Is This What Happened on 9/11?
GeorgeWashington Fri, 04/04/2008 - 11:47am
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-this-what-happened-on-911.html
Let's quickly review some odd facts about 9/11:
- The 9/11 flights were quite empty compared to normal flights (pp. 52-53)
- Many of the passengers on the hijacked flights were high-level navy or defense contractors, with expertise in remote control and related systems
- The military has been able to fly planes by remote control for over 50 years
- Several of the hijackers apparently trained at U.S. military bases prior to 9/11
- The lead hijacker - Atta - was, according to his girlfriend, a hard-drinking, lapdance-loving, pork-eating guy
- Many of the hijackers appear to have been working for, or been protected by, U.S. or allies intelligence services
- On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video). See this, this (exercise was moved back to 9/11), and this
So, here's my question: Were the 9/11 planes actually part of war games involving two teams - the "Blue Team" and "Red Team" (war games often involve opposing teams to test the ability of "bad guys" to penetrate U.S. defenses)? Specifically:
- Was 9/11 was an exercise in remote control flying that was commandeered so that the planes flew into the World Trade Center and Pentagon?
- Or -
- Did the hijackers play the Red Team who tried to defeat national defenses, and did the guys who were supposed to stop them (the Blue Team), fail to stop them? Remember that the government agent who infiltrated the alleged terror cell asked the FBI to substitute fake powder for real explosives, but the FBI turned him down.
Note: I am not saying this is what happened. I am just asking questions and putting forward two potential hypotheses which - like any hypotheses - should be tested against the available facts to see whether they should be discarded or accepted.
- GeorgeWashington's blog
- Login to post comments
Your citation...
I have the Hidden History book;
"Concern has been expressed that none of the planes were close to being
full. The Commission (2004, p. 452, fns. 21, 40) addressed this issue by
reporting comparison data for summer 2001, regarding passenger loads on
these flights, curiously ignoring altogether that UA 93 was only first scheduled
on 9-5-01 (did it use data for UA 837, the prior scheduled flight?). From the
data obtained from the airlines for the three prior months, apparently for
Tuesdays, it concluded that 9-11 passenger loads were not unusual for AA
11 with its 76 passengers nor for AA 77 with its 53 passengers. Loads,
however, for both of the UA flights were ''well below their averages'' – UA
175 is reported to have had 51 and UA 93, only 33 (p. 454, fn. 40 and 456,
fn. 72). The Commission did not undertake further consideration, except to
say that it did not find evidence that hijackers influenced loads (e.g., buying
extra tickets but not using them). We undertook one check of our own: For
the similarly situated day in 2005, i.e., the second Tuesday after Labor Day,
i.e., September 13, 2005, American Airlines had a flight AA 25 out of Boston
to Los Angeles at 8:00 a.m., almost the same as for AA 11. The AA
website allows persons planning a flight to examine the available seats, and
one-half hour before the scheduled departure showed all 22 first/business
class seats taken and at least 107 of 166 coach seats taken; in other words,
at least 129 seats taken together were booked, suggesting perhaps 120 actual
passengers after considering ''no shows''. Other early flights were UA which
had a 7:35 a.m. flight, while Delta had just added, since September 8, a 7:00
a.m. service. Comparing this 2005 datum of 120 to those 76 passengers
flying in 2001 on AA 11 does suggest a low load on 9-11, given that 9-11 also
had three early flights on the same carriers (AA 11, UA 175, and Delta
1989). This exercise, therefore, raises somewhat more concern about
passenger loads than the Commission mentions."
-Zarembka, Paul. "The Hidden History of 9-11-2110", Elsevier, 2006, pp.52-53
very interesting hypothesis,
very interesting hypothesis, George.
Problem with the hypothesis
"Many of the passengers on the hijacked flights were high-level navy or defense contractors, with expertise in remote control and related systems"
So they (the red team) won, but some of the participants didn't exactly have an opportunity to celebrate the victory?
I often wonder if the "passengers" of that day, and/or certain
others who may have been involved in planning/staging 9/11, ended up on UA-93 to be shot down & silenced forever. After all, dead men/women don't reveal secrets, now do they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321
I've often wondered about those setting the charges.
Were they doing some last minute finishing touches when the towers were hit?
What happened to the passengers, indeed?
Colombo, Joe, I have also been wondering about this. In the "911 Mysteries" documentary there is some curious part near the end in which the buildings' janitor (I recall his name was Rodriguez) declares that he heard strange noises at one floor in the final hour before the WTC tower collapsed. It all sounded like heavy weights were being moved around. It was on specific floors that were empty and to which only he had access. It was so scary he did not dare to open the elevator door....
Could these sounds have been caused by people who had something to do with the preparations of 911? (No, I am not referring to Al Quaeda). Were they being told to do their job under any circumstances as the towers were allegedly unlikely to collapse? If this is the case, the organizers of 911 would afterwards try to jeopardize the collection of DNA evidence, as this would point to these helpers. Now, isn't this exactly what happened?
As to what people were on the fly lists of the planes, it appears many were somehow related to the military. Also, a few days back I read here on 911Blogger at http://www.911blogger.com/node/14639 that there were many evangelicals among the passengers. Could the passengers have been part of the "red team" that was supposed to defeat the air defenses? Could those same people have been part of the preparations, like wire the buildings, etc? Or were there no passengers aboard at all, and the people at the passenger lists were given new identities afterwards? I suspect that the passengers aboard were there for a mission that ended differently than they expected. All flights that crashed at 9/11 were probably blocked for bookings by regular passengers, and that might explain the unusually low numbers of passengers. As an organizer of 911, you don't want to risk jeopardizing the operation by putting regular passengers aboard, would you?
Im pretty sure the noises
Im pretty sure the noises he heard were prior to the
events of that day.
Actually, Willie Rodriguez
Actually, Willie Rodriguez stated he heard the noises while he was going up and down the stair wells opening doors. He heard sounds like something heavy being dragged across the floor on a floor that was supposed to be empty and unoccupied. He also said it gave him "chills" (or something like that) when he heard noises coming from a supposedly empty, locked up, floor.
Ok, I must've misunderstood.
Ok, I must've misunderstood. Thanks for the
correction.
This isn't the wonderful and
This isn't the wonderful and courageous Sibel Edmonds I'm talking to is it?
Yes, the low number of passengers you mention on flights
AA-11, UA-175, & AA-77, were low enough that they all could have fit onboard that last flight, UA-93.
Something to think about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321
Heres a third scenario...an
Heres a third scenario...an A team (hijackers) , a B
team ( anti terrorism training) and a C team, to
remotely take control of the real airliners. Maybe from a
Doomsday plane?
One thing to consider, when the controls of an airline
are taken over by remote, it becomes impossible for
pilots to punch in a hijack code...could explain why
no hijack codes were entered into the sytem by any
of the 4 pilots.
A more likely explanation as
A more likely explanation as to why none of the eight pilots were able to punch in the hijack code: They had been shot in the head by an intruder in the cockpit that they had trusted. Tom Burnett explicitly reported a gun in the possession of the hijackers on UAL93; Betty Ong probably did to from AAL11, on the segment of her recorded call that has been suppressed. Hijackers dressed as pilots, and carrying pilot credentials, would have had no problem gaining access to the cockpit.
Wouldn't it be unnecessarily risky to...
... shoot inside an airplane?
Seems just last week a
Seems just last week a commercial airline pilot-- they are now legally allowed to carry guns in the cockpit-- accidentally discharged his gun in the cockpit. This was the subject of one of David Letterman's Top Ten Lists last week. Anyway, the firing of the gun caused no safety issue.
Remote Controlled Planes More Reliable Than Hijackers
As far the planes' flight path and specific point of attack, remote control would seem to be more accurate than a hijacker at the controls. Laser guided remote control would be able to specifically hit an exact floor level in the WTC.
A remote control system could also shut off the transponder and cut radio transmissions from the cockpit.
The hijackers could have been doing a "dry run" for a future hijack , ineffect being patsies, unaware that the remote controlled plane would take over.
Agreed. Either remote contolled airliners or drones made to
resemble airliners (as they were prepared to do 45 years ago in Operation Northwoods).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321
"The hijackers could have
"The hijackers could have been doing a "dry run" for a future hijack , ineffect being patsies, unaware that the remote controlled plane would take over."
Except that does not explain the preponderance of credible evidence from the phone calls from the planes showing real hijackings taking place.
Most likely, the planes were hijacked by real hijackers, who shot the pilots with guns, then quickly installed remote control receivers to the cockpits so the planes could be flown from a remote site.
The phone calls
I find several of them less than credible.
So do I. But there's no
So do I. But there's no reason that there may have been some fake calls mixed in with real ones. There's no reason to discredit the real ones just because one or two may have been staged. It is obvious to me the conpsirators wanted real phone calls to be made from the planes in which ordinary people described what they assumed was an Arab hijacking. That's why the hijackers on all four planes allowed phone calls when they could have easily prevented them. In that scenario, the conspirators may have mixed in a fake call or two to beef up the official narrative of psychotic Arabs knifing passengers and taking over the cockpits.
How to tell the real calls from the fake ones? If a call is verified to have been made by a real passenger, and if that call also contains information detrimental to the official story, then we can certainly conclude it is a real phone call. Examples of these include Burnett's call, validated by his wife, which included the report of guns; and Betty Ong's call, which we can listen to on the internet, which undoubtedly also contained a report of a gun.
The most obvious fake call was from "Todd Beamer" on UAL93. The call was received by a stranger, and was curiously not recorded. The contents of the call validate the official story on every detail. This call also gave us the "Let's Roll" narrative so desired by the conspirators wanting us to "roll" into wars in the Middle East. Conclusion: Beamers call was made by an imposter, and probably not from the cabin of UAL93.
Not convinced.
The idea that the war games sent planes into the towers is problematic. The military of the USA is not about to attack the USA. Getting anyone onboard a real world plan like you describe is just not very likely. Next, too many people will know. Next, silencing all those who suspect that's what happened because they saw small parts of it is impossible.
Now, I know Ellen Mariani's husband was on one of the flights. How many actual verifiable people were on flights? Has anyone done a study? I haven't gone through the links about alleged military tech people supposedly being on board, but there were others, too, and questioning if they were part of some sort of black op will get us skewered out there in 'the world.'
All that being said -- there's likely something fishy with the planes. What exactly, we can't say for certain. They are hiding black boxes, positive ids, and I don't actually trust many of their claims (FBI).
So, are they hiding evidence that would be disclosed by NTSB in any normal crash just to fuck with us? Just to foment speculation? That idea has some weight behind it. Because tney can get away with it.
Another issue is with the security companies at the airports. Were they involved? Weren't known agents working at some of the airports? If the airport security was involved, this opens up the possibility of tampering with the aircraft, rigging poisonous gas canisters, all sorts of hardcore spy shit. All of which is speculative, and unprovable. (...and if something like that happened, an escorting F-16 pilot would notice that the pilots were slumped down and unconscious the moment he inspected the intercepted commuter plane, step one in interception procedures...)
Anyway, I don't buy the idea that the military of the US would or could do what happened on 9/11. The military response to stop it was thwarted. THAT is where the war games fit in. That's my take, and I'm sticking to it.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Could it be then 9/11 was an 'outsourced' job
ie. the Mossad etc, thereby maneuvering around the potential cognitive dissonance of a domestic agent sabotaging their own country's planes/buildings etc?
Debate finally heading in the right direction?
I hope this essay by Mr. Washington represents our debate finally heading in the direction of acknowledging that the planes were indeed hijacked by real people, and that the planes were then flown to their targets (including the Shanksville site) by remote control.
For several years now I have been begging and pleading with people here to acknowledge that the phone calls from the planes were for the most part real, showing real hijackings, and that the fact that these hijackers were real does NOT mean they were Arab terrorists!-- only that they were portraying themselves as such for the purpose of framing Arabs...
Some points regarding George's essay:
>The low capacity flights were chosen by the conspirators to reduce the likelihood of passenger interference with the hijackings.
>It is unlikely that anybody from the defense industry participated in the conspiracy. It is possible that the five Ratheon executives who perished on AAL77 were lured there to be assassinated in much the same way ____ O'Neill(?) was lured to the towers to die there.
>The military does indeed have technology to fly planes by remote control; but so does everyone else, including the intelligence agencies of foreign nations, such as Israel.
>Was Mohammed Atta really a hard-drinking, lapdance pork-eater, or were these characteristics of his ( or one of his) double(s)?
>The idea of a war game involving hijackings being part of the 9/11 plot has no basis in reality. The civilian airline industry has no history of participating in such games with the military. The organization responsible for responding to hijackings is the NORAD/FAA cooperative system. This system could have been co-opted by simply having a small network in place in the NEADS compound in upstate New York, from which all orders to fighters would have to flow to protect the country from the hijacked planes. These unknown individuals could have stood down the entire USAF by simply not sending out the proper scramble orders to the fighters at the crucial times. Thus the hijacked airliners were free to fly to their targets; no need for any "war games" as such.
Not on board with this either...
"The organization responsible for responding to hijackings is the NORAD/FAA cooperative system. This system could have been co-opted by simply having a small network in place in the NEADS compound in upstate New York, from which all orders to fighters would have to flow to protect the country from the hijacked planes. These unknown individuals could have stood down the entire USAF by simply not sending out the proper scramble orders to the fighters at the crucial times. Thus the hijacked airliners were free to fly to their targets; no need for any "war games" as such."
This is highly speculative (fiction) and doesn't mesh with the reports I've read. Although the communications that sent pilots in the wrong directions must be investigated, possibly leading to intentional misdirection/treason of someone.
War games could have numerous other reasons.
They confuse the personnel.
They take resources (planes) away from bases. Any investigation needs to trace the cutting down of the number of planes on alert, down to the pitiful number allocated on 9-11 to NEADS.
The war games allowed for a communications exercise where the "phones were ringing off the hook" during the attacks, rendering crucial communications impossible.
They provided cover as an excuse for executives like Cheney to question what the correct course of action would be given the exercises were happening simultaneously.
I have seen no evidence that NEADS ever got scramble orders from NMCC, and the only way they were informed about the hijackings was direct contact from flight controllers. This was after a long delay waiting for headquarters to act. The real culprits were manipulating the NMCC into delaying the scramble orders. That's Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Also Bush gave no shoot down authorization until afte the Pentagon was hit. This meant that scambles could be argued as moot, or purposeless (as they have been argued) because the pilots were not authorized to respond with force. This explains the allure of the goat story, and Bush's "dawdling" in the classroom (treasonously) after being told point blank "America is under attack," by his own chief of staff.
70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11
John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/
johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.
Well said, johndoraemi !
My only quibble with your working theory of the crime (at least as I understand it, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that I don't think any "hijackers" were needed to make this go down the way it did (based on the facts as I know them to date).
My working theory is that the onboard computer systems (including, but not limited to, anti-hijacking systems) were hacked by a private entity (Dov Zakheim, anyone?), the planes were depressurized at altitude, quickly incapacitating the crew and passengers, and flown to their targets. End of story.
Thanks for your continued research, hard work and the hard-headed critical thinking you bring to the truth table.
If you've read The Shell Game, I would love to know what you think about it. (No, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone here)
I hope that you and yours are well.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
The only personnel confused by war games is 9/11 Truthers...
"War games could have numerous other reasons.
They confuse the personnel.
They take resources (planes) away from bases. Any investigation needs to trace the cutting down of the number of planes on alert, down to the pitiful number allocated on 9-11 to NEADS."
Where is your evidence that a shortage of available fighters caused the non-response to the hijacked planes? NEADS had fighters at Otis in a position to intercept the first two planes. Those fighters sat on the runway waiting for scramble orders for several minutes until it was too late. The order from NEADS to launch were delayed just long enough for the attacks to be completed. What the fighters were ordered to do after they finally got in the air remains a mystery.
The fighters at Langley were ordered out over the Atlantic. The exact orders they received from NEADS are unknown to us, but those orders were undoubtedly to do just what they did, rendering them useless to intercept AAL77.
"The war games allowed for a communications exercise where the "phones were ringing off the hook" during the attacks, rendering crucial communications impossible.
They provided cover as an excuse for executives like Cheney to question what the correct course of action would be given the exercises were happening simultaneously."
No doubt the phones were eventually ringing off the hook, but not because of war games. NEADS was getting information from the ATC centers about hijacked planes; these reports had nothing to do with war games.
"I have seen no evidence that NEADS ever got scramble orders from NMCC, and the only way they were informed about the hijackings was direct contact from flight controllers. This was after a long delay waiting for headquarters to act. The real culprits were manipulating the NMCC into delaying the scramble orders. That's Rumsfeld and Cheney."
As David Ray Griffin and Robin Hordon made clear in the first chapter of Debunking 9/11 Debunking, NEADS does not need authorization from NMCC or anyone else to scramble fighters! This is well-established protocol and also jibes with common sense. A police officer responds to a possible crime immediately by going to the scene as fast as he can, making contact with his superiors on the way. He does not need authorization to get in his squad car and race to the scene. Such a procedure is obviously inefficient.
Also Bush gave no shoot down authorization until after the Pentagon was hit. This meant that scrambles could be argued as moot, or purposeless (as they have been argued) because the pilots were not authorized to respond with force. This explains the allure of the goat story, and Bush's "dawdling" in the classroom (treasonously) after being told point blank "America is under attack," by his own chief of staff.
Shoot down authorization is completely irrelevant to this debate. We need to know why no fighters were scrambled to the hijacked aircraft. Furthermore, as Griffin & Hordon pointed out in D9/11D, a fighter pilot would have had authorization himself to shootdown a derelict craft, which is undoubtedly what would have happened had a fighter tailing one of the planes observed it descending into a metropolitan area.
The conspirators had to worry about this scenario, which is why they were careful not to allow any fighters to be scrambled in the first place. They knew that simply preventing shootdown authorization from Washington itself would not have guaranteed the hijacked planes reaching their targets. That's why they made sure they were in control of the orders coming out from NEADS to the fighters, and that none of those orders would allow a fighter to get anywhere near a hijacked plane on its mission. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were completely out of the loop as far as the standdown was concerned-- that's just the way the conspirators wanted it, and that's the way Bush et al wanted it. This way the high-profile political figures do not have to get their hands dirty on the day of the attacks, and their political careers can continue so they can carry out the ultimate goals of the conspirators such as wars in the Middle East, and the Patriot Act, etc.
Good analysis
"NEADS had fighters at Otis in a position to intercept the first two planes. Those fighters sat on the runway waiting for scramble orders for several minutes until it was too late."
"The fighters at Langley were ordered out over the Atlantic. "
And there were fighters in Andrews, too, in the "highest possible state of readiness".
Doesn't the commission say that fighters from the Andrews Air Force Base were over Washington by 10:45?
Where could they go after 9-11?
A couple of thoughts that have occured to me: Several of the purportedly hijacked flights were supposed to have flown more or less west, then turned around to hit their targets. If there were any switches, what happened to the original planes and their passengers/ crews/ any hijackers, if indeed they were on board?
If the 19 or so hijackers weren't actually eliminated on the attacks, where did they go afterwards?
Finally, the US govt and the Saudis have caught flack for the flights of a variety of Saudi royalty, etc out of the country. The final gathering spot was Lexington, KY, if I remember correctly. The FBI's report mentioned the names of the people who were on the flight, but many if not most of the names were blacked out. Most of the flack has simply been (and rightfully so) that they should not have been allowed out of the country so easily, nor shown special treatment by flying during the post-attack grounding period.
So what I'm wondering is: are we sure those were Saudi and bin Ladin family members who were being flown out? Or was this used (or also used) as a cover to get 9-11 actors off-stage/ out-of-country?
I admit this isn't one of those angles likely to play a central role in convincing someone to question the official cover story... it's more likely to complicate the threads of argument at first. But it may be a clue as to how operations like these are actually orchestrated, resources and personnel conserved, how importantly follow-through and clean-up functions are considered and executed.
Not to mention who might still be alive and active elsewhere, ready for the next op. One of the angles that has been worked in the OKC bombing has alleged that the team responsible for that job may have included operatives originally imported into the US from the Iraq Republican Guard after Desert Storm. Sounds pretty outlandish, until you remember Operation Paperclip, which protected some SS and Nazi officials after WW2, including settling some of them in the US. Remember, some of those 19 Saudis, etc, apparently showed up later, complaining that their identities had been stolen. Saudi identities could have been appropriated for operatives from anywhere in the Middle East, since 90 per cent of Americans would have a hard time telling a Morrocan from an Omani. I doubt their lapdancers or waitresses were wondering why their regional Arab accents didn't match their life-stories. If so, one of the "19 Saudis" could include OKC's "John Doe Number Two." It might also give a clue as to what sort of DNA analysis or matching should be tried on the "extra leg" found at the Murrah building but never matched up with any documented victim.
How likely is it that the government would consume people with that level of talent and training in a single operation? Mainly thinking here of the passengers. Is it likely they would be given new identities and established elsewhere? If so, what has happened with their families in the meantime? What has happened to their relationship with their families, if some of these passengers are still alive and working elsewhere with new identity? Are they likely at some point to have issues with maintaining no communications with their families, assuming their families are convinced that they are in fact dead? If some of these passengers are in fact not dead, and if some of their families in fact know they didn't die, what are some likely outcomes one could expect from a population in that situation over time?
Stuff like this can easily require a flowchart or truth-table to keep the possibilities and attendant consequences straight. At the same time, a couple of these possible scenarios offer some interesting potential assets: witnesses or insiders who may finally tire of games, even at the risk of being silenced. Or simply screw up and blow their new cover.