Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Ron Ecker]

How 50 Men May Have Engineered 911

Douglas Herman

I've read a lot of commentary about the number of plotters it would have required to carry out an "Inside Job," black operation on September 11, 2001. One lively critic of the Truth Movement, Jan Burton, emailed me that 10,000 men would be needed. And all of them would have to keep their mouths shut forever.

I think 50 top specialists might carry out an operation like 9-11 successfully. Here's how it might be done.

Four or five head plotters at the top might hatch a plan. Call our plan PNAC. Plan of a New Attack Conspiracy. This handful of top government officials would hold the true reins of power in the White House and the Pentagon. I could name three or four players right now, just as anyone could, but I'll leave their identities to the imagination of my readers.

These powerful men, connected to banking, oil and the defense industry, would have a plan in place months in advance. They would then be joined by a half dozen foreign political operatives from a small, tech-savvy country. This small tech-savvy country would, ironically, have top officials in place already in the Pentagon. They would possess dual citizenship but be most loyal to one country. The small one.

Now we have 10-12 plotters.

The secretive, top operatives of the two countries would be joined by a few top honchos in the intelligence field. They would serve as a delaying force, delaying the warnings of loyal and patriotic Americans in the FBI, NSA and the FBI. Any whistleblowers that arose---like FBI translator Sibel Edmonds or the deceased FBI agent John O'Neill---would be marginalized later by a complicit mainstream media. This media would consist mostly of dupes and true believers. They would be outside the loop and not required to have insider information.

Now we number 15-20 key plotters.

These remarkable and clever men command huge numbers of SPECIAL FORCES. These special commandos resemble the Navy Seals. They possess certain demolition skills and variety of disguises and genuine-looking yet fake identification. I suspect these key players pledged a loyalty to a certain tech-savvy country and have been highly trained to follow orders. Trained professional killers who ask no question. Ever. Additionally, with their identifications, they are allowed ready access to key security points easily. Perhaps a dozen men altogether--maybe as few as a half dozen-probably gained access to the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 in the months prior to that "attack."

How many conspirators do we number thus far? 30 or 35 maybe? Far cry from the "tens of thousands" the Bushco apologists suggest.

Next, one would need the ability to control planes by remote control. Curiously, the head of a small, tech-savvy company that possessed that very technical electronic skill also enjoyed ready access to the Pentagon. He worked there in a high position as Comptroller, controlling the flow of money (during a time when 2.6 trillion went unaccounted for). According to Wikipedia: "In 2001, Dov Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems.

Coincidental? Perhaps-perhaps not.

Now you would need two or three more top people, preferably very rich, connected to the New York real estate market to acquire control of a suitable target. Let us call this target the WTC complex, a suitable array of architectural white elephants and one very highly important US government building (WTC-7) that could be insured for far more money than they cost.

Now we number 38 insiders at the most. Almost all of our ducks are in place. The shooting gallery is just about to open.

For the sake of simplicity, we'll require some skilled commandos to remain close to the targets. To remotely control the hijacked planes into the towers and Pentagon. How many skilled technicians would this require? Five thousand, you say? How about a dozen?

Well, now we've reached the 50. Anyone else is a peripheral player. Any top US general, befuddled at the Pentagon or NORAD is simply a victim, as much as those bewildered FAA air traffic controllers or USAF pilots. By the way, whatever happened to those air traffic control tapes? Guess we can add that fellow to our list of plotters, the top official who ordered the tapes destroyed after the New York Massacre.

That takes us to 51. Call it Area 51. A place that doesn't exist. Except in the twilight zone of our imagination. Except in the minds of "conspiracy nuts" like myself.

Lastly, critics of an inside job, like my correspondent Jan Burton, claim that somebody, anybody, would have come forward by now and "blown" the plot wide open. Now why would they do that? Indeed, well-trained commandos from another country might feel compelled to drunkenly boast about their exploits but I seriously doubt any commando would suffer any pangs of conscience.

And suppose some top official already came forward? Sybil Edmonds already came forward about 911 and her revelations have amounted to exactly nothing. Any top US official would have to think twice before risking his neck to suffer ridicule and probable recriminations---and threats of harm to himself and his family. I'm reminded of those US Navy sailors who were threatened with simple military courts martials and demotions if they talked about the attack on the USS Liberty. Now multiply the threat by, say, death. How many would talk then?

USAF veteran, amateur historian and controversial novelist of The Guns of Dallas, Douglas Herman explained the likely scenario of the JFK assassination in his recent suspense thriller. He writes for that last bastion of free speech--the internet. Support it or lose it. Contact him at douglasherman7@yahoo.com

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=mod...r=0&thold=0

[Brian Smith]

The government released the much speculated on Citgo gas station surveillance tapes today. Are they of absolutely zero value in that they contain no visual information about what hit the pentagon? But of course. The most secure building in the U.S., and not a single surveillance camera captured a clear image of what struck it that morning. Yeah.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Longsoug...ttack_0915.html

Edited September 15, 2006 by Brian Smith

[Len Colby]

I don't know after 5 years the "no planers" have yet to turn up evidence that the Pentagon had survellence video other than the two already released. Just speculation that there must have been. There are about a dozen ex-miltary/intelligence officers/DoD workers in the "truth movement" I don't remember any of them saying anything about it.

[Brian Smith]

I don't know after 5 years the "no planers" have yet to turn up evidence that the Pentagon had survellence video other than the two already released. Just speculation that there must have been. There are about a dozen ex-miltary/intelligence officers/DoD workers in the "truth movement" I don't remember any of them saying anything about it.

CNN reported that the nearby Sheraton Hotel had a surveillance camera that captured the pentagon impact. They also reported that several employees watched the tape in horror before the FBI came and took it away. If this is true, it would be very interesting to hear their accounts of what they saw. In fact, it would be very interesting to see the tape.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Brian Smith

[Jack White]

I don't know after 5 years the "no planers" have yet to turn up evidence that the Pentagon had survellence video other than the two already released. Just speculation that there must have been. There are about a dozen ex-miltary/intelligence officers/DoD workers in the "truth movement" I don't remember any of them saying anything about it.

CNN reported that the nearby Sheraton Hotel had a surveillance camera that captured the pentagon impact. They also reported that several employees watched the tape in horror before the FBI came and took it away. If this is true, it would be very interesting to hear their accounts of what they saw. In fact, it would be very interesting to see the tape.

There were HUNDREDS of video surveillance cameras ALL AROUND THE PENTAGON.

One can be seen on the heliport building pointing directly at the area where the "plane"

approached. The Virginia Department of Transportation had a camera aimed at the Pentagon

which SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE "PLANE" BUT WAS NOT. See attachment.

Jack

Edited September 15, 2006 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

CNN reported that the nearby Sheraton Hotel had a surveillance camera that captured the pentagon impact. They also reported that several employees watched the tape in horror before the FBI came and took it away. If this is true, it would be very interesting to hear their accounts of what they saw. In fact, it would be very interesting to see the tape.

Please provide a link to the CNN article. The Sheraton is mentioned on the other thread it is about 0.8 miles (0.5 km) from the Pentagon and there appear to be line of sight problems. If true did they see anything more than a small fireball erupting from the distant Pentagon?

There were HUNDREDS of video surveillance cameras ALL AROUND THE PENTAGON.

Please cite a reference for this claim.

"One can be seen on the heliport building pointing directly at the area where the "plane" approached."

I can't see it can you provide a higher resolution image a long with a link to the source?

"The Virginia Department of Transportation had a camera aimed at the Pentagon which SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIT BY THE "PLANE" BUT WAS NOT. See attachment."

I assume the camera would have been aimed down from the top of the pole towards the road which runs parallel to the Pentagon; it wouldn't make sense for it to be pointed towards the building. Also once again a higher resolution image with a link to the original would be helpful.How do we know the camera post wasn't further away from the plane than the lamppost?

Edit - Most of this post was moved to the other thread.

Edited September 16, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

From a thread about the Pentagon http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=75071

Those images are from the "killtown" site in the 911 videos section. I agree with you that the light poles would not have sheared off the wings, though. On the other hand, how could the planes have cut through the steel exterior walls of the world trade center like a knife through butter?

The planes weighed about 263,000 lbs and were traveling at 470 – 590 mph the wall thicknesses of the columns were only about 0.7 and 1.2 inches*. The wall thickness of the perimeter and core columns tapered from 4” inches at the base to 0.25” at the top. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

“And how did the wings of the WTC planes manage to cause enough damage to the central core columns to make the floors above the impact zones fall?”

1- It wasn’t just the wings but the entire mass of the jets that damaged the cores

2- NIST determined that the collapse initiated because the sagging of the floor trusses pulled in (bowed) the perimeter columns the collapse of the mass of the rest of the towers around them and some core columns being pulled out of alignment by the sagging floors doomed the cores.

“In a recent interview with one of the Popular Mechanics "debunkers" it was stated that photos from the pentagon showed aluminum from the plane wrapped around the steel support beams. I can only imagine the amount of damage that a 767 would do to forty seven, 4" thick steel load bearing beams that held up the weight of over 30 floors (south tower) and over twenty floors (north tower).”

The wall thicknesses of the core columns (beams are horizontal) at the impact zones wasn’t 4 inches as with the perimeter they tapered from 4” at the base to 025” at the top.

“…one of the Popular Mechanics "debunkers" it was stated that photos from the pentagon showed aluminum from the plane wrapped around the steel support beams”

Relevance?

“We all know that the impact of the planes did not cause sufficient damage to the forty seven central steel columns to cause the upper floors to give way. It is hard for me to believe that the fires were the determining factor in initiating the collapses.”

But you are neither a structural engineer nor an architect nor a mechanical engineer nor a demolitions expert nor a fire engineer nor have you it appears read the NIST report.

So far only two civil engineers from any where in the world has publicly challenged the collapse theory. The first admitted he hadn’t looked very closely at the case and only had very limited experience with steel frame building engineering over 30 years ago before he got his licensed. The other is in his early 80s, runs a 9-hole golf course and as far as I can tell hasn’t worked as an engineer for several decades. He is a member of ST911 but AFAIK hasn’t actually made any public statements

Only one licensed architect has but he is currently employed as a photographer and told me the tallest building he worked was a 8 – 10 reinforced concrete hospital designed by his dad’s firm. When I asked him about projects he worked on he always replied with “we” leading me to believe he was never the lead architect. That he wasn’t sure about the height of the hospital leads me to believe his participation was minimal. I asked about steel framed buildings but he didn’t reply. His site doesn’t include any of his own architectural analysis but merely repeats the claims of other sites

Only one mechanical engineer has but her specialty is dental filling an biomaterials, nothing in her resume suggests familiarity with construction materials methods.

Len

*Based on my calculations.

The difference between the wall thicknesses from the top to bottom of the towers was 3.75 inches

The towers were 116 stories tall including the 6 underground levels. 3.75 / 116 = 0.32 so I calculated a 032 inch difference in thickness per floor and used the following formula W = 0.25” + (F x 0.32”), W = wall thickness F = # of floors from the top.

North Tower, impact centered on the 96th floor.

F=14 x 0.32 = 0.45, 045 + 0.25 = 0.70

South Tower, impact centered on the 81st floor.

F = 29 x 0.32 = 0.94, 0.94 + 0.25 = 1.19 rounded to 1.20

[John Simkin]

The Path to 9/11, a three-hour programme, was shown over two nights on BBC to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the attack on the twin towers. It was purchased from ABC, a subsidiary of Disney. In the UK it had a 2.8m audience, but was seen in the US by 13m viewers.

The film's director, David Cunningham, is active in Youth With a Mission (Ywam), a fundamentalist evangelical organisation founded by his father, Loren Cunningham. According to its publications, the group believes in demonic possession, spiritual healing and conservative sexual morality.

Last month David Cunningham addressed a conference in England organised by the group at its UK headquarters in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, on the making of the film. His talk was entitled Christ-like Witness in the Film Industry.

According to one of the group's publications,"David and his wife Judy are the nucleus of an association of more than 40 Ywam alumni who are called to the communications industry in the Los Angeles area ... to create an independent film company whereby he could both influence the Hollywood film industry and produce major motion pictures that would carry a Biblical, values-based message".

ABC originally gave the impression the film was a historical reconstruction of the official 9/11 commission report, saying the film "uses this historic document as the basis for a powerful story". This was accepted by the BBC.

However, it has been claimed that this film is part of a right-wing plot to blame Bill Clinton and the Democrats for the triumph of Osama bin Laden.

One fictionalised sequence depicted Mr Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, refusing permission in 1998 for the CIA to capture Bin Laden. Another showed Mr Clinton distracted by his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

It has also been revealed that other organizations are part of this conspiracy. Scholastic, a major supplier of classroom materials, is proving a 100,000 free study guides for schools. Apple’s iTunes and XM Radio are joining forces with ABC to provide free downloads of the film.

The question is: where is this money coming from? ABC spent $40m on the film, which was shown without advertisements and has no known corporate sponsors. Is this film part of Operation Mockingbird?

[Pat Speer]

The Democratic party sent me an e-mail about the program a few weeks back and asked me to send the head of Disney an e-mail complaining about the program's inaccuracies. They were extremely concerned about the program, particularly as Bush was preparing a televised speech to be shown in the middle of the program!!! Fortunately, I think all the negative publicity discouraged some from watching--evidently the program trailed a couple of football games in the ratings. More importantly, ABC edited the film a little at the last minute--I hope they edited it overseas as well. At one point, the program portrayed an incident where some Afghanis were ready to attack Bin Laden, but were discouraged by Berger because of his lack of nerve. As originally written and filmed, the sequence ended with Clinton's security adviser Berger hanging up on the CIA. The televised program ended mid-conversation. At another point, as originally filmed, one of the heroes of the film complained that they lost their ability to track Bin Laden when the (presumably liberal) Washington Post leaked that they'd been tracking him through his cell phone. In reality, as pointed out by the Democratic Party to Disney, it was the REPUBLICAN newspaper in Washington, the Washington Times, that leaked this info, presumably after conferring with one of their CIA sources. So how did ABC deal with this? Did they change the line to say Washington Times instead of Washington Post? Heck, no. They changed the words "Washington Post" to "Wondeful press," thereby allowing the audience to assume it was a liberal paper that jeopardized their security to sell papers.

ABC redeemed themselves somewhat, in my opinion, by inviting one of the show's sympathetic characters, Richard Clarke, to discuss the show on their late-night program Nightline, and then airing Nightline immediately following the first night of the movie. Clarke countered the scene with Berger, in part, by saying that he concurred with Berger's decision to withhold support for the Afghani attack on Bin Laden, as he considered it an ill-fated suicide mission, a la the Bay of Pigs, that would have destroyed Bin Laden's opposition within Afghanistan and made him look invincible to his followers. He also was allowed to point out that Clinton gave the CIA the authority to snuff Bin Laden, and that 4 different times the CIA had intel on Bin Laden's exact location. 3 of those times, however, the CIA decided that their intel might not be reliable and that an attempt was not worth the risk. The 4th time Clinton gave the go-ahead but Bin Laden escaped before the missiles hit his camp. The film and Clarke both presented the likelihood that someone in the Pakistani military warned Bin Laden. The point made by Clarke however is that we HAD to warn Pakistan before sending missiles over their airspace...or else we risked provoking an incident between Pakistan and India.

[John Simkin]

AA Gill reviewed “The Path to 9/11” in yesterday’s Sunday Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2101-2356223,00.html

There seems to be no end to the 9/11 memorial festival of hindsight. A never-ending war on terrorism has a grim Orwellian despair that I can just about live with. Having to watch an annual, or half-decadal, celebration of “we told you so” is probably more than I can stand, so I’m not going to dwell on last week’s offerings. Unfortunately, I really do have to say something about The Path to 9/11 (Sunday-Monday, BBC2), Disney’s dramatised documentary on the back story to the destruction of the Twin Towers.

This was a big, gung-ho, Ramboesque feature starring Harvey Keitel as a hard-bitten spook, supported by a lot of square-jawed muscle Marys who hoarsely whispered things like “We could’ve taken him out”. It has incited long, shrill, righteous howls of liberal indignation in America for its right-wing bias. This is essentially the official Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney version of current affairs, one that squarely and unequivocally blames Clinton personally for not taking out Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance. We’re shown brave CIA operatives outside his bedroom while Sandy Berger collapses into a yellow sweat of jobsworth doubt and lets him get away. Clinton is shown repeatedly denying he’d had sex “with that woman”. Even by neocon standards, this is pretty debased and repellent propaganda. Clinton took his eye off the ball — or, rather, the more important ball — and is therefore responsible and culpable for every brave American in a body bag over the past five years.

It’s so rare that the right-wingers ever bother to create something cultural, but it’s always interesting to see what they think is edifying, entertaining and informative TV. Then they make The Path to 9/11, and you’re eternally grateful that they can so rarely be bothered. Leaving aside the childish name-calling, the witch-hunt, the finger-pointing and the sheer invention of this banal, partisan rant, what’s particularly repellent is the vile, racist Wagnerian sentimentality and licensed thuggery. There is a complete absence of any interest in why there is a jihad against the West. It’s simply cowboys and Indians; Indians are savage because they’re Indians; men in turbans are frightening, soulless, unthinking, suicidal maniacs because they’re men in turbans. Trying to understand them would be like trying to understand malarial mosquitoes. Hating America is, by its nature, beyond explanation or understanding, and is probably inhuman.

The one thing Blair, Bush, Clinton, Bin Laden and Disney all agree on is that the war on terror is at bottom about competing values. As an advertisement for the values of a pluralistic, democratic, open and decent society, The Path to 9/11 was embarrassingly ghastly. Just as television, it’s laughably nasty.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Right whats actually being claimed here, Brian, is it your contention that the planes that hit the towers were being remotely controlled, but that a missile of some sort hit the Pentagon?I should sat that I dont believe in any of this, but lets play along, why the ywo different modes of attack, if remote control works for the towers why not use it at the Pentagon? By using a missile the conspiritors are running a huge, and needless risk by exposing the plan to potentially hundreds of eyewitnesses, eyewitnesses who by an overwhelming majority report that a very large plane hit the Pentagon.

[Len Colby]

Right whats actually being claimed here, Brian, is it your contention that the planes that hit the towers were being remotely controlled, but that a missile of some sort hit the Pentagon?I should sat that I dont believe in any of this, but lets play along, why the ywo different modes of attack, if remote control works for the towers why not use it at the Pentagon? By using a missile the conspiritors are running a huge, and needless risk by exposing the plan to potentially hundreds of eyewitnesses, eyewitnesses who by an overwhelming majority report that a very large plane hit the Pentagon.

That question has been repeatedly asked of proponents of the "a plane didn't hit the Pentagon" theory but never suitably answered by them. Nor can they explain what knocked down the lampposts or all the 757 wreckage found in the impact area or the numerous witnesses not one of whom said the saw a missile or drone (two who were quite distant said they saw a small plane) or the DNA identification of all but one of the victims. This theory is so ludicrous it is criticized even with in the “truth” movement.

The camera Jack is referring to MIGHT be the 2nd one from which stills are show here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evide.../dodvideos.html

The clip can be seen here

=

A forensic computer animator recreated the last few seconds of flight 77

This clip of a F4 hitting a concrete wall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWpRGLrkIsw...ated&search=

For a good example of the intellectual dishonesty of many in the “truth” movement see this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TubHeXnsk0c...ated&search=

Len

[Ron Ecker]

In a White House press conference last Friday, Bush talked about terrorists planting explosives in buildings, high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

Sound familiar? And why would he bring up such a subject, out of the blue? (Is the controlled demolition debate getting too hot? Is the regime preparing to say yes, that may be what happened - but we didn't do it?)

The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060915-2.html

[Len Colby]

Ron -I think you make a mistake in reading too much into every idiotic remark made by one of the most intellectually challenged Presidents ever elected by the American public (or not elected as the case may well be). Are you a betting man? I'm willing to wager you a small fortune that this isn't a prelude to “disclosure” by the government that explosives were used. You name the amount and the conditions, no reasonable offer refused! You know who and “their money soon part” don’t you?*

“Heat” Ron? You’ve got to be kidding, what did that poll show that 8 or was 6 % of the populace think it’s “very likely” explosives were used? There still isn’t a civil engineer, mechanical engineer or architect with experience in high rise construction from anywhere on the planet who backs these theories (and only a handful of such professionals without such expertise who do) nor any demolitions experts. As for witnesses only 3 or 4 of the 20,000 or so people who were in the WTC complex between the impacts and collapses support the CD theory.

Len

Another good debunking site:

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

*You only qualify if you make the bet

[Len Colby]

I don't know if the CIA was behind it but rightwing groups certainly were and many of them have deep pockets.

Disney has gotten a lot of flak from the right over the years. Including criticism from conservatives IIRC over its involvement with Fahrenheit 9/11* despite it's refusal to distribute the film; I wonder if this was an attempt to appease them. They seem to have exercised a double standard by backing out of distributing one but not even using its influence to correct the numerous distortions in the other.

One problem with the Democrats is that to a certain degree the Republicans are right (no pun intended) and they are weak. They don't seem to have the stomach to take on the GOP. One example is that the Bush administration passed up the chance on several occasions to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before invading Iraq but choose not to because it would undermine the case for war. This was reported by NBC in March 2004, eight month before the election but the Dems let Rove paint them as weak on terrorism and defense and didn't make an issue of it.

Len

*A film unfortunately not free of distortions itself

Edited September 19, 2006 by Len Colby