9/11: Ghost Planes

How Controlled Explanations Are Achieved — PaulCraigRoberts.org

Paul Craig Roberts

In 2014 Progressive Press published a book by a French author, Laurent Guyenot, titled JFK-9/11: 50 Years of Deep State. The book contains much interesting reporting that shows that the official explanations we are given about even major events, such as the assassination of a President and 9/11, are transparently false. Yet, these transparently false explanations are hard to challenge despite all available evidence being against the explanations.

Reviewing such a book is a challenge that I avoided by securing permission to reprint two chapters from the book. One chapter, “Ghost planes,” deals with the mystery of the four allegedly hijacked airliners. No trace of the one that allegedly hit the Pentagon has ever been found, and the many videos of the event remain under lock and key. No trace of the one that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania has ever been found. Neither has any trace of the two that allegedly hit the two World Trade Center towers ever been found, although an unburnt passpost was allegedly found in the ruins of two massive buildings.

Readers might remember that I raised the question why we did not hear demands for explanations from the families of the victims of the four destroyed airliners like we did from the families whose relatives were in the twin towers. Guyenot reports that of the alleged casualties of AA77 “only five of these have relatives who received the 9-11 Compensation Fund offered by the State. . . . no family of the victims of Flight UA93 requested compensation.”

How can this be?

The other chapter, “The Art of the Patsy,” shows that the key to the ability of the authorities to control the explanation is to have an explanation of the event ready at hand. No one expected President Kennedy’s assassination or he wouldn’t have been riding in a convertible. Yet it was instantly known that Oswald was the assassin. The explanation for 9/11 was also instantaneous. It was CIA-asset Osama bin Laden, who was dying from renal failure and no longer useful to the CIA.
If you find Guyenot interesting, you might want to read his book. What Guyenot shows us is that what the CIA has schooled the dumbshit presstitute media to ridicule as “conspiracy theory” is indeed a conspiracy, a real one usually involving the CIA.

Sorry. The images didn’t transfer.

Ghost Planes

The government’s narrative on 9/11 says that the Boeing 757 of Flight UA93 (from New Jersey to San Francisco) crashed at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after the passengers fought the hijackers and prevented them from flying the aircraft into the White House or Camp David. But in the images of the impact site released on the same day, it is impossible to distinguish any wreckage of an airliner; even the reporters who had rushed to the scene were perplexed. The first to arrive there, Jon Meyer of WJAC-TV, an NBC affiliate in Pennsylvania, declared: “I was able to get right up to the edge of the crater. […] All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. Nothing that would even tell you that it was the plane. […] There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts.” The Mayor of Shanksville, Ernie Stull, early on the scene with his sister and a friend, declared in March 2003: “Everyone was puzzled, because the call had been that a plane had crashed. But there was no plane. […] Nothing. Only this hole.”

[Image LG17-1 Shanksville]
Photographer Scott Spangler recalls his surprise when looking at the crash scene of UA93: “I didn’t think I was in the right place. I was looking for a wing or a tail. There was nothing, just this pit.”

The Boeing 757 of Flight AA77 (from Washington to Los Angeles) that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon also could not be found. French journalist Thierry Meyssan was the first to draw conclusions in 9/11: The Big Lie, a dissenting investigation published in March 2002 based on pictures from the Department of Defense and Associated Press. The lawn before the crash site was immaculate, the two or three pieces of debris that could be seen were ridiculously small, and could not be identified as belonging to a Boeing. The reporter Jamie McIntyre of CNN, who arrived at the Pentagon an hour after the crash, was perplexed: “From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. […] the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.”

[Image LG17-2 Pentagon lawn]
Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski of the U.S. Air Force, who was on the scene within minutes after the explosion at the Pentagon, reported: “I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact—no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. […] all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.”

Was the plane buried deep into the building? No photo taken inside the crash site shows even the slightest credible scrap of a plane, and witnesses say that they did not see anything that would suggest an airplane. April Gallop was in her office with her son of two months, 10 or 15 meters from the impact zone. She felt an explosion, and then the ceiling fell in on her; in making her way towards the exit with her child, she saw nothing that made her think that a plane had crashed, “no wreckage, no airplane fragments, no engines, no seats, no luggage, no fuselage sections with rows of windows, and especially, no blazing quantities of burning jet fuel.”

[Image LG17-3 Does not fit]
“I look at the hole in the Pentagon, and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon, and I say: the plane does not fit in that hole. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?” (General Albert Stubblebine, head of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984).

Did Flight 77 just vanish? Did the fire, hardly noticeable in the photos, melt its hundred tons of metal, as was suggested by the government? If that were in fact the case, how did they manage to identify all the passengers through their fingerprints and DNA analysis, as has been claimed? (None of the allegedly dead bodies, by the way, has been identified by a relative: they were all transferred to a military base, where they were incinerated.)

[Image LG17-4 Pentagon hole]
We are asked to believe that the plastic nose of a Boeing 757 made this hole after going through five other reinforced concrete walls, as Rumsfeld himself announced on Good Morning America (ABC), September 13. It resembles rather the damage done by a shell with a hollow charge, designed to perforate such walls.

The recordings of 85 video cameras, either placed at the Pentagon or in the general vicinity, were seized by government agents, but no recognizable image of the aircraft was made public. Only one sequence was released by court order in May 2006, and it includes four images that show an object exploding as it hits the Pentagon, but they do little to suggest that it is an airplane that caused the blast. Curiously, the film is dated September 12, not 11. According to some experts, the yellow light emitted by the explosion in the images could not have been caused by jet fuel, and neither can the odor of cordite (an explosive made from nitroglycerine, nitrocellulose and nitroguanidine) that some Pentagon employees have reported.

Professional pilots united around Rob Balsamo as part of Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analyzed the trajectory of Flight AA77 provided by the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) and demonstrated that it was physically impossible for a Boeing airliner. The aircraft descended in an extremely perilous spiral maneuver, finally hitting the second floor of the west façade horizontally, without hitting the turf in front of the building. It is impossible, since at such low altitude and high speed, such a plane loses all of its lift. And even if it were possible, the feat would have been beyond the capacity of Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of the aircraft. A few months before September 11th, Hanjour was written up for incompetence by his Arizona flight school JetTech, who then called for the withdrawal of his license. An instructor at JetTech is quoted in the New York Times, April 5, 2002 saying: “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.” The other supposed hijackers in the plane were no better: Nawaq al-Hazmi and Khaid al-Mihdhar’s instructor in San Diego declared to the Washington Post (September 24, 2001): “Their English was horrible, and their mechanical skills were even worse. […] It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car.”

[Image LG17-5 Mubarak]
In a CNN interview on September 15, 2001, then again on BBC on September 19th, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak questioned the official U.S. explanation regarding 9/11. As a fighter pilot, he said in a later article, “I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil.” Mubarak would soon pay the price.

Air defense is the responsibility of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), and in particular its NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector) department. NORAD had successfully intercepted 67 planes throughout the twelve months preceding September 11, 2001, each time in less than twenty minutes. Intercept tactics are triggered at the slightest alarm, as part of precautionary measures. Even if we assume that NORAD could not have intercepted Flights AA11 and UA175 before they crashed into the Twin Towers, it is incomprehensible that it could not intercept Flight AA77, which supposedly crashed 50 minutes later into the Pentagon, the most secure building in the world. Something or somebody must have deliberately prevented normal procedure, as Robert Bowman, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force, has assumed: “If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”

Contradicting Condoleezza Rice and President Bush, who declared in 2002 that no one could have predicted this kind of attack, USA Today revealed on April 18, 2004 that NORAD was conducting, four times a year since 1999, military drills—or war games—that involved aircraft hijacked by terrorists and directed against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. With these new facts, the rather shallow excuses for American air defense ineffectiveness on September 11 were turned on their head: it was then explained that on that very day, NORAD was occupied with five military exercises, three of which, under the names of Vigilant Guardian, Global Guardian, and Vigilant Warrior, were simulated hijackings, both with real and virtual flights. Consequently, according to Colonel Robert Marr, head of NEADS, as many as twenty-nine “hijacked planes” were on the radar screens at NORAD on that day. According to Lieutenant Colonel Dwane Deskins, head of Vigilant Guardian quoted in an article in the Syracuse Post-Standard on January 20, 2002, everyone concerned at NEADS initially thought that the announcement of the hijacking of Flight AA11 was part of the ongoing military exercises.

This aspect of the case is crucial to understanding the unfolding of the attacks on September 11th. As explains Captain Eric May, a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Army, “the easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out.” Once the exercise is fully developed, it will require nothing more but to change a single parameter to turn the operation from simulated to real. Those who plan and oversee the drill are not necessarily those who hijack it to turn it into real. Most participants in the 9/11 synthetic terror act, accustomed to obey military orders and the established “rules of the (war) game,” perform their appointed mission without knowing that the attack will turn out to be “real”. When they realize what they have been involved in, they simultaneously grasp the danger of raising objections; they themselves have been framed. As in the Kennedy assassination, military discipline is the key to ensuring the necessary silence of all unwilling, or unknowing participants.

[Image LG17-6 Peter Power]
Hours after the London bombings of July 6, 2005 (claimed by an improbable “Secret Al-Qaeda in Europe”), Peter Power, a former Scotland Yard official turned manager of a private security company, revealed on BBC Radio 5, then again on ITV News, that he was conducting on that very morning, for a private company of the City, a simulation employing one thousand persons, “based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning.” “So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from ‘fictional’ to ‘real’.” The website of his company Visor Consultants emphasizes that the crisis drills they design aspire to be “Making the scenario come alive and be as realistic as possible.” It would be foolish to think that Power has made a blunder by his revelation; he probably saved his life.

All things considered, it is highly doubtful whether any of the airline flights reportedly hijacked on 9/11 were involved in the attacks. The Bureau of Transportation, which holds precise records of all flights, has no trace of Flight AA77 on September 11th; it was not planned at Dulles Airport that day, and its takeoff was not recorded. As for Flight UA93, it doesn’t normally circulate Tuesdays, but as an exception, it had taken passengers initially planned for Flight UA91, which had been canceled due to a “crack in the windshield.” This flight was recorded at takeoff, but then it is also recorded as having landed in San Francisco at noon, 45 minutes late. Finally, the mayor of Cleveland, Michael White, was quoted at 11:50 am on ABC News saying that a Boeing 767 flying out of Boston was forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland due to a bomb threat, and had been taken to a secure area of ​​the airport to be evacuated. The plane was identified as Flight UA93—although a Boeing 767 out of Boston corresponded rather to the Flight UA175.

The problem of the “transponders” is also perplexing. This device transmits the position of aircraft to control towers, and also allows the pilot to send alert and emergency messages. Incredibly, none of the eight pilots or their professional copilots entered the four-digit code on the transponder which signals an assault on the cockpit—a maneuver that takes only three seconds. In fact, each aircraft actually cut their respective transponders, and then completely disappeared from secondary radars for nearly an hour while going through radar gaps. For example, AA77 left Washington for Los Angeles, disappeared from radars near Ohio and was spotted again an hour later near Washington DC.

According to official reports, many passengers of Flights UA93, UA175 and AA77 had made calls to relatives or friends from their portable phones. Details of these calls (by passengers named Jeremy Glick, Peter Hanson, Brian Sweeney, Mark Bingham, Elizabeth Wainio, Marion Britton, Sandra Bradshaw, Tom Burnett, Edward Felt, CeeCee Lyles) were reported as early as September 13th on mainstream TV channels and newspapers (like The Washington Post). But they are highly problematic, because the technology required to make high-altitude phone calls was not developed until 2004. Moreover, some calls include oddities completely incongruent with the context, exemplified by Mark Bingham’s call to his mother a few seconds before his death: “Hi, Mom. This is Mark Bingham.”

Two calls were allegedly made from AA77 by Barbara Olson to her husband Ted Olson. The Olsons are both public figures: Barbara was a well-known CNN reporter, and Ted has been Solicitor General during the first Bush term (after defending Bush in the disputed 2000 election, and then Dick Cheney when he refused to submit to Congress Enron-related documents during their investigation). Barbara Olson’s calls, reported on CNN in the afternoon of September 11th, contributed to crystallizing some details of the official story, such as the “box cutters” used by the hijackers. Repeatedly invited on television shows, Ted Olson frequently contradicted himself when questioned regarding the calls from his wife. Sometimes he said she “called him twice on a cell phone ” adding that the second call was cut because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.” Sometimes he said that his wife called collect from the “air phone” because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.” This second version is as impossible as the first, because a credit card is required to activate the phones in the seats, even for a collect call, though really the entire argument is moot, given that the seats on AA77 were not equipped with telephones (as confirmed by American Airlines). The most troubling contradiction appeared in 2006, during the trial of supposed terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui: in their report on Flight AA77, the FBI attributed only one call from Barbara Olson, and it was an unconnected call lasting 0 seconds.

Given the many impossibilities woven throughout the official story, the alternative hypothesis that seems most likely is that none of the four airplanes were in fact the Boeing 767 or 757s the world was told about. Flights AA77 and UA93 probably never existed. As for Flights AA11 and UA175, which reportedly hit the Twin Towers, several hypotheses are in competition among 9/11 truthers. Many surmise that they had been replaced by drones—planes equipped with automatic remote control technology, and without passengers. But numerous witnesses have declared having seen no planes, while others saw missiles. No consensus has been reached on these matters. Simon Shack, in a groundbreaking documentary (September Clues, 2007), has analyzed the images of the second crash (South Tower) broadcast on September 11th and later, and argued that they are fakes, fabricated with various video editing software. This also applies to the only image of the first crash (North Tower), miraculously captured by the mysterious brothers Jules and Gédéon Naudet. The TV forgeries have been further explored by Ace Baker in his 2012 documentary 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera, where he gives credence to professor Morgan Reynolds who has long claimed that the aluminum planes shown to penetrate the steel towers without resistance, defy physical laws and therefore must be video artifacts. Richard D. Hall of richplanet.net, however, after having attempted to show that the virtual planes added to the images were masking a missile-type object, has pointed out shortcomings in the video-compositing theory, and proposed an alternative theory based on holographic projections. Although there is yet no consensus on the method employed to create illusion, it is today clearly established that the planes penetrating the towers like butter, without being shattered or even decelerated at the impact, as seen on multiple TV footages, can in no way be real. The initial explosions seen at that precise moment must have another explanation.

[Image LG17-7 CNN ghost plane]
On this pic from the CNN footage of the second crash, the aluminum plane has half disappeared into the steel tower: a physical impossibility.

If no planes hit the Twin Towers any more than the Pentagon or the field outside Shanksville—all 9/11 Flights having been probably created virtual in the context of a drill—, then all speculations on the military identity of those planes can be counted as diversions. So can discussions on the failures of U.S. air defenses. Of course, if the planes did not fly on that day, neither did the passengers. False identities were created, and it would seem that the Intel agencies involved suffered severe shortages in this regard. For Flight AA77, for example, only 53 passengers are listed, while the plane’s capacity is 239. Among the 53 passengers plus 9 crew members, only 14 persons are listed in the Social Security Death Index. And only 5 of these have relatives who received the 9-11 Compensation Fund offered by the State. Moreover, the passenger list comprises an abnormal percentage of Navy officers and aeronautic engineers (13 out of 53). The other three “flights” show similar percentages of capacity and recorded deaths (no family of the victims of Flight UA93 requested compensation, for example).

[…]

via How Controlled Explanations Are Achieved — PaulCraigRoberts.org

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: