief endnote buried at the back of the report. The note states:
“Hanjour successfully conducted a challenging certification flight supervised by an instructor at Congressional Air Charter of Gaithersburg, Maryland, landing at a small airport with a difficult approach. The instructor thought Hanjour may have had training from a military pilot because he used a terrain recognition system for navigation. Eddie Shalev interview. (Apr. 9, 2004)” [24]
The note gives a name, Eddie Shalev, but no other information about him. Indeed, his identity remained a mystery until January 2009, when NARA released the 9/11 files.[25] Nonetheless, David Ray Griffin had already identified the key questions in his 2008 book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited. Wrote Griffin: “How could an instructor in Gaithersburg [i.e., Shalev] have had such a radically different view of Hanjour’s abilities from that of all of the other flight instructors who worked with him? Who was this instructor? How could this report be verified?”[26]
These are important questions because the two assessments of Hani Hanjour’s flight skills are so radically different that both cannot be correct. The evaluations, made just days apart, are contradictory, hence, mutually exclusive; which raises the disturbing possibility that someone could be lying.
The FBI File
Fortunately, another newly released document, the FBI file on Hani Hanjour, sheds additional light on the case.[27] The file includes a timeline and evidently was compiled to document the government’s case against Hanjour. I learned about it from a source on the commission, a staffer who insisted to me in an email that it authenticates Hani Hanjour’s flight training. At a glance it appears to do that. However, on closer examination the file is much less impressive and I have to wonder if the staffer actually studied it. As we will see, the document not only falls short of confirming Hanjour’s flight skills, it shows signs of having been “enhanced” to obscure the record.
Crucially, the FBI file includes not a scintilla of evidence that Hani Hanjour ever trained in a Boeing 757. Although Hanjour did some sessions a Boeing 737 simulator, as we have already seen, the press accounts, more importantly, his own instructor’s written evaluation, offer a clear and unambiguous assessment of his actual skills. It is also important to realize that even if Hanjour had mastered the controls of a Boeing 737, this would not have qualified him to execute a high-speed suicide crash in a Boeing 757, a significantly larger and less maneuverable aircraft. Such is the view of commercial pilots who fly these planes every day.[28]
One such pilot, Philip Marshall, who is licensed to fly Boeing 727s, 737s, 747s, as well as 757s and 767s, recently authored a book, False Flag 911, in which he states categorically that the alleged 9/11 hijacker pilots, including Hani Hanjour, could never have flown 767s and 757s into buildings at high speed without advanced training and practice flights in that same aircraft over a period of months. As Marshall put it: “Hitting a 90-foot target [i.e., the Pentagon] with a 757 at 500 mph is extremely difficult — absolutely impossible for first-time fliers of a heavy airliner. It’s like seeing Tiger Woods hit a 300-yard one-iron and someone telling you he never practiced the shot.”[29] Marshall speculates that the hijackers may have received advanced flight lessons from Arabic-speaking instructors at a secret desert base somewhere in Arizona or Nevada, possibly arranged by complicit Saudi diplomats, or by members of the Saudi royal family.[30] This is why Hanjour’s inability to pass a test flight evaluation at Freeway airport just weeks before 9/11 is so significant: It tends to rule out Marshall’s theory of advanced instruction.
Close inspection of the FBI file also shows that someone padded the record to put the best face on Hanjour’s flight training. This was done in a curious way. Instead of simply informing us that Hanjour took courses “x,” “y” and “z” at such-and-such a flight school between certain dates, the FBI file gives an itemized record of every single day that Hanjour showed up for training at the various schools. The effect creates the appearance of more extensive instruction than actually occurred. Even so, the enhancement is transparently obvious. Imagine the reaction of a potential employer if you or I engaged in this dubious practice in a resume. On closer examination, another reason for padding the record is also obvious. Enhancement tends to obscure Hanjour’s tendency to jump around from school to school and his inability to finish anything he started.
The FBI file also conspicuously fails to mention the Jet Tech instructor’s written evaluation of Hani Hanjour’s flying skills. The omission easily qualifies as suppression of evidence because we know the FBI had the document in its possession. It was made public at the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui when the document was submitted as evidence. This means, of course that the 9/11 Commission also surely had it and similarly suppressed it. (See note #9.)
The FBI file also grossly mischaracterizes what happened at Freeway airport. The file mentions Hanjour’s visits but wrongly states that Hanjour received flight instruction. Not true. When I specifically asked Marcel Bernard about this he denied the fact and emphasized that Hanjour’s test flights included no lessons and were strictly for the purpose of evaluation.[31] The FBI should have known this because after 9/11 Bernard and his two flight instructors notified the FBI about Hanjour’s visit and were subsequently interviewed by FBI agents. The file also conspicuously fails to mention that Hanjour flunked his test flight evaluation! Whether through incompetence or deception, the FBI failed on every point to state the facts correctly
The FBI file does offer some fresh insight into Hani Hanjour the man. On August 2, 2001, according to the timeline, Hanjour showed up at the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in Arlington, where he flunked a standard written test for a Virginia driver’s license. The fact is astonishing and ought to make us wonder how Hanjour ever managed to acquire his previous Arizona driver’s license issued in 1991 and his Florida license issued in 1996, let alone master the controls of a Boeing 757.
There is another interesting item. The record indicates that on September 5, 2001, just six days before 9/11, Hanjour showed up at the First Union National Bank in Laurel, Maryland where he made four failed bank transactions. The file cites bank records showing that Hanjour was unable to make balance inquiries and withdraw funds from his account because he failed to enter the correct pin number, which he evidently had forgotten! Two days later, Hanjour returned to the bank, this time accompanied by an unidentified male, and made another unsuccessful attempt to withdraw $4900.
It is astonishing the FBI file was ever touted as authenticating Hanjour’s flight credentials. The document falls short on that score and actually raises new questions. How likely is it that a man who was unable to remember his own pin number, and who just weeks before 9/11 flunked a simple test for a driver’s license, could have executed a top gun maneuver in a commercial airliner? The odds, I would submit, are approximately zero.
The FBI file includes one other curious entry. On August 20, 2001 Hanjour shopped at Travelocity.com for information about September 5, 2001 flights from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles. This suggests that as of August 20 Hanjour did not yet know the date of the planned attack, either because he had not been briefed or because the date had not yet been selected. By the end of the month, however, the die was cast. On August 31 Hanjour and another “middle-eastern male” purchased one-way tickets for AA Flight 77 from a New Jersey travel agent. The date of departure: September 11, 2001. Yet, given Hanjour’s level of skill, one has to wonder what the waif from Taif believed was supposed to happen on that fateful morning.
So, Who is Eddie Shalev?
The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of to authenticating Hani Hanjour‘s flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation. Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. All of which is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.
So, who is Eddie Shalev? His identity remained unknown for more than seven years, but was finally revealed in one of the files released in January 2009 by the National Archives. The document, labelled a “Memorandum for the Record,” is a summary of the April 2004 interview with Eddie Shalev conducted by commission staffer Quinn John Tamm.[32] The document confirms that Shalev went on record: “Mr Shalev stated that based on his observations Hanjour was a ‘good’ pilot.” It is noteworthy that Tamm also spoke with Freeway instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, as revealed by yet another recently-released document.[33] Although I was unable to reach Tamm or Baxter for comment, I did talk with Conner, who confirmed the conversation.[34] Conner says he fully expected to testify before the commission. Perhaps not surprisingly, the call never came.
But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. The file states that “Mr. Shalev served in the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters…[which] has subsequently gone out of business.”
The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer’s strange choice of words in describing Shalev’s employment. What did Quinn John Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev “was sponsored for employment”? Did the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters? It is curious that the charter service subsequently went out of business. But the most important question is: just how thoroughly, if at all, did the commission vet Eddie Shalev? Does his military record include service in the Israeli intelligence community?
Real people have known addresses. But Eddie Shalev’s whereabouts has been unknown for years. As reported by David Griffin, a 2007 search of the national telephone directory, plus Google searches by research librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, turned up no trace of him. A LexisNexis search by Matthew Everett also came up dry.[35] Not satisfied, I conducted my own search and did turn up two possible addresses for an “Eddy Shalev” in the Gaithersburg-Rockville, Maryland area. But the lead went nowhere. The phone number had been disconnected. The 9/11 memorandum indicates that Shalev’s US visa was about to expire in July 2004, suggesting that Shalev may have returned to Israel. Clearly, the man needs to be found, subpoenaed and made to testify under oath before a new investigation, even if this requires extradition. Quinn John Tamm and the two Freeway instructors, Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, should also be subpoenaed. All are key witnesses and obvious starting points for a new investigation.
Given his identity, the search for and possible extradition of Eddie Shalev could become controversial. But 9/11 investigators must not be turned aside. We must follow the trail of evidence, regardless. Should it lead into a dark wood, we must resolve to go there; and if it takes us to the gates of hell, so be it. Truly, no force, certainly no political force, can withstand the power of truth. If and when our search obtains a certain critical mass, momentum will shift decisively in our favor. Public support for a new 9/11 investigation will become irresistible. The light of truth will do the rest.
Mark Gaffney is the author of The 9/11 Mystery Plane (2008). For more details check out Mark’s web site www.the911mysteryplane.com Mark can be reached for comment at markhgaffney(at)earthlink.net
Notes:
1 Many of the documents have been posted at History Commons: http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/7104168 Also see http://www.archives.gov/research/9-11-commission/
2 Marc Fisher and Don Phillips, “On Flight 77: ‘Our Plane is Being Hijacked’,” Washington Post, September 12, 2001.
3 Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sun and George Lardner Jr., “Hanjour an Unlikely Terrorist,” The Cape Cod Times, October 21, 2001.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 A copy of Hanjour’s FAA license is posted at http://www.scribd.com/doc/13120915/Airman-Records-for-Alleged-911-Hijack…
7 Kellie Lunney, “FAA contractors approved flight licenses for Sept. 11 suspect,” GovernmentExecutive.com, June 13, 2002.
8 “FAA Probed, Cleared Sept. 11 Hijacker in Early 2001,” FOX News, May 10, 2002.
9 Hani’s Jet Tech evaluation and other documentation were entered as evidence during the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. Training Records, Hani Hanjour, B-737 Initial Ground Training, Class 01-3-021, Date: 2/8/01, Jet Tech International, posted at http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution…
10 The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 2004, pp. 226-227.
11 “FAA Probed, Cleared Sept. 11 Hijacker in Early 2001,” FOX News, May 10, 2002.
12 Ibid.
13 Jim Yardley, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” New York Times, May 4, 2002.
14 “Report: 9/11 Hijacker Bypassed FAA,” AP story, June 13, 2002.
15 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 242.
16 http://911myths.com/images/2/2a/PENTTBOM_About_Hanjour.pdf
17 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 242.
18 Thomas Frank, “Tracing Trail of Hijackers,” Newsday, September 23, 2001. This story was confirmed by one of the newly-released 9/11 files. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/15103091/Contents-of-John-Tamm-Memos-Folder-Me…
19 Phone conversation with Marcel Bernard, June 26, 2009.
20 Phone conversation with Ben Conner, June 28, 2009.
21 The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 226-227.
22 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 530, note 147.
23 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 227.
24 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 531, note 170.
25 http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00551.pdf
26 David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, Olive Branch Press, Northhampton, 2008, p.80.
27 http://911myths.com/images/2/2a/PENTTBOM_About_Hanjour.pdf
28 Numerous testimonials by commercial pilots, all of whom question the official story, can be found here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html
29 Philip Marshall, False Flag 911, pilotsof911@AOL.com , 2008, pp. 6-7.
30 Ibid., pp. 34-37.
31 Phone conversation with Marcel Bernard, June 26, 2009.
32 http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00551.pdf
33 Memo from John Tamm to Dieter Snell, April 15, 2004. Posted at http://www.scribd.com/doc/15103091/Contents-of-John-Tamm-Memos-Folder-Me…
34 Phone conversation with Ben Conner, June 28, 2009.
35 The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, p. 286, note 99.
See also Gaffney’s piece on James Bamford; “Eavesdropping on the World”
July 7th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
No plane accidents reported on by the National Transportation Board on 9-11. Here is your proof.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/A_Acc1.htm
jerkstore Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. This article assumes every lie told by the Bush administration. Of course evidence was suppressed…there were no commercial planes on 9/11. Stories like this maintain the lie of 9/11.
Pedro Gonzales Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
POLY VU A HAMA HAMA….. DUEY EY STAVA…… BIEN GRACIAS
longway Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
spawn of 9-11 what our idiot friends and family do not know is KILLING PEOPLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3cEHTInfPA
The geoengineering option Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 1:10 am
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pub.....Option.pdf
Alex, if you are reading this please include this CFR document in your upcoming chemtrail film.
Tim Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
9/11 Cover Is Blown – British and Saudi Intelligence are Culprits
It gets better – Bush helped coverup
Intelligence Report here:
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/10997
Josh Reply:
July 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Wow Jerkstore, that was a pathetic strawman argument.
Strawman: Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
The entire article shredded Bush’s official story and your here right on cue with your moronic tripe.
jimshores Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
The truth is in: go to You tube, search for” General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud.” Major General Albert W. Stubblebine lll tells it as it really is. You people in the fight need to make copies of this before it is taken down. Go now!
jimshores Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I just tried to watch the above video with Major geneal Stubblebine, it has been dammaged. The audio has been obliterated and it stops before the end. I may have a clear copy. If so, I will try to get it to Alex. It is truly explosive.
AMERICAN GOV IS SATANIC Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
just another day in the belly of the beast
seriously, turn off your televisions, its possible to stand a little and know the propaganda, but if you’re watching hours on end, your just defeating yourself, not helping us
get your info from online, while we still have some free online press that is… and when we don’t, LIKE CHINA – THE SATANIC POLICE STATE IN THE EAST, then you know its time to aim for the heads of the BEAST, cause the return of Christ isn’t far off then
PRAISE ALLAH
PRAISE ALLAH Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
All praise is due to God, the Creator of all the worlds, and truly we are all his slaves, whether you like it or not
you did not create yourself, you don’t know when you’ll die, and you don’t control your hereafter
so if you want a better next life, cause this one is obviously garbage and turning to toxic waste real quick, then you should turn to the TRUE POWER – GOD
OBAMA'S CRACK PIPE Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
allah is a crack whore.
Jeffrey Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
The way I see it, either ONE of TWO things went down on 9/11 concerning the planes.
ONE: The commercial airliners were indeed hijacked by CIA sponsored terrorists who were simply going to take the planes to pre-designated locations, hold them for ransom, blame Iraq, blame Bin Laden, etc. However, the terrorists were actually patsies and after the hijackings, the planes were taken over by remote control and guided to their predetermined targets (except for flight 93 that was shot down for affect). This theory would cover all of the bases and would explain why some of the hijackers desired to take simulator training that ONLY included “LANDING” the planes…since that’s all they believed they were going to do. Kind of makes sense now doesn’t it???
TWO: The commercial airliners were hijacked as planned (for whatever reason given to the hijackers by their CIA sponsors)…then were taken over by remote control and landed safely except for flight 93 that was shot down for affect (this would explain the Cleveland landing that was originally reported). The commercial planes were subsequently replaced by military aircraft designed to “get the job done” in N.Y. and D.C. The passengers and hijackers were then given to aliens (grays, reptilians, what-ever) in exchange for continued peace, something that’s been going on for decades (if you believe in UFO, Alien, Bill Richardson theories)…this too covers all of the bases and explains the disappearance of the passengers.
So there you have it, my two theories as to what went down with the aircraft involved on 9/11. So what say the rest of you???
TheBMT Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 3:23 am
I like number 2.
TheBMT Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 3:24 am
a conspiracy theory on top of a conspiracy theory… awesome. Granted the facts are there overwhelming about 9/11, so its hard to call it a conspiracy “theory”, but more so a conspiracy.
ScrewyL Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 3:37 am
The ballast rocks on the Deutschebank building’s roof was covered in hundreds of 2 cm long cut bone fragments rendered of their tissues.
Your out-of-nowhere association to aliens only discredits yourself, not the evidence of the truth, such as the Clevland / Nasa landing, or the apparent computer guidance of the planes.
wtf Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Jeffery…..there were NO commercial planes on 9/11. In your scenerios you ASSUME commercial planes on both. That is a lie. There were no commercial planes ANYWHERE on 9/11. The US’s never ending war on terror is a murderous lie.
williamwallace Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Probible dont even consider it an accident. Due to the terrorist stigma placed on it . Of course you know intentional crashing a plane isnt an accident but I agree there is more than meets the eye. These cruiminals are apparently tired of serving the American people that is why they comit treasonious acts to the way of life that we have. Apparently we need another independant and public 9/11 commition probibly have to check out the files of fed agents ,cia or military personel who died a week prior and a week after 9/11. I say this because I belive someone in there actualy flew the planes into the buildings because its obviously a lie that hanji flew that plane. He is probibly is in camp x-ray or guantanimo. What about the suposed terrorists who were found in saudi arabia alive after they were accused to be on the planes. Didnt they have the camera footage of the airport? Operation North Woods has been a sucess.
4realist Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 8:07 am
You didn’t do a search of all accidents. For some reason, it didn’t make it to the front page, but all airlines were listed if you do a search from 9/11 in the U.S.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
http://killtown.911review.org/.....ngers.html
There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
Obama can save us! Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
There were no hijackings on 9/11. The planes tracked by the FAA were flying without passengers. There is no evidence of any plan, conspiracy, or plot by the accused hijackers.
Here is Kevin Barrett’s interview with Elias Davidsson
http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3.....t_eric.mp3
and his white paper
newdemocracyworld.org/Noevidence.pdf
What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11, 2001
sydney.indymedia.org.au/node/13779
Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11
portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288505.shtml
Flight 11 – The Twin Flight
An examination on the critical moments of September 11 at Logan Airport
by Woody Box
911search.bravehost.com/twinflight11.htm
okay Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
“The planes tracked by the FAA were flying without passengers.”
Then that means there were no commercial planes on 9/11! That means that 9/11 is a fraud. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
airmanfoote Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Taken from your site: “Doesn’t it seem odd that a person like Capt. Burlingame would be flying with a openly gay co-pilot?” How does this make a point? If anything, he was most likely comfortable sitting next to a gay pilot, he was in the Navy after all…..So to answer the question, no, it doesnt seem odd. And if it did, that would not make this the “nail in the coffin”. I believe 9/11 was an inside job like the rest, but this site looks like a 14 year old put it together…..
spooky Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Find out what happened to Capt Burlingame’s sister. She never bought the story from the military and govt and spoke out about it then suddenly and mysteriously died. Google it.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Why didnt Hani just say there were no commercial planes on 911 and force the government to prove there was? It was never even mentioned during his trial or Muossoi’s
July 7th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Do a little research on Mark H. Gaffney the author of this story. This man has researched 911 for years and STILL maintains that there were commercial planes on 911 based on not one single speck of verifiable evidence. Can his writings or reasons for writing ever be trusted? There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
Pedro Gonzales Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
SI SENIOR
July 7th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
I suppose if “Mr. Shalev” had a history as a pilot (schooling, certain aircraft qualifications) in the Israeli forces (and not just listed as a paratrooper jumpmaster in this document), that would or should have been mentioned by SOMEBODY. Was this plant even a pilot? Are all jumpmasters also pilots? Just thinking out loud… So many Israeli connections!
July 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Sorry if a duplicate post shows up here folks. The comment system is being screwy again.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I just have one question…What the HELL is this ‘topgun maneuver’ the author makes reference too several times in the course of his so-called article? Being a student pilot, married to a pilot, and friends with a number of other pilots who range in experience from flying light aircraft (cessnas) to fighters, and large transports (747s, C-130’s and C-17’s) I can state from a position of knowledge, I have never heard of such a flight maneuver. Is this some super secret fighter pilot technique? (sarcasm)
NoComment Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 12:31 am
From all the tracking data of the flight, the pilot made a sharp 180 degree turn at high speed simultaneously descending during the turn, and leveled off in perfect placement to slam into a 90 foot target…….. in a 757.
Without plowing dirt.
This mind you by someone supposedly scared of the controls of a 737, and barely capable of a Cessna single engine.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
One other point that needs to be raised. This would not have been as difficult as people try to point out. I have been in a 747 simulator, and I will admit, there is a lot of stuff to keep track of if you are going to actually take off, fly, and land. BUT, even in something like an airliner, if you didn’t have to take off, you aren’t talking with Air Traffic Control, and you don’t have to do a landing the flying part is really simple. Honest folks, all you really need in order to control the airplane, are your artificial horizon / attitude indicator, compass, (your instruments, and of course, stick and rudder, and throttle.
Joey Rapps Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Hi Caitlyn,
I’m NO pilot but this is how I understand what the problem is with Hanjour’s alleged descent. The official story states that Flight 77 made a 330 degree downward spiral that took somewhere around 2 1/2 minutes to complete before meeting its explosive end. One of the technical challenges presented is how would such a poor pilot be able to calculate/maneuver a 757, which he has never flown before, so that the end of this spiral would be at the very base of a 6 story building; i.e. never loses control/makes his target perfectly and gracefully (Let’s ignore the absence of engine holes in the building before the facade collapsed, among many other problems)
The associated issues with this are: When you are worried that the world’s greatest air force is possibly “on your six”, as they say, inside the world’s most restricted airspace, why would you add a another 2 1/2 minutes to your mission from Allah by making a fancy-ass spin dive into the Pentagon? Why not just dive it straight in, Kamikaze-style? Also, an air-traffic controller surmised this was a miltary craft due to its behavior.
You may want to check out Pilots for 9/11 Truth for more detailed info. Hope this helps!!
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
The maneuver it self is NOT difficult. I could have done something like that in my cessna trainer my first day. Unfortunately, everyone (thanks to the news media) has an overinflated idea of how difficult it is to fly a plane. In reality, using the controls (once you are in the air) is easier than driving a car. In fact flying straight and level takes a great deal more control than maneuvering. People also just do not seem to be able to seperate the instruments from actually flying the plane.
So this guy is (was) supposed to be a poor pilot. Did the instructors base that on inability to manipulate the controls, or on an inability to keep track of the radios and navigation equipment? Important question, in order for any meaningful discussion to happen.
Joey Rapps Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Caitlyn,
I urge you to talk to Rob Balsamo at Pilots for 9/11 Truth.org
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Why?
I lol'd Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Comparing a cessna with a huge 757 commercial airline. It’s only about 50 times heavier. Yea, should be the same thing when it’s in the air …
Good job sweetie. You’re on the right track.
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
OBVIOUSLY an airliner is going to be slower to maneuver. The PRINCIPLES of flight and aerial maneuvering are the same, SUGARBUNS!
Hint: DON’T even start with the terms of endearment, and the condescension.
BTW 757 max takeoff weight is approximately 108 times the weight of a cessna, since you can’t even correctly estimate weight, you condescending cocksucker.
RJB Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 2:16 am
If piloting was only that easy, ANYONE could do it, and it ANYONE could do it, then anyone and everyone would be doing it, pilots would be a dime a dozen, and pay would be right down there with serving fast food or delivering pizzas.
But all of that is irrelevant, since we supposedly have the flight data from the recorders, and they indicate in their last entries an altitude that places the plane 300 or so feet ABOVE the Pentagon. Add to that numerous and independent eye witness accounts, including those of two police officers, that the flight path observed from the ground was NOT the one reported in the official fairy tale, and there is only one logical conclusion, and that is that the plane alleged to have been the one piloted by Hanjour never did hit the Pentagon, but flew OVER it, and out to sea, while at the same moment another much smaller plane or missile, came in along the “official” flight path, and did hit the building.
All this arguing about whether Hanjour flew the plane or no only serves to distract from the fact that his plane could not, and did not hit the Pentagon, but was a distraction from whatever DID hit the Pentagon, and provided an object and a man to take the blame.
If it is indeed true, and it appears that it is, that Hanjour’s plane overflew the pentagon, possibly even flying through the fireball caused by whatever DID hit it, then his plane would have quickly exited out over the Atlantic, where, once over the horizon and invisible from land, it would have been shot down, and the flight data recorders recovered from the ocean, whereupon they would have been edited so that the data would end directly over the Pentagon. But someone either forgot to change the altitude data as well to indicate ground level at the end of the data stream, or they got cold feet and left it unchanged so that it could later be discovered, and the plot unraveled.
My hunch is that any number of people found that they were involved in something WAY over their heads, and that subtle attempts may have been made by them to leave a trail of discrepancies that their superiors, who ordered the coverup, would not immediately notice, such as the flight data ending at the proper coordinates of the Pentagon wall, but with the plane still 300 feet ABOVE the Pentagon, which would naturally imply that the plane would have kept on flying for some distance, which in turn implies that it flew out over the ocean, which, with the data stream having ended abruptly 300 feet over the Pentagon, implies it was edited to omit the expected data indicating the rest of the flight going out to sea.
Hani Hanjour was not just a patsie, he live on now as a red herring. Time to stop dwelling on his ability, or lack thereof, as it is irrelevant, and stick to what we know for a fact, and that is that something other than a commercial jetliner hit the Pentagon, and the commercial jetliner, or one imitating it, overflew the Pentagon at an altitude of 300 feet at the exact same moment, and headed out to sea, its fate unknown, but its flight data recorders recovered and edited to exclude all flight data past the point of the Pentagon.
RJB Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 2:31 am
One witness has now come forward, who says he was leaving the Pentagon on the opposite side of the building from the explosion, and actually saw a plane fly low over the building from behind him, and out toward the ocean. This is exactly as would be expected, given the flight data and direction of the plane.
I suspect the plane was remote controlled and had no passengers, nor a pilot. It’s job was to provide a visual distraction and lead witnesses to conclude that it was a commercial airliner that must have it the Pentagon, while providing them with a recovered black box which they could later trot out that would roughly confirm the flight path of the official fairy tale, if only the person assigned to edit the data had not developed a conscience and decided not to change the altitude data to indicate ground level at the supposed point of impact. God bless that unknown person. They are probably dead now, murdered and disposed of for trying to leave a few tiny bread crumbs pointing to the truth, but too late for their superiors to do anything about by the time they realized it, which is why it took a court order to finally get the flight data released, years later. Those responsible knew the altitude data had not been edited, and all they could do is get rid of the witnesses, stonewall, and refuse to release the data as long as possible, which is what they did.
huh Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 11:12 am
RJB….the exact same “flyover plane” was seen at the WTC’s also. This is the so-called “plane” that everyone saw. It was this plane that people think crashed into the buildings. There were no commercial planes on 9/11. These other planes were clearly there as a distraction and for plausible witnessing of some kind of aircraft.? Because there were no commercial planes on 9/11 you are going to find massive issues with all the information given from the black boxes, witnesses, film and video, TV broadcasts, statements made by military, media, and government officials. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
bubs Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Research this yourself because you dont hear it very often…though you would think its important. On the morning of 911 the Pentagon, with cooperation from Regan National Airport was conducting a terrorist training drill of a plane crashing into the Pentagon!!!!! After the fly by of the “plane” (which was nothing more than a guidance and illusion plane for the witnesses and staged actors) flew over the Pentagon after the crash and landed at National Airport just minutes away from the Pentagon. Even Shanksville just one month earlier has a terrorist training drill as well?!! 3 hours before the attacks on the morning of 911 Cheney was running simulation drills using a computer of planes crashing into buildings! 25 terrorist training drills were being run simultanously on the morning of 911. that is the definiton of plausible deniabilty to protect these criminals. There were no commercial planes on 911.
answers Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I can answer ALL of your questions. There were no commercial planes on 9/11. The US meida corporations are owned by the US military corporations. The images, witnesses, photos, and planted debris was staged. These same military corporations have made over 1 TRILLION dollars because of 9/11. It was a lie…just like the WMD’s in Iraq. The reason there are SOOOOO MANY descrepancies and issues with the “planes” of 9/11 is because there were no commercial planes on 9/11.
Sit Down Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
So are you going with the assumption that he found his way to the Pentagon with a compass? Or would he have needed more communication devices to navigate his way to that specific location?
And how would he have known exactly where to begin a nose-dive, raising up just enough to make a break-neck turn around 270 degrees (top-gun maneuver)… to nail the accounting offices in the Pentagon?
I don’t think your personal experiences give you any more wisdom than a whole lot of people who haven’t taken the easy route when it comes to 9/11.
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
First off, I have not “taken the easy route” By easy route I assume you mean believing the MSM.
“So are you going with the assumption that he found his way to the Pentagon with a compass?”
Yes. Pilots did this for many years before LORAN/GPS, and even before the VOR/TACAN system.
“And how would he have known exactly where to begin a nose-dive, raising up just enough to make a break-neck turn around 270 degrees (top-gun maneuver)… to nail the accounting offices in the Pentagon?”
Training on a simulator would give you an idea of where to begin the turn, etc. Incidentally, training for that SPECIFIC PURPOUSE, would look very much like like ineptitude, and lack of talent.
“Or would he have needed more communication devices to navigate his way to that specific location?”
Nope, compass and VFR navigation would have been more than sufficient.
huh Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Why are you arguing? There were no commercial planes on 9/11. Talking about what they may or may not have been able to do…..when it never happened in the first place…is a complete waste.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
If you are not planning on landing, specifically, if you are INTENDING to crash, 90 % of your instruments become unnecessary. The rest of the crap is for bad-weather navigation, communications, and controlling things like your position lights, landing lights, cabin lights, fire extinguishers, fuel transfer pumps and a whole bunch of other stuff that is unnecessary BS if you are planning to be a not-so-smart-bomb.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
To sum it up : Eddie Shalev and the Yeti connection had the secret mission to teach Hanjour how to tie his shoes properly !!!
July 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
PS, I am NOT saying there were commercial planes involved on 9/11.
good Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
GOOD! Because there were no commercial planes on 9/11.
July 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
If I have to put up this last post line by line, I will. Fucking POS comment system.I know this is NITpicking, but the NITwit who wrote this piece of tripe continues to use a term that seems to be a description of a persons skill level, (i.e. a ‘topgun’ is someone who has graduated top of their class from U.S. Navy fighter weapons school) as if the term described a specific maneuver (i.e. a loop, or barrel roll, or cuban 8, split-s, etc).
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I know this is NITpicking, but the NITwit who wrote this piece of tripe continues to use a term that seems to be a description of a persons skill level, (i.e. a ‘topgun’ is someone who has graduated top of their class from U.S. Navy fighter weapons school) as if the term described a specific maneuver (i.e. a loop, or barrel roll, or cuban 8, split-s, etc).
July 7th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
The author also just accepts at face value, everything said by airline pilots who thanks to the airlines, are some of the most brainwashed people on earth.
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
That kind of piss-poor writing reveals his COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT AVIATION!
Thus, I don’t feel the author is QUALIFIED to write about the subject.
PS, I am not saying there were commercial planes involvewd on 9/11; however, the fact is the author is either ignorant or deceptive.
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
That kind of piss-poor writing reveals the authors’ COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT AVIATION!
Thus, I don’t feel the author is QUALIFIED to write about the subject, and have no reason to believe anything he says…
PS, I am not saying there were commercial planes involved on 9/11; however, the fact is, the author is either ignorant or deceptive.
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
That kind of piss-poor writing reveals the authors COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT AVIATION.
Thus, I don’t feel the author is QUALIFIED to write about the subject, and have no reason to believe anything he says.
PS, I am not saying there were commercial planes involved on 9/11; however, the fact is, the author is either ignorant or deceptive.
interesting Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Do you think that Bush Jr. was qualified to inform you that there were commercial planes on 9/11? The first thing Gulliani told the world was that there were commercial planes on 9/11. Was he qualified to do that? The FBI says there were planes on 9/11. Even though the FBI does not investigate plane crashes unless its 9/11 or Paul Wellstone’s crash and have no NTSB members on staff….are they qualified to say there were commercial planes on 9/11. What about the witnesses off the street? Or the media?
In your opinion who IS qualified?
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I am NOT talkikng about commerial or not. I am talking about the bullshit LIES this author is perpetrating about the supposed difficulty of flying.
As far as who IS qualified, how about a pilot who IS NOT a member of an airline?
AntiVigilante Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
You Vegas panhandlers are not qualified to count my testicles never mind post here.
Arguments between no planers. Real original. Not.
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
1. I don’t live in Vegas.
2. I WORK for a living.
Caitlyn Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
That kind of piss-poor writing reveals his COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT AVIATION!
Thus, I don’t feel the author is QUALIFIED to write about the subject and I have no reason to believe anything he says.
My Dear Caitlyn Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 12:33 am
What the hell is wrong with you. If you don’t believe this author, there are many other stories on 9-11 Truths. You can’t de-bunk all the evidence. 9-11 WAS an INSIDE JOB!!!!….
Do your homework before you come here. We know we were lied to. Sorry you don’t or just refuse to believe it because you are Republican.
Patriot-X Reply:
July 12th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
why should we believe what you say. I mean your no Chucky Yeager are ya. Your just some chick talkin like you an expert.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Has anyone ever played the video games included in the PCJr by IBM? Remember the Charlie Chaplin character that advertised this first PC and probably still working PC as others grew to take its place? CHeck it out.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
this is ALL bullshit!!!!!…..there were not airplanes on 911
July 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
commercial airplanes can fly, land, and take off, via remote control on the ground. Ya-know, GPS….computers…technology? This technology has been around for years and years.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
APPARENTLY, MOST OF YOU CAN NOT READ!!!!!! OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT i DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WERE COMMERCIAL P[LANES INVOLVED IN THIS. I REPEAT, I KNOW THERE WERE NO COMMERCIAL PLANES INVOLVED, YOU STUPID ASSHOLES. LEARN TO FUCKING READ, YOU DIPSHITS!!!
MY WHOLE POIJNT IS THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE DOES NOT KNOW SHIT ABOUT FLYING.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
wasnt this a cover up? the fact that he poorly flied little planes does not matter what matters is that he is just a cover up from the real truth
correct Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
ABSOLUTELY!!! Its all a misdirected cover up.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
oh and another thing this country made a decision not to react to the warning signs given by the specific terrorists leaders until after it happened the tape that went mysteriuosly missing from government officals has all the evidence you want about the details and specifics of 9/11 also known as black tuesday
July 7th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Wow Professional idjits already strafed this story. Sorry but you missed the point. If there had been no planes and there were an attempt to say there were they could have conjured up a better story than trying to fix the truth to the design.
licher Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
fucking idiot have you done a research about what happened to ¨ the airplanes¨?
July 7th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I am done posting anything on this comment thread. There could have been an interesting discussion, but unfortunately, too many of the crack-smoking ass-monkeys on this site can’t be bothered to read and comprehend English, and are still completely stuck in the media mindset that flying an airplane is some superhuman act.
I am so sick and tired of this crap. If people in the patriot movement are so stupid, it is no wonder the NWO is winning. You people are already enslaved.
My Dear Caitlyn Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 12:40 am
We don’t care if flying is as easy as you say it is. We just know it was a staged event. Google WTC 7, thermite, aetruth911.org or countless other sites. You Bitchin is bullshit. Who cares if YOU think flying is so damn easy. We know these pilots were not the ones flying these planes.
I had a hard time not cussing in this response. I really wanted to.
michael Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Caitlyn is a fake.. No need to entertain an obvious mouthpiece for division. Go away Caitlyn (you are probably a man looking at your profanity). Loser.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
As no commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, the question of Hani’s flying skills only apply to the Regime’s account of events as expressed in the report of the 9-11 accessories after the fact–the 9-11 Commission. Everyone who had contact with Hani in a cockpit and are available to interview maintain that the man was not qualified. You don’t need to know anything about flying to weigh their professional judgment against the judgment of the unavailable Mr. Shalef, who calls him a “good pilot.”
It would be useful to know who owned and operated Congressional as this name tells us absolutely nothing to add to the investigation.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Der mensch trakht un Gott lahkht .. alex far makh dos moy ! k’nocker fatoot kemfer kokh-lefel ….:)
July 7th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I had a friend named Butch who worked for Sawyer Aviation. He said he didn’t think that Hani Hanjour could have piloted that plane. Butch died shortly after in a plane crash in Mexico. I always thought something fishy was going on.
Prinzowhales Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Chalk up another air incident for those involved in the training of the patsies…Both instructors at Huffman Aviation in Venice had close calls.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I’d love to know more about the “no planes” theory that is being mentioned on this comment board. The obvious questions would be.. what did everyone see hit the towers?? What were all of the people on the street running away from?? The Pentagon crash and the crash in the field are easy enough to cover I guess.. since there are no pictures of planes there.. although the Gov’t has video of what hit the Pentagon that they won’t release… but any links to sites about the “no planes” theory would be cool.. thanks.
Prinzowhales Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I heard that theory as well–don’t believe it…but, don’t know which Boeings hit the towers for sure. If the Regime had pictures of an airliiner hitting the Pentagon, I would bet my bottom dollar they would show them on every network…even interrupt the most important event of our lifetimes–the funeral of Michael Jackson–to show them.
I heard something that Alex mentioned last week…the planes allegedly involved had been in mothballs and 9-11 was the first flight for them when they came out…I’d like to hear more about that…
huh Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
“I heard that theory as well–don’t believe it”
We are not talking about a religion! Belief systems should never enter into an airline crash investigation. Who cares what a human many believe….these are not ghosts? There were no commercial planes on 9/11. Planes have verifiable evidence….stories about terrorists have beliefs.
response to Adam Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Q: what did everyone see hit the towers??
A: Who knows. What did everyone see when they said there were WMD’s in Iraq? Eyewitnesses and generally COMPLETELY ignore during and airline crash investigation. Crash investigators go by wreckage. Look at flight TWA 800 to see how the government treats “eyewitnesses”.
Q: The Pentagon crash and the crash in the field are easy enough to cover I guess.
A: Stop guessing. There were no commercial planes on 9/11. Stop giving these criminals any benefit of the doubt.
Q: since there are no pictures of planes there
A: Pictures will lead an investigator in certain areas but it will never verify the physical existence of a plane. Only the wreckage can do that. Witnesses, photos, and home movies have never verified a plane or plane crash. Only the actual wreckage and debris does. A photo of Bigfoot means nothing until you can shake hands with the beast?
Q: although the Gov’t has video of what hit the Pentagon that they won’t release
A: That’s because there were no commercial planes on 9/11. If they showed you any of the over 80+ videos that were confiscated on the morning of 9/11 you would possibly see something other than a commercial plane. That would then mean that the Homeland security agency, the TSA, Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, war on terror and at least one invasion and war…would have been based on a lie.
Mofo Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Wow you nailed it perfectly……..I have worked on and been around A/C military and commercial most of my adult life …I can say with 100% assurance that what hit the Pentagon was not a commercial airliner. America WTFU 911 was a inside job carried out by our own corrupt, criminal government. The real terrorists that murdered those people on 911 are still walking around free…Laughing in our faces. Were is the Fucking outrage? What if it were your Wife ,Mother, Father , Brother………..Were is the Fucking Outrage ?
responseto Mofo Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I can give you an example of what is happening to the outrage. Research Capt. Burlingame’s sister. He was the supposed pilot that allowed his “plane” to crash into the Pentagon. What happened to her is exactly what is happening to the outrage. It is being systematically murdered. She went to every “news’ agency and was rejected. She went to all the protests with signs and was never covered. She contacted her political officials and was ignored. Suddenly her military boyfriend is responsible for her freakish death. That is what is happening to the outrage…it is being silenced.
Mofo….there were no commercial planes anywhere on 911….let alone the Pentagon. It was all staged. The exposure of no planes at the WTC’s exposes the US military owned media to charges of murder. That is why the US media ignored Cpt Burlingame’s sister.
lincher Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
the government agencies DON´T want release any information about the supposed airplanes
why? because there were NOT airplanes involved on 911……google ¨september clues¨ this video makes sense what they in it…………
July 7th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
HERE: Stream and Download ALL the best interviews and rants from the Alex Jones Show Archives:
http://alex-jones-archives.politicsfiles.info/
TODAY:
- Today’s Guest”Max Keiser”
- Total Land Grab (California) by The Banksters is Underway!
- Bill Federer:How America Was Founded & What it Stands For
- Bob Chapman:John Kerry Says Senate Will PASS The Cap & Trade/Tax Bill !!!
Backup your favorite episodes, don’t miss any!
July 7th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
You are right on except for one important clarification. Do you actually think this criminal US military and government are just going to send over tons of ground zero evidence to China? CDI purchased its smelitng planet 1 year prior to 911 and 1 hour outside of NYC.
I researched every supposed port from India to China and none ever prepared for the horrifically toxic wasted metal that would have come there way. The preperation to receive such waste would have been on a grand scale. Nothing like that ever happened. The debris was radioactive. That is why the US would not allow testing and poured millions of tons and dirt and water on ground zero for all those weeks. Its also why Gulliani had anyone arrested for taking pictures or video of ground zero. The waste would have given the crimes of 9/11 away that they were committing.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
The Jewish Crime Network is responsible for the mass murder known as 9/11
See the evidence here —> http://zioncrimefactory.wordpr.....l-did-911/
and pass it around to everyone you know. These criminals will fall…
July 7th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Go to Wikipedia on 911, American Airlines itself has changed it’s story about the airplanes on 911. They state that they do not know of any American Airline planes that flew on the day of 911. Now tell me, why would they have done this ? Is it to protect themsleves in the event that the truth may be found out ? On another note, I work and have worked with Flight Training for years and I can tell you first hand that it is near impossible for a plane to have been manuvered the way it did into the pentagon, even with an experienced pilot leave. It is fraud, period ! This is one of the main reason I never did and never will buy a stitch of the 911 story as explained by the Government. see: pilotsfor911truth.org
heyACL Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Be careful acl. Pilotsfor911truth still maintain that there were commercial planes on 9/11. The US military and govenrment spend BIllions a year to maintain “truth groups” that promote the lies of 9/11…especially the lie that there were commercial planes.
If American Airlines says there were none of their planes on 911….then that means that there were no commercial planes on 911 and that the invasion and murder of millions of people because of those planes supposedly crashing is a murderous fraud. Thank you sir…may I have another!?
July 8th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Please help me. I will do web design from a tent! http://www.brandonkastning.net
July 8th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Flight data from the recorders indicates a terminal altitude of 300 feet ABOVE the Pentagon. Logic would dictate that anything traveling at that speed, in that direction, at that altitude MUST have flown over the Pentagon, and done so at the exact same time that something else hit it and caused a large explosion. The casual observer, having seen the plane, but not the much smaller missile or military jet, seeing the explosion happen just as the larger plane arrives at the Pentagon, would conclude that they had just seen the larger plane hit the Pentagon and explode, but, nonetheless was NOT what they actually saw, but what they THINK they saw, which was the impression they were mean to be given.
The flight data is incontrovertible evidence that the plane in question overflew the Pentagon, and that, the Pentagon, having been hit by something, was hit by a second plane or missile, traveling from a different direction, and much lower and faster, so as to avoid easy visual detection by casual observers.
Argue all you want about whether Hanjour flew the plane, or not. It is all a big waste of time. Why not argue over the meaning of flight data that places the plane in question 300 feet ABOVE the Pentagon, and how and why a data stream indicating that, ends abruptly and does not document the expected continuing path of a plane flight at that height, in that direction, at that speed.
Hanjour’s job as a patsie was to keep people arguing, debating, and bickering, unproductively, just like this, while ignoring the known hard data and credible eyewitness testimony that shows that the plane he supposedly piloted did not hit the Pentagon, but overflew it, and that something else did.
holdup Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 8:43 am
This is RJB’s first sentence: “Flight data from the recorders indicates a terminal altitude of 300 feet ABOVE the Pentagon”
Everyone…..the flight data recorders had NO SERIAL NUMBERS. The Voice data recorders had NO SERIAL NUMBERS. The Black boxes had NO SERIAL NUMBERS. On all 4 “planes” NONE had equipment that could ever be verified. That is a first in aviation history and it happened 4 times on the morning of 9/11. In terms of science and verification….garbage in…garbage out.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:11 am
The story keeps unwinding by the dsy
July 8th, 2009 at 7:51 am
When the NTSB files a report about a crashed airplane, it lists the serial number of the flight data recorder.
Besides planes with no flight data recorders, between 1991 and 2001, the only 4 planes with crash reports that do not note flight data recorder serial numbers are the 4 planes that crashed on 9/11. That’s odd.
Then again, people are posting links on here that no NTSB crash reports exist whatsoever.
interesting Reply:
July 8th, 2009 at 11:43 am
The only other plane to ever have crashed in aviation history without a serial # on its black boxes or VDR took place on Sept 11th 1991 as it was approaching the GWBush International airport in Houston. From this particular and extremely strange crash…..dozens of new laws were passed immediately after this crash in 1991. It was the perfect scenario of Problem, reaction, solution. It allow the Bush/Clinton crime families to pass archaic laws that allowed the US government to seize and investigate anything they wanted with regards to planes coming in and out of any US airport for any reason. All of this from a plane with no serial numbers to identify it. How convienent?!!
July 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
idiots do love c and p stories
July 9th, 2009 at 12:04 am
This is all well and good, but I am left with one burning question- where are all the people from those flights? I’m sure their families would be very grateful if you helped return their loved ones to them. And I guess those loved ones are all in on the conspiracy too. What a lot of insensitivity has been shown here.
RJB Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:05 am
See above. See “Operation Northwoods”.
All the planes were landed and replaced in midair by military “surplus” 737’s, that had been decalred as such and designated to be transferred to Israel as part of their yearly multi-billion dollar military “aid” package. These planes very likely all had state-of-the-art remote control technology added, courtesy of a company called SPC, which had been headed by one Dov Zakheim, the Israeli dual citizen comptroller of the Pentagon who “lost” several TRILLION dollars while there, before quietly retiring, leaving the country, and going to live in Israel following 9-11, converting them to pilotless, passenger-less drones, to guarantee they would hit their targets without passenger interference or human error, which would have exposed the plot.
Passengers on the landed planes would have then been gathered at one spot, and concentrated onto one plane, which was quickly put back in the air, and then disposed of. That plane was the plane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville, which was nothing but a “salted” decoy site at a landfill. The real crash site was likely at nearby Camp David, where a crash had been reported, and then abruptly never mentioned again.
Given all the evidence, this is the most likely scenario.
close Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 8:25 am
So you’re saying there were planes but there were no planes? RJB…there were no commercial planes anywhere on 9/11. I like the Dov reference though. You can say there were military planes that were remote controlled its just that there was NO debris. Even a military plane would leave something behind?
non duality Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:10 am
my explaination of the debris.
can i ask you a question?
if they turned the steel supports of the wtc buildings into dust,
because they detonated the foundations,
how does aluminium plane parts not be turned to dust,
as it gets detonated probably on the floor it hits,
then, it gets further detonated as it fulls with the rest of the rubble.
and dont worry out there,
the fact that there were no commercial planes or if there were,
doesnt stop the evidence of the detonations,
which is how the world will know it is all a lie.
huh Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 7:49 am
The reason there were detonations at the WTC’s and the Pentagon is because there were no commercial planes on 9/11. The detonations of the buildings is nothing more than the “smoking cloud” of their initial crimes. 9/11 was not buildings falling…..9/11 was commercial planes being highjacked. The US didn’t invade Afghanistan because of buildings falling….it was because “terrorists aboard planes” were being given instructions from their leader who supposedly was living in a cave there.
Nothing will stop the evidence of the detonations. That’s why Gulliani ordered the immediate destruction of all the debris from the buildings. That’s why Gullianni ordered anyone taking pictures or video of ground zero to be arrested.
“how does aluminium plane parts not be turned to dust”
How does the Titanum engines at 6-tons, 9ft wide simply vaporize at ALL FOUR locations. Not only did any verifiable piece of aluminum dissapear but so did the Titanium. That was a FIRST in aviation history and it happened 8 times on the morning of 9/11!!!!
Lilly Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:23 am
GOOD info………. Dual Israeli-Americans INSIDE our government MURDERED 3,000 Americans and then DECEIVED us into blaming the ARABS/MUSLIMS.
BY DECEPTION THEY DO WAR !!
July 9th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Hani Hanjour and the suppressed evidence topic is a red herring…leads nowhere..only to a false misleading path. No Commercial A/Cs were used in the 9/11 event. Video animators were hard at work in tandem with the media displaying fake planes for public consumption on TV. People saw commercial planes ON TV only. Missiles and missile UAV type platforms were used on the buildings. No one to date has taken note of the high -energy and hot projectile emission from the other side of WTC #2. This is a classic effec of a missle hit….there’s much more of course
July 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Lieing covering up is the work of our goverment,s cia they bring a bitter result on us all. Standup and vote the s.o.bs out. That is if you can shut the tv off long enough to vote.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. There were no commercial planes on 9/11.
non duality Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:26 am
like i keep posting this valid question,
and it would be nice if finally one of you solid thinkers here give me your opinion.
1) if there were no commercial planes used here, and it were a hologram, or computer image of a plane,
then why not create that for building 7 afterward, like even a week later or a month later.
then come out and say some witness has the footage.
i mean, the first plane wasnt noticed, was it?
instead they go to great efforts of creating this stupid thermal expansion theory,
what i laugh.
2) newtons law of motion is disproportionate here,
the plane does not go up against 500,000 tones of steel,
it goes up against the mass of the floors it hits, which is composed also of hollow space, glass and concrete.
so im not saying there were planes on 911,
but im not saying there were not planes either.
look at my last post up here, about how the debri of the plane could disapear aswell.
what do you think, thinkers?
tommy2tone Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Q: “so im not saying there were planes on 911, but im not saying there were not planes either.”
This is called double-think. It’s accepting 2 opposing views at the same time. Watch out for it. Based on verifiable evidence you should be able to pick a side. After 8 years not one single piece of debris from any of the planes from any of the locations has ever been verified.
Q: “about how the debri of the plane could disapear aswell”
The reason the debris vanished is because there were no commercial planes on 9/11. You are looking for something that never existed. After 8 years no one on the planet has verified a single SPECK from any of the planes.
Q: “if there were no commercial planes used here, and it were a hologram, or computer image of a plane”
There were no commercial planes on 9/11. Who knows how these criminal did what they did. It may have been missile, rockets, bombs, holograms, computer images, daffy duck, directed energy weapons…..who knows. Though in your question….you have ASSUMED it to be a hologram or a computer image. No one knows. Try not to make assumptions that we have no way of testing or verifying. All you need to know is that there were no commercial planes on 9/11. Knowing that allows you to understand that obviously they perpetrated a horrific crime against the world. Because of these “planes”…..millions of people of died….and continue to die in a never ending global war because of those “planes”. The war on terror must end.
non duality Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 3:22 am
mr 2tone, you are well intentioned,
and i still dont disagree with it all.
your quote -
“who knows how these criminals did what they did?”
hey thats called double think!
but wait, my question remains,
who said the debri of the planes in the cleanup of the trade centres was never found?
maybe i am uninformed, but who claimed that,
which seems the only reliable part of this evidence?
just answer me that last question, thanks.
my post also refers to the last reply i got a few comments up,
if gulliani ordered the destruction of all debris straight after the trade centre attack,
then who, or what independant investigation has now come out and said, there
were no titanium engines found,
maybe i didnt follow all the story yet, and i should know this stuff,
but do you?
i still believe in the possibility, that the detonations could have turned those engines to dust,
like it did with the steel foundations.
but
i am willing to have my opinion swayed,
to cure this, case of, doublethink.
runnnnn Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Q: “and i still dont disagree with it all.”
A: Who said you were required to disagree with anything?
Q: ““who knows how these criminals did what they did?”
hey thats called double think!”
A: Double speak would be if I said “No one knows what they did but I know what they did”. How can no one know but I know? That’s double speak. Its assuming 2 opposing things can happen at once. You said there were planes and not planes. That is double speak.
Q: “who said the debri of the planes in the cleanup of the trade centres was never found?”
A: The world. After 8 years not one single piece of debris has been verified from ANY of the 4 planes from ANY of the 4 locations on 9/11. The FBI has said it tested and verified NOTHING with regards to the planes because “we all saw it on TV” (FOIA 2008).
Q: “which seems the only reliable part of this evidence?”
A: Thats correct. If you are never able to verify anything, like the WMD’s in Iraq, the existence of the “planes” is in serious jeopardy.
Q: “i still believe in the possibility, that the detonations could have turned those engines to dust”
A: Belief systems should NEVER enter into an airliner crash investigation. Ever. Only go by verifiable debris. Of course there were demolitions. There was no jet fuel because there were no commercial planes on 9/11. The reason the 8, 6-ton, 9-ft wide, titanium “engines” have disappeared….is because there were no commercial planes on 9/11. The reason no tailsections (a first in aviation history) have ever been seen, photographed, or verified in ANY way…is because there were no commercial planes on 9/11. The reason no luggage was ever found from any of the planes, except what was easily planted by authorities like expired unburnt passports of the supposed terrorists etc, was because there were no commercial planes on 9/11. Not ONE SEAT was ever found, filmed, or verified from any of the crash sites. A first in aviation history.
You ask very good questions. I hope you continue your research. Last piece of advice….never “believe” something. Know it. Only go by verifiable evidence. Witnesses, video, home movies, and film have NEVER in aviation history verified a plane crash. Only wreckage does.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Ted Olsen (Bush’s solicitor General) claimed to have talked to his wife, Barbara Olsen on FLT 77 and she mentioned “Arabs with Boxcutters” .
The FBI had to admit in the Zakarias M. Lawsuit that in reality NO PHONE CALL EVER WENT THROUGH.
When will we sue TED OLSEN for obstruction of Justice and blow open that BIG LIE ?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pl.....aOlson.png
interesting Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Because there were no commercial planes on 9/11…..you must go back and look at every single person on the “flights” and try and understand why they were selected to be murdered. In the case of Barbara Olsen….that is easy. She had just recently released a book called “Hell to Pay”. It was a scathing review of Hillary Clinton. Thats all you need to know.
To expose the big lie one only need to know that there were no commercial planes on 9/11.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Our organized wormwood F.B.I lackies do what the bidding of their organized wormwood banker instruct. We should have the S.O.B. F.B.I. lackies fired.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:36 am
http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.com/
July 11th, 2009 at 7:56 am
If the TRUTH ever comes out ,we don,t have enough room in 1 prison to keep all the people that would be going to jail ????
July 12th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Yes… those planes were comercial!! Anyone could by a ticket for those flights! That is a fact!! Those people who died were real people with real families, why don’t people do the home work?
9/11 Was Not a “inside job”. The gove new that people were going to try to use planes as a giant missle—YES.. They’ve known that!! But during Clinton’s rain of HELL he didn’t see that. He was to busy getting blowjobs in the oval office. At the same god damn time he was passing a bunch of crap on how to talk to people and this political corrective crap. He never thought who the enemy was!! He didn’t think about muslim jerks who want to kill and murder any american at the time. Whether the whole thing is right or wrong, I will always be the AMERICAN who stands by Cheney! Call me a troll or worse, I really don’t care! I’ll stand by for what is right whether you can see it or not!! Maybe these fucks just prolonged the big attacks?
Let’s wait and see!! Obama is you new god!
July 12th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
By the way.. I’ll say it again, there are no fucking FEMA camps!! I’ve had the money to travel to these so called sites to check them out, and the BS that is said on this site is just that!! I can back my ass up, can you?? Those so called coffins are nothing but containment coffens so when all these illegals and others kick the “bucket” they have a place to lay until there relatives can be contacted.
YES!! That is how bad this country has gotten with illegal’s. Once again our country is helping people out who either want to kill us, or don’t really care about us!!!!!!!
So you people who don’t belive me… GO FUCK YOURSELVES. SPEND $8000.00 AND LEARN YOURSLEVES.