"If an object has not been identified in less than two minutes or appears suspect, it is considered to be an eventual threat. Unidentified planes, planes in distress and planes we suspect are being used for illegal activities can then be intercepted by a fighter from NORAD. [NORAD spokesman: http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/athomedocs/athome1e_f.htm]



See also Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath, Boston Globe, where you will read: "Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft."]

See: Pentagon Crash Highlights a Radar Gap, where you will read: "The airliner that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 disappeared from controllers' radar screens for at least 30 minutes -- in part because it was hijacked in an area of limited radar coverage. [...]



The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens.



The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed.



The answers to the mystery of the aircraft's disappearance begin with the fact that the hijacking took place in an area served by only one type of radar, FAA officials confirmed. Although this radar is called a "secondary" system, it is the type used almost exclusively today in air traffic control. It takes an aircraft's identification, destination, speed and altitude from the plane's transponder and displays it on a controller's radar screen.



"Primary" radar is an older system. It bounces a beam off an aircraft and tells a controller only that a plane is aloft -- but does not display its type or altitude. The two systems are usually mounted on the same tower. Primary radar is normally used only as a backup, and is usually turned off by controllers handling aircraft at altitudes above 18,000 feet because it clutters their screens.



All aircraft flying above 18,000 feet are required to have working transponders. If a plane simply disappears from radar screens, most controllers can quickly switch on the primary system, which should display a small plus sign at the plane's location, even if the aircraft's transponder is not working.



But the radar installation near Parkersburg, W. Va., was built with only secondary radar -- called "beacon-only" radar. That left the controller monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center blind when the hijackers apparently switched off the aircraft's transponder, sources said. "

"It must be remembered that the first job of any conspiracy, whether it be in politics, crime or within a business office, is to convince everyone else that no conspiracy exists. The conspirators' success will be determined largely by their ability to do this." [Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy] The truth about 9/11 is obviously of central importance.



We're incessantly reminded by prominent politicians and voices in the mass media that "September 11th changed everything".



9/11 has become the defining event of the new century, used to justify an unprecedented surge in militaristic and repressive policies within the USA and elsewhere.



Yet despite the evident significance of 9/11, there has been an astonishing lack of informed discussion in the mainstream media about what really took place on that fateful day.



Many anomalies and suspicious leads in the official story, curiosities which the mass media often helped put into the public domain in the first place, have not been followed up or given the attention they clearly merit. The obvious question: "why is the US Administration so averse to a transparent public inquiry?" has scarcely been asked.



Indeed, the western mass media's reluctance to question the official version of 9/11 critically - and the key role played by elements of the media in actively propagating this unlikely story - calls for explanation in its own right. Any objective investigation of 9/11 must account for the extraordinary phenomenon of gross media bias and apparent blindness. [Physics 9-11 org]

The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.



The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.



Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world's most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]



Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.



America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.



Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.



During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.



Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.



In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]



A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.



If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?



Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]



Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]



The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.



[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.



Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.



[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. [Don't hold your breath.]



This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection. [Richard Dolan]

There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult.

This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. It's membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally.



"The main threat to Democracy comes not from the extreme left but from the extreme right, which is able to buy huge sections of the press and radio, and wages a constant campaign to smear and discredit every progressive and humanitarian measure." - George Seldes "There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself." Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Senator



"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are, in the depths of their hearts, more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.

The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones. Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts.



Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true. Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most imprudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end.



~ Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

Acts of terrorism carried out on 11 September in America, and their consequences are commented upon in an interview with Andrey Kosyakov, former assistant to the chairman of the Russian Congress, a specialist in International Security.



Q: What suggests that terrorism in THE USA was planned well in advance?



A: First, the conspirators possessed the professional skill to fly an aircraft. There had to be at least four of them with substitutes on hand in the event one of them failed. There is a high probability that the hijacking of an aircraft will fail, thus there had to be stand-by hijackers and/or pilots in this eventuality.



In the second place, all participants in the operation were ready to sacrifice themselves, and such individuals are not easy to find.



Finally, the departure times of the aircraft from four different points were coordinated minute by minute. This means that the routes and timing were known well in advance, and these particular flights were selected specifically for their routes and schedule.



All of this is sufficiently complicated to necessitate a long period of planning.



Q: And how long, in your opinion, would it take to plan something like this? How large an organization would it require? Could, for example, the Red Army carry out such an operation? Some analysts say that only a National organization could do this.



A: As far as the time of preparation is concerned, it would require months. And such an organization must be very powerful.



But, the participation of a National organization, such as a government of a country, is very doubtful.



I assure you that National resources have not been used here.



No secret service would risk their operatives in this way. They spend a lot of time and money training their agents. However, if President Bush had been the target, then one would suspect a secret service of some organization. But here, the target was different: civilians.



As for the Red Army, it doesn't fit for one simple reason: it consists of mainly orientals and it is too easy to distinguish Japanese from Americans.



Q: So, what do you conclude from all this?



You see, analyzing this situation, I was struck by one significant fact: it is known that there were telephone calls from the plane. One of the calling persons was a professional journalist. And yet, not one of the calling individuals said that they were being hijacked by "moslem terrorists." There was, apparently, nothing unusual about the appearance of the hijackers. There was no attempt to describe them. No one said: "Moslem terrorists have hijacked the plane," which would have logically been the first comment by this journalist IF it was apparent that the hijackers were "foreign." There was obviously nothing unusual about them in terms of appearance, accent, pronunciation, or other similar factors.



Q: But, secret organizations could hide these things, couldn't they?



A: All these calls were private. And even the FBI was not able to suppress the fact that these calls took place. So, the conclusion which comes to mind, is that the external appearance of the hijackers was in no way different from the other passengers. Only in such cases would the communicants indentify the hijackers in a shorthand way. This suggests that the hijackers were European in appearance.



There is also the suspicious fact that the conspirators left a huge "clue" in the leased automobile at the airport with a copy of the Koran and instructions for flying a plane in Arabic.



Now look, not one organization claimed responsibility. This means that the terrorists want to hide their identity.



With every other aspect of total control and professionalism, how could they make such a mistake?



This does not compute with all the rest of the perfection of the operation.



All this says that the criminals want to create a false track.



In this way, the secret services have been induced very cleverly to look for "Moslem terrorists. "



Q: But indeed the practice of self-sacrifice is typical to the Moslem culture?



A: You are completely right. But who told you that those who died were not Moslems?



This way we can narrow the radius of our search.



On the basis of this information which we have, by analysis, we may come to the consclusion that those who did it were Americans or Europeans who were followers of radical Islam.



They were manipulated so that the true criminals will be thus spared for follow-up actions.



It is completely clear that this is a multi-phase operation. [...] ... it seems that the target is precisely America; precisely civilians.



Q: But, we remember that some analysts were claiming that if George Bush was in the White House on September 11, then the aircraft would have been aimed at the White House instead of the Pentagon.



This is highly improbable. In that case the White House or the Pentagon, but not peaceful population would be the first targets.



Indeed after a first successful terrorist act, the chances of success for the rest fall.



You see that the last action did fail in the crash of the aircraft in Pittsburgh. It was most certainly shot down. However hard it is to admit, this was the correct thing to do.



So it is clear that the main targets are civilians.



There is this formula that is part of the mentality of terrorists: the civilian population in the democratic countries are responsible for the actions of their government. The terrorists accept and use this formula. Therefore, the next terrorist acts will follow the same pattern. Obviously, they will occur on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. Why? I don't want to explain the terrorist's logic. But it is based on a certain sense of the "rightness" of the thing.



But I would like to repeat this: the fact that no terrorists are claiming responsibility, tells us that they will kill again and again until the next stage of global conflict is achieved. This is precisely the goal of these actions. Only then will they reveal their identity in order to get followers.



Q: How could the special services OF THE USA fail to detect such a terrorist act? I will give two examples. Half a year ago Israeli reconnaissance carried out studies through the use of aerial targets for conducting terrorism.



It is certain that the Americans had access to these studies. But it seems to not have entered their minds to apply this information in defensive ways.



And other - in March of 1991 in our office sat Korzhakov, and we told him about the situation leading to the September government coup. We predicted that everything would occur in September. Everything actually occurred, exactly following our scenario, only it happend one month earlier: August. No one paid any attention. This means that when there are predictions of scenarios that seem to be improbable, no one takes them seriously, especially the secret services. That is why Putin says that what is needed is a union of all secret services of all nations.



Q: What is the probability that the American secret services will succeed in finding the leader of this operation, or that they simply will present to society a fake?



A: Very high. There are people, there are apartments where they were located, which means, there are traces, certainly. Following these traces, one may find the leader.



Q: And who this? Ben Laden?



Hardly.



Yes, there was the interception of his conversation with someone, where they reported to him the destruction of two targets.This was seen as indirect confirmation of his participation. But he is not an ideologist. He is too well known. And the one who organized all of this is too smart to be noticed.



Ever.

On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to 9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01]

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth! - Arthur Conan Doyle

2:41:05 PM "The Pentagon is being evacuated in expectation of a terrorist attack. It is believed a fire has broken out in the building." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)



2:47:43 PM "There are reports that a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon. An eyewitness said that they saw the helicopter circle the building and after it disappeared behind it, an explosion occured." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)



2:52:26 PM "Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed a explosion near the Pentagon shortly after two planes crashed into World Trade Centre. ''It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball,'' Begala said. He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

General Richard Myers, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that prior to the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York area to Washington. He says he assumed that hijacked plane was the one that hit the Pentagon, though he could not be sure." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

4:05:16 PM "A second aircraft has crashed into the Pentagon building. It is not known whether this plane was that which was hijacked from Boston airport a short time ago, the fourth such plane to be used in this major attack on the US. Earlier, a small plane had slammed into the building and set it ablaze." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)



4:17:03 PM "Part of the Pentagon building outside Washington has collapsed. It had been hit by two planes apparently hijacked by terrorists in Boston earlier today." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)



6:40:29 PM Fighter jets are patrolling the skies above Washington after a jet hijacked by terrorists struck the Pentagon. An aircraft has crashed on a helicopter landing pad near the Pentagon, and the White House. The Pentagon has taken a direct hit from an aircraft. The nerve centre of the US military burst into flames and a portion of one side of the five-sided structure collapsed when the plane struck. Secondary explosions were reported in the aftermath of the attack and great billows of smoke drifted skyward towards the Potomac River. Authorities immediately began deploying troops, including a regiment of light infantry. General Richard Myers, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that prior to the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York area to Washington. He says he assumed that hijacked plane was the one that hit the Pentagon, though he could not be sure." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

"Up to 800 people may have died Tuesday when a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon, officials said. The more than 20,000 civilians and military men and women who work in the Pentagon streamed into the surrounding parking lots, driven by blue and white strobe alarm lights and wailing sirens." -CNN (9/12/01)



PENTAGON CASUALTIES OF THE TERRORIST ATTACK "125 people were killed on the ground at the Pentagon. * An additional 59 perished aboard American Airlines Flight #77. We do not count the five terrorists. Approximately 63 people were wounded/injured in the attack." -DoD

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, (who may have had an agenda) said he saw a large American Airlines passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw.



One of the things that didn't make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn't. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was certainly flying low enough to clip light poles and didn't scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture.



Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows.



The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that as long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses - and by the evidence on the ground - that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who did NOT SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound. "At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."



"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.



"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

I live in the DC area, and the street lights are not very tall. In fact DC is a very "treed" city. Many of the trees are taller than the lamp posts. [...] If the wings of a 757 were hitting the lamp posts, the engines would be driven into the ground, provided that the plane was in a straight and level position.

"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."



Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers.



The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft. And yet, there were supposed to be indentifiable body parts all over the place?



And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down while, at the same time claiming that it was the force of impact that vaporized the aircraft? It just doesn't add up. [LAM]

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. [...]



He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."

A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is? The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material.



A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs. The photo ID numbers are 4414 and 4415 and can be seen on-line.



For those who say a smaller plane or unmanned drone, such as a Global Hawk, was involved in the Pentagon attack, identifying the piece in the photo could prove what kind of aircraft hit the building.



The Global Hawk is a singe-engine drone that uses a Rolls Royce Allison engine hand-built in Indianapolis, Indiana. The AE3007H engine has a diameter of 43.5 inches. The unmanned Global Hawk, using a satellite guidance system, is capable of landing within 12 inches of its programmed destination.



Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. American Free Press asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he "did not recall hearing anything." If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the sound would be deafening.

Many heard a jet. Others heard a missile. (All military men.) Those near Flight 77 as it came over the cemetery, saw it and heard it pass silently (no engine); whereas those near the killer jet which came by the freeway and knocked down the lamp posts heard its loud scream as it put on speed to reach the wall as the airliner flew over it. Witnesses who saw only one plane fall into two distinct groups, each seeing a different plane, on a different path, at different altitude, with different sound, at different speeds. A third set of witnesses saw two planes approach the Pentagon and one of these veer away. [

I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man's story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact".



He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn't ID the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall).

The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens. The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed. [...]



With no signal on their radar screens, controllers did not realize that Flight 77 had reversed direction.



At 9:09 a.m., unable to reach the plane by radio, the Indianapolis controller reported a possible crash, sources said.



The first time that anyone became aware an aircraft was headed at high speed toward Washington was when the hijacked flight began descending and entered airspace controlled by the Dulles International Airport TRACON facility, an aviation source said.



The first Dulles controller noticed the fast-moving plane at 9:25 a.m. Moments later, controllers sounded an alert that an aircraft appeared to be headed directly toward the White House. It later turned and hit the Pentagon.

Unlike at least two of the other aircraft, whose pilots apparently held radios open so controllers could hear the hijackers, there was only silence from Flight 77.

Al Martin's book "The Conspirators" is a secret history of the late 20th century and an uncensored version of what really goes on in the back rooms of realpolitik brokers and go-fers. - In his book, Al writes that contrary to popular belief, ONI is the most powerful US intelligence agency. "The ONI already had a deep existing covert illegal structure. They had a mechanism before the CIA even existed. They had contacts in foreign intelligence services and in foreign governments that the CIA never could have hoped to obtain."



"The only people the CIA wouldn't step on to accomplish their aims was ONI. They would easily subvert an FBI or DEA investigation, but never ONI, because they were frightened of them." - "ONI is where the real deep control is. It's where the real deep secrets are kept. That was what ONI always did the best. Keeping secrets. Accumulating secrets. Warehousing secrets for the purposes of control."



"When I asked him 'what secrets?' he replied, "One thing I can tell you is the ONI was instrumental in dethroning former Mexican President Louis Portillo. Portillo got very friendly with George Bush and the CIA, and ONI had never alligned with the Bush faction. I know what people think, but that's not true. From what I can tell, it has never been aligned, but has always been hostile to that Eastern Country Club Bush Cabal and their friends in the CIA. The Bill Casey faction is the George Bush-Allen Dulles Faction."

So there is clearly a case to be made that the plane was [shot down by a U.S. military jet], and yet this theory leaves some evidence unexplained as well - including the phone calls from the soon-to-be counter-hijackers.



There is also the question of why this particular flight would have been targeted to the exclusion of the other three hijacked flights. It wasn't, after all, near any potential targets and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone but its passengers. Since that threat certainly wasn't alleviated by scattering the body parts of those same passengers over a Pennsylvania field, it makes little sense that flight 93 would be shot down while the others were allowed to fly unimpeded into the very symbols of U.S. economic and military power.



Some have argued that the U.S. government would have quickly taken credit if it had in fact ordered the downing of flight 93. Taking credit for shooting down what was essentially a guided missile, albeit a manned one, would offer Washington officials a chance to at least partially redeem themselves for failing to respond to the other three hijacked flights.



It appears then that there are arguments that could be made against either theory.



But what if the two theories are not mutually exclusive? What if we were to take a look at what happened to flight 93 from a slightly different perspective? What if we were to take the point of view that the events of September 11 were essentially an inside job - with U.S. military and intelligence services either directly complicit or, at the very least, turning a blind but knowing eye?



Then the shooting down of flight 93 raises another rather obvious question: why would the U.S. national security apparatus shoot down any of the four flights? Assuming that some General somewhere didn't get the hare-brained notion that it was actually his duty to defend the country against these attacks, why would a plane be shot down that was for all intents and purposes on a covert mission for the very people who would have ordered the downing of the aircraft?



If this were the case, then there would be only one reason for shooting the flight down: to destroy any and all evidence in the event that the mission became compromised for any reason.



And how, you may wonder, might the mission be compromised? One possible scenario could be if, say, the passengers were able to disarm the hijackers and take control of the plane? That would conceivably leave dozens of eyewitnesses to what really happened on those planes that fateful day. The contents of 'black boxes' can be suppressed quite easily; a parade of eyewitnesses, particularly eyewitnesses rightly viewed as American heroes, is another matter entirely.



As disturbing as it may be to contemplate, the answer to the question of what really happened to flight 93 could be that it was shot down precisely because the passengers were able to overpower the hijackers, or at least were making an attempt to do so. It could be that the very heroism for which they have been cynically praised by the Bush regime may have earned them a summary execution.

Reported by 9News Staff



Web produced by:Liz Foreman



9/11/01 11:43:57 AM



A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.



White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.



On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. "United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard



Reported by: 9News Staff



Web produced by: Liz Foreman 9/11/01 11:43:57 AM



This story has been removed from WCPO.com. It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect.

...something is odd with the serial numbers of Flight93 and Flight 175. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING. 591UA 612UA



Although N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer's serial number CANNOT be transferred. According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA. According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.

It has been suggested that the incredible feat of hijacking four aircraft without a single arrest at the gate would require the resources of a nation-state. [...] One company had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which hijacked planes departed on 9-11... An Israeli company. One that Mossad agents could easily find employment with without the management knowing who they were or what their purpose really was.



But one thing is clear. By virtue of the Odigo warning, someone knew enough about the planned attacks to warn Odigo before the planes had even departed the airport gates, yet they did not call the Israeli security company at the airports which could have stopped the flights from leaving. Think about that one for a while.

The official version of events included numerous reports of cellphone calls made from hijacked planes on 9/11. These reports lent credibility to the official 'Arab hijacker' story within hours of the attacks, in the most dramatic manner. Yet cell phone calls from fast-moving aircraft are not commonplace. The frequency and durations of the calls allegedly made on 9/11 stretch credulity. Is this the Achilles Heel of the Bush / CNN account of 9/11? [Physics 9-11 org]

1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northen Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight ( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11.



2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people.



3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commisssion said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers.



4 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT WARRIOR: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.



5 ) WARGAME EXERCISE NORTHERN GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.



At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen. Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began. NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips.



Cheney could. It is clear we know almost nothing about how 9/11 was executed. We should know it was an exceeding highly technological operation involving dozens of major projects each employing large resources.

The pilot had his last routine communication with the control tower at 8:50 a.m. "At 9:09 a.m., being unable to reach the plane by radar, the Indianapolis air controllers warned of a possible crash," the Washington Post reported. Vice-President Dick Cheney would later explain that the terrorists had "turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down over Ohio, but it really hadn't." [Meet the Press, NBC, 16 Sept 2001]On 12 September it was learned that the transponder had been cut off at about 8:55 a.m., rendering the plane invisible to civilian air controllers. During this period of invisibility, the plane was said to have made a U turn back to Washington. This is, of course, an assumption. The information that the plane turned around has no known source.The problem is: turning off the transponder, under the conditions that prevailed that day, would have been the best way of raising an alert.The procedures are very strict in the case of a problem with a transponder, both on civilian and military aircraft. The FAA regulations describe exactly how to proceed when a transponder is not functioning properly: the control tower should enter into radio contact at once with the pilot and, if it fails, immediately warn the military who would then send fighters to establish visual contact with the crew. [see FAA regulations: http://faa.gov/ATpubs The interruption of a transponder also directly sets off an alert with the military body responsible for air defenses of the United States and Canada, NORAD.The transponder is the plane's identity card. An aircraft that disposes of this identity card is IMMEDIATELY monitored, AUTOMATICALLY.Thus, according to the official version, considering the conditions that prevailed on September 11, 2001, the "terrorists" actually gave the alert that SHOULD have led to almost instant interception FORTY minutes before the plane struck the Pentagon.In certain regions, ari traffic contrllers do have radars, called "primaries," that are able to detect movement in the air. But, the radars they normally use are called "secondaries" and are limited to recording signals emitted by the transponders of airplanes which tell them the registration, altitude, etc. Turning off the transponder permits an aircraft to vanish from these "secondary" radars. Such an aircraft will only appear on "primary" radars. According to the FAA, the air traffic controllers did not have access to primary radars in Ohio.The only effect, then, of turning off the transponder at that precise point was to make the plane invisible to only CIVILIAN aviation authorities. One wonders how the "terrorists" knew that this act would make them invisible to the civilian air traffic controllers. Again, under the conditions prevailing that day, and as a general routine, turning off the transponder SHOULD have brought the aircraft to the direct attention and scrutiny of the Military Defense Systems of the United States AUTOMATICALLY. It is therefore a near certainty that, at all times, it was visible and monitored by the Military.According to the statement of General Myers, the military waited three quarters of an hour before ordering fighters to take off. [Senate hearing, 13 Sept. 2001]Two days later, on 15 September, NORAD issued a contradictory press release. It said that it hadn't been informed of the hijacking of flight 77 until 9:24 a.m. and had then immediately given orders to two F-16s to take off from Langley, 105 miles from the Pentagon, instead of Saint Andrews, only 10 miles from the Pentagon. They were in the air by 9:30, much too late... the object that impacted the Pentagon arrived at 9:37.This version puts all the blame on the FAA for waiting.But this is implausible due to the established procedures that were automatic.The question that needs to be asked, considering all that WAS known at that claimed "late moment" of awareness is: why were fighter jets sent instead of a missile?The fact is, independently of the interception of flight 77, the crisis situation that existed that day demanded maximum air defense protection over Washington. This activity would have fallen to Saint Andrews Air Force Base, just as General Eberhart, CO of NORAD had already activated the SCATANA plan and had taken control of the New York airspace in order to position fighters there.For the military, from the moment they were alerted of flight 77s disappearance, which was, indeed, the moment the transponders were turned off, and NOT when the FAA supposedly got around to calling them, it was not a question of speculating that they were dealing with a mechanical failure. The Facts on the Ground were rather precise: shortly after two airliners were flown into the WTC towers, the transponder of another plane was cut off and the pilot failed to respond to radio contact. The job of the military could not have been clearer: shoot down the plane that was claimed to have been headed for Washington.These facts show clearly that the U.S. Military had NO INTENTION of shooting down whatever was heading for the Pentagon despite the menace it represented.On 16 September 2001, Dick Cheney tried to justify the military's failure by claiming that the shooting down of a civilian airplane would be a "decision left up to the president." He played on the sympathy of the American people, saying that the president just couldn't take such a decision hastily because "the lives of American citizens were at stake."However, Cheney's claims are disingenuous. He equated the interception of the aircraft with the decision to shoot it down.Interception is merely establishing visual contact, giving orders with light signals, and being ready to take action. A shoot down means that the fighters are already positioned to receive the order.Further, it is incorrect that this decision can only be made by the President. The interception of a suspect civilian aircraft by fighters is automatic and does not require any kind of political decision making. It should have taken place on 11 September when the transponder was cut off. The fighters should have taken off immediately - unless they were ordered to "stand down."Again, let me reiterate the fact that the flight 77 was invisible ONLY to CIVILIAN aviation authorities. The fact that the transponders were turned off automatically alerts military air defense.Next problem: There are five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries in place to protect the Pentagon from an airborne attack. These anti-missile batteries operate automatically.Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Vic Warzinski claimed the military had not been expecting such an attack. This is not credible. Because the transponder had been turned off, the Pentagon knew full well where that aircraft was. Communications between civilian air traffic controllers and the various federal authorities functioned perfectly.At 9:25 a.m., the control tower at Dulles airport observed an unidentified vehicle speeding towards the restricted airspace that surrounds the capital. [Washington Post, 12 September, 2001] The craft was heading toward the White House. "All of a sudden, the plane turned away. ...This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital and to protect our president... We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. ... And then the Washington National controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, "Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit." [Danielle O'Brien, ABC News, 24 October 2001]The Army possesses several very sophisticated radar monitoring systems. the PAVE PAWS system is used to detect and track objects difficult to pick up such as missiles flying at very low altitudes. PAVE PAWS misses NOTHING occurring in North American airspace. "The radar system is capable of detecting and monitoring a great number of targets that would be consistent with a massive SLBM [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile] attack. The system is capable of rapidly discriminating between vehicle types, calculating their launch and impact points. [http://www/pavepaws.org/ and http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pave paws.htm]Thus, contrary to the Pentagon's claims, the military knew very well that an unidentified vehicle was headed straight for the capital. Yet, the military did not react, and the Pentagon's anti-missile batteries did not function.Why?Military aircraft and missiles possess transponders which are much more sophisticated than those of civilian planes. These transponders enable the craft to declare itself to the electronic eyes watching American airspace as either friendly or hostile. An anti-missile battery will not, for example, react to the passage of a "friendly missile," so that, in battlefield conditions, it is ensured that only enemy armaments and vehicles are destroyed.Thus, it seems that whatever hit the Pentagon MUST have had a military transponder signalling that it was "friendly" - i.e. it would take an American Military craft to penetrate the defenses of the Pentagon - or the anti-missile batteries would have been automatically activated.Strangely, the entire responsibility for air defense is attributed to NORAD, and that is simply not the truth.The National Military Command Center, located IN the Pentagon centralizes all information concerning plane hijackings and directs military operations. The NMCC was in a state of maximum alert on the morning of 11 September. The highest military authority of NMCC is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On 11 September, General Henry Shelton fulfilled this role. However, Shelton was en route for Europe, somewhere over the Atlantic. Thus, his job fell to his deputy, General Richard Myers who was hobnobbing with Senator Max Cleland at the time of the attacks.In short, the answers to what happened on that day devolve to claimed technical failures, coordination problems, temporary incapacity, absence of commanders, transfer of responsibility, and so on.That, of course, does not answer the question as to why the automatic systems in place did not work. Mike Ruppert has written that there were "military exercises" taking place that day suggesting that the automatic systems were temporarily turned off. If that is the case, then it is either the greatest coincidence in history that the same day was the day some crazy terrorists, planning from a cave in Afghanistan decided to attack America, or there is someone in the U.S. government who told them.In short, the Greatest Military machine on earth is obliged to declare itself the Most Incompetent. And because of its incompetence, thousands of American lives were lost and no one has been held accountable. At the same time, Draconian laws curtainling American freedoms have been passed to "make American Safe." The fact is, if the systems already in place had been online, there would not have been an attack on the second WTC Tower, much less the Pentagon.Considering all aspects of the problem suggests that the systems WERE operational... and the object that hit the Pentagon was "read" by the anti-missile batteries as "OURS."This series of comments was begun in September of 2002 when many readers of our website deluged us with emails asking what we thought about the evidence that a Boeing 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon. Up to that moment in time, there was no question in our minds that the events of 9-11 happened exactly as described by the media and the Bush Administration. Of course, we had certain ideas as to WHO was behind those events, but the important point is that we did not question the "facts on the ground" of the event.Certainly, because this was our "belief," we began to search for data with something of a bias. I was quite certain that the "no-Boeing" theory was designed to set up people who were asking "whodunnit" so that when the "proof of the Boeing" hitting the Pentagon was finally unveiled, everyone who suspected an "inside job" would look completely stupid and all such conspiracy theories would be thoroughly squashed thereby. In fact, I expected such a revelation daily and began to wonder what was really going on when it never came. Could it be possible that there was NO proof that a Boeing hit the Pentagon?I also did not consider it within the realm of possibility that such a "switch" could have been perpetrated upon the American public, much less the media. Surely no criminal element within our own governent would be crazy enough to launch a Drone plane packing a missile and try to pass it off as a Boeing and expect to get away with it! What a lunatic idea!And so, it was with such ideas in mind that I began to research the issue. I has now been over two and a half years, and still no proof of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon has been dramatically unveiled. What is more, we recently (Jan. 2005) received information that the REASON for the initial claims that there was no Boeing was due to the fact that satellite images of what really DID hit the Pentagon were taken by satellites belonging to other governments. Up to this point in time, these images have been withheld mainly because "mutual blackmail" at the highest levels of power is the norm. But what we have learned is that these images have been circulated among certain foreign intell groups with, shall we say, planned leaks. After learning of these images from a very trustworthy source who, for obvious reasons, cannot be named, I realized that the stakes of the game are a lot higher than anyone imagines.Certainly, anyone who approaches this subject and suggests anything other than the accepted media/government version is going to be accused of being a " conspiracy theorist ." I need to state for the record that I have spent 30 years studying psychology, history, culture, religion, myth and the paranormal. I also have worked for many years with hypnotherapy - which gives me a very good mechanical knowledge of how the mind/brain of the human being operates at very deep levels. This leads me to certain facts about the human mind that I don't think the average person knows. These facts are illustrated by the following story about hypnosis:A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.Guess what happened?He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego is established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe. This is "transference." We transfer our desire/need to please our parents to our society, even our government.Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.Realities, objective, subjective, or otherwise, are a touchy subject. Suffice it to say that years of work inside the minds of all kinds of people has taught me that we almost never perceive reality as it truly IS.In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the " official culture " - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. In the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.Let's face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition, or the cuckold husband who is the "last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.I am not surprised at the state of denial of the majority of human beings. It is the cultural norm. I am also not surprised at the projection of their discomfort onto those who ask uncomfortable questions by accusing them of being "conspiracy theorists."Now that the reader has some idea that they are probably going to deny nearly everything that I am going to say, let us move to the "context" that I believe may be important to the events of 9-11. The context is that the term "conspiracy theory" has been tootled for a number of years in such a way that the mere pronouncing of the words acts to turn off the thinking capacities of the average American. It is almost as effective as pronouncing any criticism of Israeli government to be anti-Semitic.The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy theorist." It just isn't "acceptable." It's "un-scientific" or it's evidence of mental instability. Right? That's what you are thinking, isn't it?In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves.studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:Now, think about the word "conspiracy" one more time and allow me to emphasize the key point: From a historical point of view, the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.And how do they do that? By "official culture."And official culture, understood this way, from the perspective of elite groups wishing to maintain the status quo of their power, means only one thing: COINTELPRO. And here we do not necessarily mean the specific FBI program, but the concept of the program and its application in our society, and the likelihood that this has been the mode of controlling human beings for possibly millennia. Certainly, Machiavelli outlined the principles a very long time ago and little has changed since.The fact is, it is almost a mechanical system that operates based on the psychological nature of human beings, most of whom LIKE to live in denial or need to live in denial to please their parents, their peers, their religious leaders, and their political leaders. After all, "if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." This is most especially true when we consider the survival instinct of the ego. If the official culture says that there is no Third Man in the room, and if it works through the inculcated belief systems, there is little possibility that the "subject" will be able to see the source of the phenomena in our world. It will always be an "invisible Third Man."Consider this also: even if Dolan is writing specifically about America, in a world dominated by the United States, it must be considered that pressures are applied elsewhere from within this "National Security State" to comply with the demands of the US.The reader might wish to have a look at Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements where they will learn that "ethnic Jews have a powerful influence in the American media - far larger than any other identifiable group. The extent of Jewish ownership and influence on the popular media in the United States is remarkable given the relatively small proportion of the population that is Jewish."In other words, Israel is in control of the means of creating the "official culture" of America to suit its own agenda, including making the terms "conspiracy theory" and "anti-Semitic" such horrible epithets that no one would dare to speak anything that might put them at risk of be so branded!So wrote Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking CIA official, in his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. This is the first book the U.S. Government ever went to court to censor before publication. In this book, Marchetti tells us that there IS a "Cabal" that rules the world and that its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Paraphrasing, Marchetti:Remember: those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo and the way this is done is via "official culture" which is a product of COINTELPRO.The most effective weapon of COINTELPRO is Ridicule and Debunking. Notice that Marchetti points out that this is done via manipulation of individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media.Bottom line is: if you have bought into the emotionally manipulated consensus of "official culture" that there are no conspiracies, that there is no "Third Man," it is very likely that you are being manipulated by fear of ridicule. You are in denial. You have been hypnotized by the suggestions of the holy men of the Secret Cult. And you have chosen to believe them over your own possible observations and senses.From an "Expert" on Lies:Now, let me back up a bit. On September 14, 2001 - just a few days after the Terrorist Attack - I read a curious article on a Russian News Site , www.strana.ru, that caught my attention and left me feeling strangely uneasy. It was an interview with a former Russian high official and specialist in Russian secret services which was translated for us by a reader who sent it in, and I am going to reproduce it as I read it with underlinings and other emphases that I have added to show those points that struck me as most interesting:Now, remember, this interview with an intelligence expert took place just a few days after the 9-11 attacks. Several points in this article started me to thinking. Those points are as follows: the attacks were carried out against civilians, targets that are highly symbolic to the ordinary American. In other words, the American people were the real targets, but not in the way that is usually thought. It was intended to make every single American full of fear and outrage so that whoever came along as a "strong man" pointing a finger at culprits and declaring that he was gonna go after them, would be able to do anything he wanted to do. And that is exactly what George W. Bush did. The Russian intell guy said that it was obvious that the attacks were carried out by a very "powerful organization" that wishes to blame Moslems - to create a false trail - for these attacks. And he also noted that, because the attacks were so carefully planned, it was obvious that the planners would be too smart to be noticed - and certainly much too smart to leave clues lying about such as passports and "how to fly" videos in Arabic. Indeed, the passports and videos were dead giveaways to the fact that they were planted so as to falsely blame the act on Islamic terrorists.Another thing that struck me rather forcibly was his remark that Israeli reconnaissance carried out studies through the use of aerial targets for conducting terrorism followed by his assertion that "It is certain that the Americans had access to these studies."So, I began to think about what this intell guy was saying a bit more deeply despite the fact that he confidently assured his interviewer that no "national service" did this.(Regarding the KGB guy's remark above about the shooting down of the fourth hijacked plane, see: video clip: How the authorities responded: A concise analysis of the events from http://www.itn.co.uk/news/ondemand/video/ This Russian intell expert aksed the loaded question: "How could the special services OF THE USA fail to detect such a terrorist act?"This assessment struck me as one of the more intelligent bits of commentary about the 9-11 attacks to come out AT THE TIME, emerging through the hysterical rants about Osama and those nasty Muslims like a small island of sanity.What I found to be most interesting was exactly WHO was most vigorously pointing the finger at Radical Islam: a veritable Greek Chorus led by a former cheerleader, our own George Bush and the Warmongers.When we look at the fact that, from the very beginning, this event has been compared to " Pearl Harbor ," we have to wonder if this is a sort of "signature?"I remember back in 1986, when I came across the documented evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was known to the United States well before it happened. I was shocked. Not only did the government do nothing to prevent it, they did not even warn those who were going to be attacked. The loss of American lives was horrendous. And the blame lies on the doorstep of the leaders of America. There is even evidence that they deliberately manipulated the situation, at the highest levels, to ensure that the attack would take place.Why?Well, to get the United States into the war, of course. War is big business. Whenever you have a slow economy, a little war-mongering is always the answer. In ancient times, it was the business of the day: go to war, kill the men, capture the women and the wealth of the enemy, and go home until you have spent it all and gotten tired of the women, and then go out and do it over again. Even Herodotus understood this to be the reason for war. And human beings haven't changed at all - at least not those who seek power positions.Is it possible that the government of our country had an inkling that the events of 9-11 were going to happen?After examining all the evidence available, indeed, that seems to be true.And if so, is it possible that they did nothing?Again, that seems to be true as well. And when they did finally wake up from their war games and school reading classes, the only thing they did do was the exact opposite of trying to get to the bottom of the matter, trying to find the real culprits, and instead, went after the False Flag clues that were left to lead everyone astray and denied anyone the right to question the conclusions that they propagandized so vigorously.Well, sure, such clues might lead the average citizen astray. They might not be aware of what are called "False Flag operations." They aren't educated in the ways of intelligence and don't know about all the evil manipulations that go on all the time in the world of spy vs. spy.But surely, the president of the Greatest Nation on Earth is not going to be taken in by such blatant nonsense as a "how to fly" video in Arabic, is he?Apparently so.So here we have an administration not acting when and how it ought to act, either before or after the attack.Is this a coincidence?We read endless reports of this spreading like wildfire over the web. A dozen or more commentators of great or lesser prestige simply do not believe in the "failure of intelligence" that is the administrations answer to why and how George and Co got caught with their pants down. Many, many people are certain that the government not only knew about the attack, but that they condoned it for their own nefarious purposes; that it is the new Pearl Harbor or even Hitler's Reichstag fire.So, we have two opposing forces here: the administration supported by the mass media, against a growing percentage of the population that claims that there was no failure of intelligence, that the government deliberately condoned or even participated in this attack, and that it is part of a planned schedule to impose a One World Government on all of us, to abridge our freedoms, and entrap us in a fascist state.On their side, George Bush and his administration say that we have to accept some new, restrictive laws to make us "safe" (never mind that the INTELL was available, and it was the government that failed to heed the intell and make America safe), make some significant changes in the way the country does business, and most definitely, we need a little war here and there to level things out again (not to mention the economy.) And all of the Joe Sixpak's of the world may be buying it. All the grandmother Sally Stockmarketinvestors are sitting at home, glued to their televisions, hoping that Uncle Sam will take charge here, nuke the Afghanis, give Saddam a major spanking, wipe out the Iraqis, and anybody who ever helped them, and pass all the laws necessary to ensure the safety of this great nation. Never mind if that includes moving to a cashless society and implanting micro-chips under the skin so that everyone will be trackable so as to ensure that they aren't committing terrorist acts on their lunch break.There's a saying attributed to Franklin Roosevelt: "In politics, nothing happens by accident, if it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Maybe he really said it, maybe he didn't. Whether he did or not, anyone who studies history deeply can figure out that it comes pretty close to the truth. I also once had a conversation with a fellow who was trained in military intelligence and he told me that one of the first rules of intell is to observe the situation AS IT IS, and extrapolate to who will gain from it. So these two principles were uppermost in my mind as I was considering all the data. Clearly, the attacks on 9-11 are "political events."The situation at present is a bit complex. But we notice that it has only become complex AFTER the fact. It is only the wild speculations and constant playing of agendas and counter-agendas that has tended to obscure the basic essentials of the matter. There are groups that go on and on about a "flash of light" that was emitted between the two airliners that crashed into the WTC, and this proves there was some sort of missile fired. That's an interesting idea, but it really doesn't even make it to "theory" status because there are other possible explanations for such a flash, including a discharge of electricity between the plane and the building as soon as it is close enough to be "grounded".There are groups that make a big deal about supposed "pods" under the aircraft that hit the WTC. We can pretty easily dispose of that one by carefully examining photos of the underside of that particular type of aircraft.Then, there's the group that takes the cake, in my opinion: the "hologram" people. That is about the silliest thing going. That is not to say that I don't think that hologram technology exists, that it might be used in a number of ways, but I don't think that holograms photograph too well since they are produced by light and there are the endlessly repeating videos of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center Towers.So, let's go back to ground zero of the present situation and look at the event itself, by itself, and ask the first important question: Who benefits?It's easy to see that the Military-Industrial Complex in America has been the primary beneficiary along with Israel. Actually, the two are almost one creature, so it's hard to think of them as separate entities. It could be suggested that, by focusing the anger of the citizens of the United States against the Moslems, Israel has powerful backing for their expansionist goals, and with much of the MIC in their pockets, they have the money to do what they want to do: the money of the American tax payer.We also observe the events in Israel during the months prior to the WTC attack: many people were withdrawing their support from Israel and there was a growing feeling of dis-ease among the peoples of many countries, that Israel was simply going too far in its actions against the Palestinians. Everyone was getting tired of the constant harassment of the Palestinians, of the constant attacks against anyone who said a single word against Israel's political ambitions; who - if they did not support every single thing said and done by Israel - were flamed as "antisemitic."In short, Israel was losing its grip on the collective guilt of the world. Sympathies were turning against them, and toward the Palestinians.So, after those nasty Islamic fundies attacked America, Isreal had the biggest bully on the global block on their side. With the repeating rants of how evil Muslims are, how fanatical they are, how cruel and unusual they are, the whole rest of the world had better fall in line with Israel's thinking and help them find the "final solution" for Palestine and those other A-rabs.Gee, shades of Nazi Germany going after the Jews!Thus we see that the main "benefit" of the WTC attack falls, primarily, to Israel.There is compelling hard evidence to support this view. Let's take a look:Hmmm... I guess that the Bush Gang didn't read that particular item of Intell. They were too busy reading the "cooked intell" that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Alone, the quote form the Army School wouldn't mean much, but as things developed after Sept. 11, 2001, more pieces were added to the puzzle. It wasn't until June 2 of 2003 that the picture began to make sense. On that day, I was scanning the news reports and came across a rather mundane item that really got me to thinking. Read my article: MOSSAD and Moving Companies for details. This collection of data (believe me, there is a TON of material out there on this subject) does seem to support the idea that MOSSAD may, indeed, have been deeply involved in the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and that the Bush Reich was not only complicit in ordering the U.S. military and intelligence services to "stand down," but that they were directly involved in the plot as the evidence of the link between Bob Graham and Mahmoud Ahmad demonstrates.Now, let's get down to brass tacks here.The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center were followed live on television by hundreds of millions of people around the world. Everyone was shocked by the horror of the attack. TV networks broadcast the videos of the attacks over and over again with very little reporting since no one really knew what to say; it was just too shocking and unexpected. All the while the attack was being shown repeatedly, there was no explanation of the events because no one knew any details.During the next few days, bits and pieces information were released to the press by government officials, reports were issued and retracted, and most news focus was concentrated on the frenzy of rescue efforts. Over the next few months, more information was released in bits and pieces, but again, few people were paying any attention to the data because, by then, the shock had turned into terror.The meta-facts are that several thousand people died in America on September 11, 2001, and the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as a result, killing hundreds of thousands more human beings, including killing or permanently maiming many thousands of its own citizens.The events of 9-11, however, are still a confusing morass of contradiction that has only been exacerbated by the so-called official 9-11 Report. Nevertheless, the public of the United States have been, for the most part, accepting of the "official culture" version of the attacks. The claim that "National Security" requires the authorities to conceal much of the data about this crime is accepted almost without question. It is actually quite amazing how LITTLE the average American really knows about the events of that day even if you restrict your definition of "events" to what was reported by the media.The most troubling fact of all is that the Official Version gleaned from the news reports and information released by government officials does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.What bothers me most of all is, considering the fact that the attacks on 9-11 were about the most audacious crime in American History, there was no proper forensic investigation. There was no Sherlock Holmes on hand to use his magnifying glass and his great knowledge of different kinds of cigarette ash; there was no Hercule Poirot called in to exercise his little gray cells; there was no Columbo bumbling about with his seemingly innocuous questions that annoy the heck out of the perpetrators. (This was also the case with the assassination of JFK. The crime scene was so thoroughly violated before a proper investigation took place that there was no possibility of finding the facts.)You would think that, in the alleged greatest and most powerful nation on Earth that the investigation would have been the most thorough and scientific ever conducted.But that isn't the case.Although the terror attacks of September 11 were clearly criminal acts of mass murder, no effort was made to preserve the integrity of the crime scenes and the essential evidence was disposed of like garbage. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani hired two large British construction management firms to oversee what many experts consider to be massive criminal destruction of evidence. The editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, William A. Manning, issued an urgent call to action to America's firefighters at the end of 2001, calling for a forensic investigation and demanding that the steel from the site be preserved to allow investigators to determine what caused the collapse. Have a look here for some comments about the destruction of evidence and evidence of destruction.Just for the exercise, let's assume that the conspiracy theorists are correct and the government is lying and covering up the truth of the attacks on 9-11 either in whole or in part. Without any real evidence, without any real impartial investigation, what do we have to go on?Admittedly, not much other than to observe the behaviors of all the parties before, during and after the event. But even though we have very little in the way of forensic evidence, we can still assert:Contrary to those who claim that there were no real passenger jets at all, that it was all a hologram, it seems rather clear that actual commercial jets hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center exactly as described by the many witnesses and as confirmed by government officials. It was on film, and we simply cannot refute that in my opinion. It happened, and everyone saw it.But that does not mean that a commercial Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.Why do I say that?Because the fact that large commercial jets were SEEN to hit the World Trade Center, over and over again on TV could very easily have "conditioned" the public to believe that the same type of craft hit the Pentagon when they were told that this was the case by government officials, backed up by "witnesses" who also happened to be government officials.Brain studies show that what is suggested during a period of pain or shock becomes MEMORY. The brain sort of "traps" the ideas being assimilated at times of pain and shock into permanent "synaptic patterns of thought/memory."The conditions surrounding the events of 9-11 were perfect for creating specific impressions and memories - manipulation of the minds of the masses by shocking events and media spin.So, since we have video images of commercial jetliners hitting the World Trade Center towers film, it is certain that this is what happened. The issue of the collapse of the buildings is different and most certainly does suggest prior planning to ensure that the buildings would not survive the impact, and that the collapse would be dramatic and shocking.We now turn to the strike against the Pentagon. This one is a bit more problematical.Reuters news agency was first on the scene of the Pentagon attack. Based on the information they gathered there from eyewitnesses, they announced that the Pentagon had suffered damage from a helicopter explosion. Associated Press confirmed this with Democratic Party consultant, Paul Begala.Shortly afterward, the Department of Defense said that a plane was involved. New "eyewitnesses" came forward that contradicted the first ones that now supported the "official version."Fred Hay, assistant to Senator Bob Ney, was the first to claim that he saw a Boeing aircraft fall as he was driving down the highway next to the Pentagon. Senator Mark Kirk claimed that he was leaving the Pentagon parking lot after breakfast with Donald Rumsfeld, and he declared that a large plane had crashed into the Pentagon.It was several hours before the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, declared that the "suicide plane" was the Boeing 757, AA flight 77 which had taken off from Dulles airport in Washington D.C. bound for L.A., and which had been lost to air traffic controllers at 8:55 a.m.The air traffic controllers said that, at 8:55 a.m., the Boeing flight 77 descended to 29,000 feet and did not respond to their instructions. It's transponder then went silent. They assumed electrical failure. The pilot was not responding to them, but apparently was able to intermittantly turn on his radion which allowed them to hear a voice with a strong Arab accent threatening him. The plane then made a turn "back toward Washington" and after that, all trace was lost.The air traffic controllers notified FAA headquarters that a hijacking was suspected. The FAA staff said that, in the midst of the panic of that day, they just thought this message was another notification concerning the second plane that hit the WTC. It was only a half hour later that they realized it was, in fact, a third plane. That is to say, at about 9:24 they knew they had a third problem.On September 13, General Myers was unable to give a report to the Senate on defensive measures taken to intercept this Boeing. Based on his testimony, the Senate Armed Services Committee determined that no attempt at interception had taken place.NORAD immediately jumped up and said "Not so!" They issued a press release the next day stating that it only received the warning of the third hijacking at 9:24 and had most definitely immediately ordered two F-16's from Langley AFB in Virginia to intercept Flight 77. BUT, they claimed that the Air Force did not know its location and went in the wrong direction! Apparently, a military transport taking off from Saint Andrews Presidential bas happened to spot the Boeing by chance, but by then, it was too late.A Boeing 757-200 measures 155 feet long and has a wingspan of 125 feet. Fully loaded, it weighs 115 tons and cruises at 560 miles per hour.So, this last claim above is simply not plausible. We are expected to believe that the U.S. military radar system could not locate a Boeing within a range of only a few dozen miles? The military radar of the most powerful nation on earth? And further, that said Boeing - a flying whale - could outmaneuver and elude two fighter jets???!!It is known that the security arrangements that protect Washington were revised after a plane managed to land on the White House lawn in 1994. It is also known that those security arrangements, while mostly secret, include five batteries of anti-aircraft missiles installed on top of the Pentagon and fighters stationed at Saint Andrews. Yet, we are expected to believe that "The Pentagon simply was not aware" that a hijacked Boeing was headed its way? That "no one expected anyting like that here?"Essentially, the headquarters of the most powerful nation on earth had been helpless to defend itself.Strangely enough, the reports of odd happenings at the Pentagon kept coming in until late in the day:Members of the press were kept away from the scene for the ostensible reason that they might "hinder rescue operations." However, the Associated Press obtained photos taken by a private individual from a nearby building. It is due to those photos that the biggest questions about the strike on the Pentagon are raised.After all of this confusion, it was finally announced that, according to officials, the explosion at the Pentagon was caused when American Airlines Flight 77, a 100 ton Boeing 757 commercial airliner, crashed at ground level into the only section of the building that was being renovated to be more "blast resistant" and which housed the fewest amount of employees in it. Flight 77 was allegedly hijacked by five Arab Islamic terrorists on an apparent suicide mission killing all 64 people on board. Officials claim the the flight recorders from Flight 77 and the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board where found at the crash scene.First of all, we should consider the "mindset" of terrorists who would want to inflict the most damage possible. Certainly, if a Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization managed to get hold of a plane, and then get it into range of the Pentagon, what a great coup that would be! Imagine! Being able to completely destroy the nerve center of the hated "Satan" which is, by the way, how these fundamentalists view the U.S.Okay, so these alleged terrorists managed to destroy the "commercial symbol" of the United States, or so we are told. And now we see that they also had other objects in their sights - the symbol of the United Military Supremacy. We are told that they had flying skills to beat the band and yet, somehow they missed their chance. They hit that part of the Pentagon that was least occupied?What?Yup.Just consider this: In order to cause the greatest damage to the Pentagon, the plane should have dived right into the Pentagon's roof. The building is a pretty big target; it covers a surface area of 29 acres, and this would have been an easy "hit". Instead, what actually happens makes no sense at all from the perspective of terrorists - we are assuming real "freedom hating" terrorists here - who now have their chance to do some real damage: they chose to strike a single facade, the height of which was only 80 feet instead of getting a bull's eye on that 29 acre target? Huh? What is up with that? Terrorists that can fly a 757 like a barrel racer rides a horse, and they opted for minimal damage?Sorry, doesn't compute.The alleged Boeing, purported to be in the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists with burning hatred in their heart of the United States and "its freedoms," with unerring accuracy, steered said flying whale into a flight path as though they were going to land on the Pentagon lawn. While remaining horizontal, this amazing Boeing came down almost vertically, and struck the Pentagon at the height of the ground floor. What is more, it managed to do this without even ruffling the grass of the Pentagon's immaculate lawn. And then, despite its weight and forward momentum, the plane only destroyed a small section of the first ring of the building.What is more, these deadly terrorists with race car driving skills that sacrificed their lives to hit the Pentagon in such a way that only a small section was damaged, and it happened to be a section that was undergoing renovation and many of the offices of that section were unoccupied! What I do find interesting is that the Navy's brand new Command Center was destroyed.Early press reports claimed 800 deaths at the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld did not correct this grossly exaggerated figure the following day when it was certainly known.The shock of the impact was felt throughout the entire building. 125 people in the Pentagon lost their lives, to which should be added the 64 people aboard the Boeing which can carry 269 passengers. In other words, it was almost empty.I could go on, but there are many other websites that cover the details of that day in very competent ways not to mention the dozens of websites that only add to the confusion. At the present moment, I am of the opinion that a Boeing 757 most definitely did not hit the Pentagon, that the object that struck the Pentagon WAS different from the commercial jetliners that were clearly seen to fly into the World Trade Center Towers.Now, let's move on to the "How did they do it?" question.I once spoke at length with an individual who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. His job was to "program" missiles - VERY smart ones. Even though it was his job, he was completely astonished at their capabilities. He said: "They can be programmed to go down the street just above the ground, turn right or left at a cross street, and hit the designated building at the exact floor, even the exact window, that you tell them to hit!" He then said that he was exaggerating, but not much, and he was describing it this way just to emphasize for me the capability of modern guidance systems.Now, that's amazing.But let me make this perfectly clear: I don't think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.The point of mentioning the smart missiles in use during Gulf War I is to bring up the subject of the guidance system. We notice in the above reports that the circumstances of the strike even led some witnesses to describe what hit the Pentagon as a helicopter!But there were so many reports of a plane that I think we should assume that it was a plane, even if it was a plane that could "fly like a helicopter."Once I realized that the descripton of the smart bomb maneuvers exactly fits what happened at the Pentagon, the question that I asked myself was: Could such a guidance system be used in a plane? Even commercial jetliners?According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the "smart missile guidance system." Now have a look at he " Universal Pilot Replacement Program " and take note of just what this handy gadget can do! It even shows diagrams of maneuvers of exactly the kind we are talking about! (Do go and read the technical paper to assure yourself of the possibility that such a guidance system was, indeed, available and does, indeed, describe exactly the behavior of this anomalous 757.)The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action - repeated that something smaller than a 757 was seen to strike the Pentagon.This certainly creates some confusion. What can we make of it? Can the early witnesses be trusted more than the ones who came forward later, after having watched the shocking impact of commercial jetliners on the World Trade Center, over and over and over again on television and after hearing the repeated assurances that a Boeing hit the Pentagon as well? We must certainly consider that it is altogether possible that such repeated exposure to the WTC event by the media could create certain synaptic maps of the event that were then overlaid on the Pentagon event by simple suggestion. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote:Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh," just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way.Another problem with this part of the story is the following comments from a resident of the DC area:The exhaust of those huge engines - that would necessarily be scraping the ground if they are hitting light poles - is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget.You might want to take a look at the engine of this plane...there's 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth.Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.All of this is interesting, but it only adds to the confusion. We can't make too much of the various witness accounts. But let's look at still another report In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet.The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite d