Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Research _ Debunking 9/11 Myths

Posted by: Beached Nov 10 2006, 11:37 AM

9/11 Myths has long been a favorite resource for skeptics and debunkers alike. Its author, Mike Williams, has compiled a collection of straw men, coupled with many distorted interpretations of valid claims. While many of Mike’s “takes” can be dismissed as patently absurd by most of us, his slimy nature and style of addressing these can be deceptive to those who are new to this material and haven’t had time to do their research. Therefore, I think it’s important that we have a thread dedicated to debunking 9/11 Myths. It’s a huge website and so I don’t know if I will ever have the time to write an entire debunk, however, if we all work together on this we’ll have Mike’s site debunked in no time!

Posted by: Beached Nov 10 2006, 11:42 AM

The Bin Laden Confession Tape

9/11 Myths claims:

The oft presented still picture from the Bin Laden confession tape does not prove that this is a man other than Bin Laden in the video. The Truth Movement will only show one image of comparison and several other frames from the video debunk this claim.

Our Take:

While I actually happen to agree with Mike that the picture in question has been overused, his claims that other frames from the video show the real Bin Laden are not necessarily true. The frames presented by 911 Myths do at first glance appear convincing; however, they offer no comparison against known photos of Osama as a reference.

So, could the man in the video really be Bin Laden? Let's put this to the test…

In both comparisons, the orientation of each photo is approximately the same. You will notice that the real Bin Laden has a much longer, more pronounced nose. Also, the eye/nose and nose/ear ratios are considerably greater on the real Bin Laden.

On the other hand, if you believe that the man in the video is Bin Laden, then you should consider the following:

Picture “C” below is one of the last known pictures of Bin Laden taken in about December 2001.

Bin Laden was suffering from a kidney disease at the time, and as you can see from this picture his health has deteriorated dramatically. This is in strong contrast to the well-built, healthy Bin Laden we see in the video. Bearing in mind Bin Laden was already receiving treatment in July 2001, could his appearance have changed so much between September and December 2001?

From the low camera angle and lack of eye contact from Bin Laden and others present, the appearance of this video is more consistent with one being shot by a security agent than one produced by Bin Laden's men. Note that Bin Laden never addresses the camera which is also unusual. If this tape had been shot by a security agent, then it is clear that the circumstances under which it was "found" are a lie.

The excessive noise on the audio track makes it impossible to hear what is being said. This also makes it very difficult to positively identify anybody appearing in the video by either their appearance or voiceprint. Bin Laden's voice is so barely audible that when the video was first released, even viewers in Arab nations had to rely on the Pentagon's translated subtitles.

On December 20, 2001, the German TV show Monitor (the "60 Minutes of Germany") found the translation of the "confession" video to be not only "inaccurate", but even "manipulative". Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini and Professor Gernot Rotter made an independent translation and accused the White House translators of "writing a lot of things that they wanted to hear but cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

In the tape, Osama allegedly claims that he knew of the attacks 5 days in advance, yet we know from the preparations inside the US that the plan had been in existence for much longer.

Also, the translation of the Osama tape has him stating that the hijackers did not know they were about to die, yet letters the FBI claim to have found written by the hijackers indicate the exact opposite.,6903,596921,00.html

This is not the first time a translator has inserted claims into a video of Bin Laden. In an earlier tape, a claim that Osama had nukes was in fact inserted by a translator and not spoken by Bin Laden himself.

Furthermore, Bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks of 9/11 and suggested that these were instead orchestrated by Zionists. The BBC published Bin Laden's statement of denial in which he said:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks....The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

Even the FBI now admit that there is no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11:

Clearly, the so-called "Bin Laden Confession Tape" was never the smoking gun the White House claimed it to be.

Posted by: conspiracy_chestnut Nov 26 2006, 07:13 AM

I think anyone who thinks that is a tape of bin Laden is an obvious Idiot. Period.

It's not even close.

Even the GubMint isn't talking about that video anymore. (not officially)

They really embarrassed themselves with that one.

I think it's pretty funny, as merely one example, that 911myths uses a comment by bin Laden that he never saw any U.S. help for the Mujahadeen as some sort of 'proof' that we didn't. And that in a section where they are trying to 'debunk' the theory that "bin Ladin was trained and funded by the CIA".

What an Idiot.

It's been my experience that, even though some anti-9/11 Truth sites make the occasional good point, mostly they just flail around and hope people don't notice.

And they are often done by, and visited by, skepters. (especially their forums)

"Skepter" is a derogatory term for someone who thinks they are a "true skeptic", but falls far short.

A true skeptic is open, objective and unbiased, or tries very hard to be so, and succeeds to some level or degree.

Whereas skepters are the antithesis of that. They tend to be immediately anti-"Conspiracy Theory" of any kind. And, although they tend to be relatively intelligent, they usually aren't too brite, and are usually undeservedly arrogant and egotistical. Often laughably so. (I suggest they are pseudo-intellectuals; you will also find them oohing and aweing over the likes of James Randi, et al. — Randiites are some of the worst of them)

They are the type of people who called the Watergate Conspiracy and the Iran-Contra Conspiracy, among most others, "Conspiracy Theories", in the negative, dismissal sense. Some of them probably still think they aren't Conspiracy Theories that were proven Conspiracy Fact.

Thereby the Idiot label.

Posted by: George Hayduke Nov 27 2006, 09:50 AM

Yo Beached, good idea, debunking the debunkers. Check your PM.

Posted by: Beached Nov 27 2006, 10:04 AM

The Un-Islamic Behavior of the Hijackers

9/11 Myths claims:

The hijackers were followers of Takfir wal Hijra, which apparently allows fornication, drinking, snorting coke etc.

Our Take:

On the suggestion that Atta and others were followers of Takfir wal Hijra, I recommend looking into the section headed "The Takfir Paradigm", pp. 228-230, in Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism".

"Thus, the new scenario being proposed by Western intelligence officials to explain the patently un-Islamic behavior of the 9/11 hijackers is largely incoherent. Despite claims to the contrary, Takfir wal Hijra is aggressively opposed to al-Qaeda and its strict ideology is fundamentally incommensurate with the prospect of permitting defiance of Islamic rules under any circumstances. Furthermore, al-Qaeda is in turn staunchly opposed to Takfir. Therefore, the anomaly of the 9/11 hijackers persists: They clearly did not possess the conduct of hardened Islamic fundamentalists connected to al-Qaeda. So, who were they?"

He then suggests that they might be double-agents, citing Stanley Hilton and reported testimony of a woman married to one of the 9/11 hijackers.

The suggestion of Takfir wal Hijra was put forth by intelligence officals without any evidence linking Atta or any of the others to this organization. Since 9/11 was an inside job carried out by elements within our own government, that compromises the credibility of any information put out by our CIA.

Also, bear in mind that according to Andreas Von Bulow, the former German Minister of Technology, 95% of what the intelligence agencies produce is deception. Therefore even if this suggestion was put forth by honest agents, we have no way of verifying the validity of their statements.

Posted by: conspiracy_chestnut Nov 28 2006, 06:57 PM

I think a class in disinformation, propaganda, advertising, marketing, and related issues, should be required in highschools before they are allowed to graduate, just like the "government class" requirement.

Perhaps "we" can offer a free class like this over the internet.

Ray McGovern would be the perfect instructor for this class.

Anyone know him and be able to suggest it to him?

Posted by: Beached Nov 30 2006, 11:30 AM

I'm not going to bother with Mike's section on the collapse of the WTC simply because it's based on the FEMA and NIST reports which have already been debunked. He also used the same strawmen introduced by Popular Mechanics which have also been debunked. Instead I'll leave some links:

Popular Mechanics Debunked:

Mike also cites alot of Frank Greening's nonsense which is debunked here:

Posted by: johndoeX Nov 30 2006, 12:30 PM

Thanks for taking the time to do this Beached!

salute.gif thumbsup.gif

Teamwork... thats what its all about...


Posted by: Beached Nov 30 2006, 03:13 PM

Thanks JDX! cheers.gif I'm working on his piece about Hani Hanjours 270-degree turn and will have that up in a minute! thumbsup.gif

Posted by: johndoeX Nov 30 2006, 03:16 PM

If 911myths says it was a 270 degree turn.. your first debunk should be that it was a 330 degree turn.. coming in from the west.. not 270.

salute.gif pilotfly.gif

Posted by: Beached Nov 30 2006, 03:18 PM

Hani Hanjour's "270-degree" Turn

911Myths claims:

Some of the people who question this aspect of the official account, say that there’s no way that terrorists would have chosen this particular area of the Pentagon.  But is there any reason to believe they would care which wall they hit? The Pentagon is a symbolic target, that’s the whole point. Supporters of these attacks couldn’t care less whether the plane flew into the east wall, west wall, roof, it doesn’t matter. The aim was simply to hit it, that’s all that mattered.

But then you might expect the pilot to take the easiest possible path, say the critics, and that didn’t happen on 9/11. Why is that a surprise, though?  If the official account is to be believed then this was a very inexperienced pilot. Would he know precisely when the Pentagon was coming up, when to begin reducing altitude, the speed he should be travelling, and the appropriate rate of descent? Maybe not. We do know he flew past the Pentagon at something like 7,000 feet, so it’s possible the pilot simply overshot.

There is another possibility, too. The hijackers would surely want to think about their flight plan in advance, choose a trajectory that followed landmarks easily visible from the ground, and could be flown at reasonably low altitude.  A pilot called Steve Koeppel produced an article speculating on exactly this.
The 270 degree right turn had me puzzled, until I realized that it would provide a simple set of landmarks for the pilot.  Just intercept the Potomac River north of town, follow it south until you see the Washington Monument or Capitol.   We used to use white country churches to navigate low-level over North and South Carolina, since they stand out clearly against the green or brown background.

Upon passing the Washington Monument, the plan may have been for the pilot to make a right turn and dive into the building.  A right turn at this point would have led the airplane to hit Pentagon on the Potomac River side where the Secretary of Defense has his office.

But being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn.  This would explain the circuitous 270 degree turn that was made to the impact point.

When he rolled out, he'd simply point the nose of the airplane at the center courtyard of the Pentagon and dive toward his target. What he wouldn't know without experience is that when you dive, you accelerate the airplane and the lift increases.  This causes the nose to rise, which would cause him to overshoot the target. In a panic, he would push forward on the controls and overcompensate, which would account for eyewitness descriptions of the airplane striking the ground short of the Pentagon.

Of course, this is all speculation, not facts.
Steve Koeppel

This analysis is flawed in that his approach trajectory doesn’t match that described by witnesses, but it remains an interesting idea. And it’s notable that a pilot describes the wide turn and eventual impact as a sign that the person flying Flight 77 was inexperienced, not that he must have been particularly skilled.

Further, if we look at what appears to be commonly accepted as the final approach, then we can see it does follow the Columbia Pike (dotted line is just an approximation, but you get the idea).

Navigation by landmarks remains a possible explanation for Flight 77’s final manoeuvres.

Our Take:

Firstly, it was not a 270-degree turn, but rather a 330-degree turn coming in from the west! (Thanks JDX wink.gif ) Let's take a look at the route Hani Hanjour took before deciding to make his 330-degree turn. Below is a link to an animation provided by the NTSB of Flight 77's final approach toward the Pentagon:

Here you will see the Pentagon is straight ahead of Flight 77. It is also a very distinctive landmark, even from 8,000 feet. Since Hani was an inexperienced pilot, the most logical action for him would be to push the nose straight down into the Pentagon. It is also very clear from this animation that contrary to Mike's suggestion, Hani did not overshoot the building.

Also, if as Mike claims, Hani decided to make this over elaborate maneuver simply because he was planning to navigate by way of landmarks easily visible from the ground, then perhaps Mike would care to explain exactly how Hani knew when and where to begin his 330-degree turn? The most visible landmark from his altitude upon approach was the Pentagon!

A more detailed analysis of Hani's maneuver can be seen in the following video (The 330 degree turn is covered around the :32 minute mark):

If we consider Mike's assertion that due to Hani's inexperience with flying large airplanes at high speeds he under-estimated the radius required to make the turn, then Mike is overlooking a major contradiction: The level of skill required to undertake such a maneuver in a Boeing 757 without stall is a challenge to even the most experienced pilots.

Russ Wittenberg, a Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot, says there is "no way" a novice could have flown the "big birds" he knew so well:

Nila Sagadevan, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, also supports Wittenberg's claim:

Even Hani's flight instructor told the New York Times: "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. [Hani] could not fly at all."

However, despite this we are supposed to believe that Hani flew a 757, undertook a 400 knot, 330 degree spiraling dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, even though he was refused to rent a Cessna 172 for being unable to land at 65 knots?

All it takes is a little common sense to decipher this.

Posted by: Beached Dec 1 2006, 12:03 PM

Hijackers Still Alive

911Myths claims:

This has never struck us as an idea that made much sense, especially if you believe the US Government were behind 9/11. If you were constructing a fake terrorist attack because you wanted to attack Afghanistan, or Iraq, then wouldn’t you involve a few Afghans or Iraqis?  But no, we’re supposed to believe that they made them inconvenient Saudis, instead.

Worse still, the planners picked live Saudis almost at random, despite the fact that they’d be sure to come forward and spoil the whole thing. Why would anyone do that?

What’s more, all these stories occurred very soon after 9/11.  Once the FBI released their official list of hijackers, complete with photographs (on the 27th September), these stories disappeared. This suggests to us they were only ever a mixup over names, and once the photos appeared as well these individuals realised they weren’t wanted men after all.

And in fact if you look at the details, you’ll find this seems the most likely explanation. Read more in our analyses of the most common “still alive” stories: Abdulaziz Al Omari, Ahmed Al-Nami, Khalid Al Mihdhar, Mohammed Atta, Said al-Ghamdi, Salem Al-Hamzi, Wail Al-Shehri and Waleed Al-Shehri.

Name confusion persists elsewhere, too, in the suggestion that some of the hijackers trained at Pensacola Air Force Base.  Some people report this as absolute fact, but like so much of the 9/11 conspiracy story, it ain’t necessarily so.
One factor complicating the investigation is that the hijackers' Arabic names are remarkably common. For example, when investigators went to the Naval Air Base in Pensacola, the address listed on a Florida driver's license issued to a Saeed Alghamdi in 1997, they learned that several people by that name had attended flight school there over the past 10 years.

"What we have here is a situation of people with identical names", said Harry White, public affairs officer at the base. He said the school has had more than 1,600 people with the first name Saeed, spelled various ways, and more than 200 with the surname Alghamdi.

White maintains, however, that none of the Saeed Alghamdi students was involved with terrorist activity. "We have found no direct connection between any of the foreign students trained at NAS Pensacola and any of the terrorist suspects,? he said.

More than 200 Saeed Alghamdis? This shows how unsurprising the “hijackers still alive” stories are. And how none of them yet provide proof that the person they’re referring to matches the claimed hijacker.

Another development makes this even less likely. Because if some of the named Saudis are still alive and innocent, then why has Saudi Arabia now accepted that they were involved?

Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens...

Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

"The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified."

And subsequently a video called “the 19 Martyrs” was released and partly aired on al Jazeera, which reportedly featured photographs of hijackers, and included bin Ladin giving a brief description of each. You’ll find a detailed page on the video here, with some interesting new photos, and we’ve saved a copy locally for posterity.  We don’t know if the video is real, or this is an accurate account of it, but if true then it is another indication that the named hijackers were involved, and they’re now all dead.

Our Take:

Firstly, let's clear up Mike's straw man once and for all - The claim is not that some of the alleged hijackers were still alive, but rather that men with the same identities were reported alive after 9/11. Furthermore, while it is true that some of the "alive" stories were simply cases of mistaken identity, there are also instances where this is not the case.

Mohammed Atta - His father, Mohamed el-Amir, claimed to recieve a phone call from his son the following day. They allegedly spoke for two minutes.,12361,784541,00.html

Since then he has given numerous interviews:

Here Atta Senior claims that "I do not believe my son did it; I am sure he is alive," the father said. "He was afraid of flying."'s%20involvement%20in%20hijackings.html

In an interview reported by the Associated Press in 2004, he further insists that his son is still alive:

Another interview was given by him to TV2 Nettavisen in September 2006 (TV2 is the biggest commercial TV channel in Norway). [Norwegian]
An English translation can be found here:
His father still references the September 12th 2001 phone call from his son and is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the Bush administration, Zionists and corrupt Arab leaders.

He tells the reporter, "[Mohammed Atta] called me the day after 9/11, and told me he was fine. If it is true he was on the plane, they have to show me DNA evidence. I have asked the authorities in Egypt to go through my phone logs from that day to see who called me. They have not done that."

He also spoke out recently, claiming that the video released this October, allegedly showing his son was a fake.

Mike attempts to destroy the credibility of Atta Senior with the following CNN interview from July 20th, 2005:
However, in this interview the reported demeanor of Mohamed el-Amir completely contradicts that of all previous and subsequent interviews with other (mostly non-American) journalists. Furthermore, his views as reported by CNN completely contradict his eminent belief that his son is still alive and that 9/11 was orchestrated by Zionists and insiders within the US Government.

If as CNN suggest, Atta Senior was the proud father of a martyr, then why did he not voice this opinion after 9/11, or even on any other occasion before or after this interview with CNN? Clearly something is amiss with this interview.

In fact, this would not be the only occasion where CNN have distorted the views of an interviewee to fit their story. In a recent interview with Christopher Bollyn, CNN smeared Bollyn as a rabid anti-Semite, who believed that "the Jews were behind 9/11", however, if we listen to the full, unabridged interview, we will see that this was not his view at all:

As with Bollyn's interview, CNN's interview with Mohamed el-Amir casts serious doubts upon the reliability of this story, and even the overall integrity of the publication. Therefore, Mike should realize that in this case, CNN may not be the most credible of sources.

Khalid Al Mihdhar - On October 4th 2001, the Chicago Tribune reported Mihdhar as saying:
"'I want to think all this is a mistake.' Al Mihdhar was watching TV at home when friends saw his photograph on the news and began to call to see if he was still alive."

A picture of Al Mihdhar is published in this report:
The suggestion is made that he may still be alive.

Eight days after 9/11, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. distributed a "special alert" to its member banks asking for information about 21 "alleged suspects" in the attacks. The list reads "Al-Midhar, Khalid Alive":

In the following story it is reported that Khalid Al-Mehdar was also identified as Khalid Almihammadi. The closest it comes to suggesting a mix up is that "the FBI first released a different picture of Mehdar. Later it published the picture of Mihammadi."§ion=0&article=9295&d=27&m=9&y=2001

It suggests that two different pictures were released, however, it does not state which picture Al Mihdhar saw.

Mohand Alshehri - According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian Embassy confirmed that ... Mohand Alshehri ... [is] not dead and had nothing to do with [9-11]. This was reported in the American Free Press, 10/12/2001.

Said al-Ghamdi - On September 23rd 2001, the BBC reported that Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, interviewed Saeed Alghamdi:

The Telegraph expanded on this story:

Al-Ghamdi's name, place, date of birth and occupation all matched. It was also claimed that: "The FBI had published his personal details but with a photograph of somebody else, presumably a hijacker who had "stolen" his identity. CNN, however, showed a picture of the real Mr Al-Ghamdi."

So, it is clear that we are looking at a possible case of stolen identity.

The story was followed up by Germany’s Der Spiegel:,1518,265160-2,00.html

Once again, Al-Ghamdi confirmed that he was not the man in the picture released by the FBI, however, take a closer look at the following photos:

One is the Al-Ghamdi reported alive, and the other is the photo released by the FBI. While they are clearly not the same men, we will observe a striking similarity in their visages.

What are the chances of a mix-up occurring between two men with matching names, places, dates of birth, occupations, and a similar appearance?

Perhaps we should ask the following question: What is the true identity of the man pictured by the FBI?

Posted by: Sanders Dec 1 2006, 01:07 PM

Beached -


You mind if I link to this stuff from those topics in the Library? Excellent work btw.

Posted by: Beached Dec 1 2006, 01:11 PM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Dec 1 2006, 05:07 PM)
Beached -


You mind if I link to this stuff from those topics in the Library? Excellent work btw.

Thanks Sanders! cheers.gif You are more than welcome to link this from the Library! thumbsup.gif

BTW, the post above I haven't quite finished... I still have to add info on the other hijackers who turned up alive, however, I'll hopefully have this finished over the weekend!

Posted by: johndoeX Dec 1 2006, 03:32 PM

QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 30 2006, 02:18 PM)
Here you will see the Pentagon is straight ahead of Flight 77. It is also a very distinctive landmark, even from 8,000 feet! Since Hani was an inexperienced pilot, the most logical action for him would be to push the nose straight down into the Pentagon. It is also very clear from this animation that contrary to Mike's suggestion, Hani did not overshoot the building!

I have gone over this in the new film. You're gonna love what you see.. Lets just say.. 911myths doesnt have a clue.. and he wont be able to use the 'overshoot' excuse anymore.. wink.gif

Posted by: Beached Dec 1 2006, 04:43 PM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 1 2006, 07:32 PM)
QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 30 2006, 02:18 PM)

Here you will see the Pentagon is straight ahead of Flight 77. It is also a very distinctive landmark, even from 8,000 feet! Since Hani was an inexperienced pilot, the most logical action for him would be to push the nose straight down into the Pentagon. It is also very clear from this animation that contrary to Mike's suggestion, Hani did not overshoot the building!

I have gone over this in the new film. You're gonna love what you see.. Lets just say.. 911myths doesnt have a clue.. and he wont be able to use the 'overshoot' excuse anymore.. wink.gif

Here's to JDX... cheers.gif

I've found Mike Williams to be a particularly slimey character, however, it will take much more than his sly wit to get around the truth!! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Beached Dec 2 2006, 08:33 AM

Stand Down

911Myths Claims:

The 1999 case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet does not prove that intercepts with the 9/11 aircraft would have been possible because it did not take 18 minutes from loss of radio contact to intercept. Here is Mike's "take":

This sounds impressive, but unfortunately it isn’t true. A quick look at the NTSB accident report reveals why. Here's the timeline.

"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".

Looks good at first, but read it carefully and you'll notice a change of time zone, from Eastern to Central time. CDT is one hour on from EDT, so contact was regarded as lost at around 09:38, and the fighter didn't get to within 2000 feet of Stewart’s jet until 10:54. That's roughly 76 minutes to intercept.

Press reports from the time give more details.

The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m...

Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.

Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s and a KC-135 tanker from Tulsa were ordered to try to catch up with the Learjet but got only within 100 miles. But two other Air National Guard F-16s from Fargo, N.D., intercepted the Learjet at 12:54 p.m, reporting that the aircraft's windows were fogged with ice and that no flight control movement could be seen. At 1:14 p.m., the F-16s reported that the Learjet was beginning to spiral toward the ground.

Putting these together with the NTSB report suggests the following points.

First, it takes time before ATC consider they’ve lost contact with a plane. The absence of any radio response was first noted at 9:34, but the controller continued trying to make contact for another four minutes, and the press report suggests contact wasn’t considered lost until six minutes after that, ten minutes after the problem was noted.

And second, NORAD don’t always have the capability to respond in a few minutes. The intercept didn’t begin for another 24 minutes, actually a fast response because the plane was already in the air.

To be fair, if the first fighters had been closer (as they were on 9/11) then the response time would have been better. And 911Research do their best to make even 76 minutes seem an insignificant length of time:

83 minutes elapsed between the time that Flight 11 veered off course and the Pentagon was hit, and 112 minutes elapsed between the time that contact was lost with Flight 11 and Flight 93 crashed.

This seems an odd way of accounting. Why does the time Flight 11 veer off course make a significant difference to the intercept time for Flight 77? Or Flight 93?

Surely a more reasonable approach is to extrapolate from the “likely takeover time” (the earliest time anyone would have known about the hijacking) until the point each plane reached its final target. Which gives us the following elapsed times: Flight 11 (8:14 to 8:47 - 33 minutes), Flight 175 (8:42 to 9:04 - 22 minutes), Flight 77 (8:51 to 9:38 - 47 minutes), Flight 93 (9:27 to 10:04 - 37 minutes). See

(Note that some will disagree with these times, in part because we’ve taken them from the 9/11 Commission Report. 911Research, for instance, say that Flight 77 went off course at 8:46 and so it could be argued that we should start the clock then. Look at the full facts and we’re being generous, though: the time we’re using corresponds with the last reported contact with the Flight 77 pilots, and the first suspect action after that, an unauthorised turn south, wasn’t noted until 8:54. It could just as well be argued that this is the first notification of a problem, meaning our timings provide 3 minutes more intercept time than was actually available).

In the Stewart case, as we’ve seen, there was a 10 minute gap between the initial problem being observed (ATC getting no radio response) and a decision being made that contact was lost. An intercept didn’t begin for another 24 minutes, and if planes were scrambled from the ground then that could have taken longer: fighters are typically on 15 minute alert, but we’ll be generous and say it took 5.

If this were repeated on 9/11, then that’s 39 minutes, plus the time it takes the plane to reach the target, before an intercept can occur.  Which suggests there wasn’t enough time to reach Flight 11 and 175 before they hit the towers, and even intercepting Flight 77 would have been very difficult. The Stewart case simply doesn’t support the idea that the 9/11 flights should have been intercepted, then: in fact, quite the opposite.

Our Take:

There appears to be some confusion as to this timeline, as another report from the Dallas Morning News seems to contradict Mike's claim:

"Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.

Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit."

So, here it is apparent that 20 minutes after radio contact was lost, they decided to scramble aircraft. Furthermore, from the time they decided to scramble jets, to the time they arrived at the Payne Stewarts plane, 15 minutes had elapsed.

However, to be fair to Mike, let's consider his 76 minutes and its significance to the events of 9/11...

9/11 Research states that, "83 minutes elapsed between the time that Flight 11 veered off course and the Pentagon was hit, and 112 minutes elapsed between the time that contact was lost with Flight 11 and Flight 93 crashed."

Mike considers this an "odd" way of accounting, as he doesn't seem to see how Flight 11 relates to Flight's 77 or 93. However, if we relate this to the case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet, then we will see that these times are comparable. Why? Because from the time Air Traffic Control noticed that Flight 11 had veerer off course, they should already have been aware of a potential problem. Had jets been put in the air to intercept, they may not have been able to catch Flight 11 in time, but they could have caught Flight 175. Furthermore, if redeployed they certainly would have been able to intercept Flights 77 and 93 far in advance of impact.

We also need to consider that the fighters on 9/11 were far closer than those which intercepted Payne Stewart's Lear jet. Below are NORAD's response times:
Interestingly, the original press release has been removed from the official NORAD website.

On 9/11, the first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52. This was about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over, and already eight minutes after the aircraft had hit the North Tower. This was 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15's from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15's were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph.

That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph!

At 9:11am the F-15's finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph.

That is only 25.8% of their top speed!

The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley Air Force Base, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16's were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph.

That is only 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph!

Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after impact.

What's worse, fighters that were in the air were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When the fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit.

By the time the two F-15's from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder turned off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and was now headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. This was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon impact. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in:

300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes.

They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.

If we look into the NTSB report for the crash of Payne Stewart's Lear jet, we will see that:

"About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".

This report makes no mention as to the speed the F-16 was travelling, however, based on this timeline it seems highly unlikely it was travelling anywhere near its top speed. Its interception occured 2 minutes after it had been vectored within 8 nm (9.2 miles) of the Lear Jet.

If you still believe that such intercepts would not have been possible on 9/11, then you need to take the following into consideration:

1. Norman Mineta gave testimony before the 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney was told as Flight 77 was approaching the Pentagon how far out it was. When the plane was 10 miles out, a young man asked Dick Cheney "Do the orders still stand?" Dick Cheney responded: "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!"

2. Intercepts were routine before 9/11, and they had been done numerous times before 9/11.

"Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."

If you believe that on 9/11 NORAD were unable to effectively respond because they were indisposed by multiple war games (including the imaginary scenario of hijacked airliners), then you have to ask yourself just how many amazing coincidences you are prepared to believe!

Posted by: Zapzarap Dec 2 2006, 09:26 AM

Outstanding work, Beached!
I'll have to come back more often. If only a day had more than 24 hours. rolleyes.gif

Anyway subscribed now.

Posted by: johndoeX Dec 2 2006, 10:39 AM

We just picked up a member from Boston Center (former), I had a lengthy discussion with him last night. He has many interesting things to say (also showing that 911myths doesnt have a clue) and he is working on many issues. I will notify him of this thread. Hopefully he will have time to chime in.


Posted by: Beached Dec 2 2006, 04:31 PM

Awesome! cheers.gif Let's blow 9/11 Myths right out of the sky!! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Beached Dec 2 2006, 04:50 PM

Michael Chertoff's connection to Popular Mechanics editor Ben Chertoff

911Myths Claims:

We never actually thought to doubt this claim, simply believing it irrelevant. The piece needs to be judged on its contents, not the surname of one of those involved. But then we heard a suggestion that Benjamin Chertoff denied the story altogether, so decided to email him to hear what he had to say. Was he really related to Michael Chertoff? And if he wasn't, then how could he explain the quote from his mother?

This is what he had to say.

Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only "Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins." Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked "Were you the senior researcher on the story?" I said, "I guess so," -- that's not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story.

Chertoff paints a very different picture from the original story. Some will say he’s lying, of course, but in that case it shouldn’t be too difficult to prove: go to it. And in the meantime, this acts as a useful reminder to everyone, including us: don’t take any 9/11-related claims for granted, whether they come from someone on your “side” of the argument or not."

Our Take:

Mike's claim that he had no reason to doubt Benjamin's relationship to the Department of Homeland Security chief is a faux humility on his part. It functions to create the impression that he is an honest researcher who does not jump to conclusions, and restricts himself to statements that he can support with well-informed arguments. However, as we've seen throughout this thread, this is far from reality.

Benjamin's claim that Bollyn introduced himself to his mother as only "Chris" fly’s in the face of those who know Bollyn personally. Bollyn has always been known to addresses himself formally and as a journalist.

In fact, Bollyn has strongly denied the accusation that he took Mrs Chertoff's words out of context. He called Benjamin Chertoff's mother and asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff. His mother said that they were cousins. Now, let's make this very clear... she didn't say that they "might be distant cousins", nor did she say that they were 2nd or 3rd cousins, she simply said that they were cousins. In fact, her very words were "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

Is Benjamin a liar? Is his denial merely a rhetorical tactic intended to quell accusations of nepotism, and to cast doubt upon Bollyn's integrity? It shouldn't be too difficult to prove: compare Bollyn's articles with the yellow journalism Benjamin employed in the 9/11 piece and you'll have your answer.

Look into the facts, do your own research, be discerning, and make up your own mind.

Posted by: Beached Dec 3 2006, 08:59 AM

Taking FBI Agents off the Bin Laden Family Trail

911Myths Claims:

This story came about through a BBC Newsnight report with Greg Palast. Here’s one take on it, from the Times of India

America was itself to blame for the events of September 11 because the US administration was using "kid gloves" in tracking down Osama bin Laden and "other fanatics linked to Saudi Arabia", a special BBC investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy.

The report, which the BBC claimed was based on a secret FBI document, numbered 199i wf213589 and emanating out of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and "connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and Bin Ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the world trade centre attacks.

The investigation, which featured in the BBC’s leading current affairs programme, Newsnight , said the FBI was told to "back off" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah, who was linked to "the Saudi-funded World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation...

Impressive stuff, and this is just a part of it. We'd strongly recommend you read the full article above, and the transcript of the original Newsnight program at .

What you'll find in that transcript is The Big Palast Discovery...

Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of other members of the] Bin Laden family for links to terrorist organisations before and after September 11th... for some reason, agents were pulled off the trail

What you won't find is exactly what Palast means by "before 9/11", and when the agents were "pulled off the trail".  Presumably because the date was September 11th 1996 ( see and a partial scan of one of the pages at ). Which means that Clinton took the FBI agents off this case, and not Bush. Or at least would have done, if there were any evidence of Presidential involvement at all (there isn't).

So what exactly is there to justify the "Bush took FBI agents off the bin Laden family trail" claim, then?  Just this, right at the end.

I received a phone call from a high-placed member of a US intelligence agency. He tells me that while there's always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it's gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents. I'm told that since September 11th the policy has been reversed.

If you've been lead to believe that the FBI case mentioned earlier was closed down by Bush, then this seems like the final nail in the coffin. But once you know that happened under Clinton, then this is just a second-hand account of a comment from an unnamed source: it may be accurate, it may not.  There's no way to tell, and it's certainly not sufficient to prove the original claim.

[Not everyone feels this way, of course. In fact some people actually misinterpret this to the point of taking the 1996 FBI case number, then describing it as a “Bush Executive Order” telling the FBI to “back off bin Ladin”. Click here for a list].

Our Take:

Mike is referring to an executive order called W199i, which was signed by Clinton. He claims that it has been misinterpreted as signed by Bush, and points out that the date Newsnight were referring to was actually September 11th, 1996.

However, what Mike doesn't tell you is that it was signed back into place by George Bush 5 years later.

Here is a section of the W199i document from Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy":

The following footnote accompanies the document:

The designation "199" means "national security matter." This is a first of over 30 pages of documentation obtained by the BBC and the National Security News Service (Washington) indicating that the FBI was pulled off the trail of "ABL" (Abdullah Bin Laden) on September 11, 1996 - and reactivated exactly five years later. According to agents and higher level sources in the CIA who spoke with us, before the attack on the World Trade Center, these cases were shut down for political reasons. While President Clinton "constrained" investigations of alleged Saudi funding of terror networks and the making of the "Islamic" atomic bomb, Bush "Jr" effectively "killed" those investigations - until September 2001.

Posted by: Beached Dec 3 2006, 11:17 AM


911Myths claims:

Mike claims that there is nothing sinister in the PNAC document, especially the oft cited quote from the section entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Plenty of people share this interpretation of the quote. Here’s a few other takes on it.

The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.

The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they've been a dream come true for the PNAC 'think-tank' whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and "regime changes".

There is circumstantial evidence that some part of the US administration was involved in the attack. It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor,3 in order to provide the impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.
9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions
Frank Legge, Journal of 9/11 Studies

Fetzer: Jim do you know the exact part of the New American Century where that shows up?

Marr: Well, it is in there. Basically, and I am paraphrasing. Maybe at the next break I’ll have a chance to find that. It’s thoroughly covered in my new book “The Terror Conspiracy”. What it is, is that the authors of this report for the New American Century called “Rebuilding America” state that we need to invade Afghanistan, have a regime change in Iraq and increase military presence in the Middle East. Exactly echoing Cheney’s words, but they were a little bit astute, they said that this is going to be kind of a tough sell unless there is a “catastrophic and catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor”.

Fetzer: Like a New Pearl Harbor, exactly.

James Fetzer radio interview with Jim Marr(hour 2)

So the first quote tells us it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, the second says it’s about justifying war and regime changes, the third and fourth link the quote to war on Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.

First, the actual full quote is this.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

The odd word here seems to be "transformation". What do they mean? Let's look back to the beginning of the same chapter.

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

So "transformation" refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC's pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs.

Now, it’s certainly true that Bush has continued to fund it, and with significant budget increases immediately post 9/11, but who says he wouldn’t have done so anyway? The reality is that the attacks themselves only give ammunition to his critics. And some of them had it immediately:

Some elected officials got the message. Sen. Carl Levin told Rumsfeld at a June 2001 hearing that we were lavishing money on missile defense and not "putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security ... like terrorist attacks."

So how did 9/11 make Levin look wrong, and the Bush administration right?

Back to the PNAC, where there's still the "Pearl Harbor" aspect. What did they mean by that? We can get an indication from the one other sentence in the document that uses the phrase.

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

The use of Pearl Harbour here means "a form of attack which we don't have the technology to counter", which now lets us make more sense of the first quote. All they're saying is that "the process of updating the US military will take a long time, unless the problems are made apparent by an attack that reveals our technical failings". 9/11 undoubtedly revealed failings in intelligence and response on the day, but nothing that matches the PNAC’s agenda. There’s no military technology fix that would have prevented it.

What about the other claims? 911Truth say the document wants Hussein to be "toppled immediately". Other sites also claim the PNAC wanted war with Iraq, but what do they say in the document?

"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene."

Not much demand for his removal there. What about Syria, Iran, or other countries that aren’t so popular in the White House?:

"...according to the CIA, a number of regimes deeply hostile to America – North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad".

And did the neo-cons want these regimes to be destroyed? Wrong again, this sentence appeared in a chapter recommending that America develop a global missile shield. The shield is required because these countries exist.

Now, we’re not saying that the PNAC didn’t see 9/11 as presenting opportunities (in fact some of the members said publicly that it did). It did deliver increased military spending, of course, but that isn’t purely what the PNAC were after. They’re after targeted spending on new technologies, not simply more money. After the Pearl Harbor quote, for instance, the document reminds us it recommended a decision to “suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production”, and mentioned that the “Joint Strike Fighter... seems an unwise investment”. Yet as we write, 4 years on, neither issue is resolved:

Different versions of the Joint Strike Fighter are being developed for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines, and there have been discussions that one of the models could be eliminated. The Pentagon also could delay the development of the next generation aircraft carrier - the CVN 21 - which is scheduled to begin construction in 2007.

Where we do think people really oversell this quote is in portaying it as some spookily accurate piece of foreknowledge, that the “New Pearl Harbour” was to justify regime change, war in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East. That really is a step too far, as you’ll find out if you download "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and read if for yourself.

Our Take:

How Mike could even attempt to defend the PNAC almost defies belief. While the PNAC did not predict a New Pearl Harbor, they claimed one would be needed for their plans to come to place. Let's take a closer look at the PNAC document:

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification. The need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
(Page 26, Rebuilding America's Defenses)

"Establish Four Core Missions For U.S. military forces:

* defend the American homeland;
* fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"
(Page 11, Rebuilding America's Defenses)

1. The U.S. is now playing a permanent role in Gulf regional security.

2. The U.S. is now involved in multiple wars one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, and most probably soon Iran.

Now the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" states:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
(Page 63, Rebuilding America's Defenses)

The PNAC document requires the U.S. to be involved in multiple wars, and therefore we need to ask ourselves if the U.S. would be in Afghanistan had 9/11 not occurred?

Since the official purpose of invading Afghanistan was to capture Osama Bin Laden, the answer is no.

Although hardcore neo-conservatives will debate this, the U.S. wouldn't be in Iraq either if 9/11 hadn't occurred. Mike also claims that the last thing the PNAC would want would be war as it would hurt the military, however, you need to ask yourself this:

Is it not true that U.S. Military spending has increased as a result of the so-called "War on Terror"?

Posted by: Beached Dec 3 2006, 02:41 PM

Cell Phone Calls at Altitude

911Myths Claims:

Mike claims that cell phone calls are possible from altitude, and provides several articles to back this up (see below).

Our Take:

From the evidence put forth by Mike, it would seem that in theory cell phone calls are possible at altitude, however, having studied several independent experiments, it would seem that in practice this is easier said than done:

Project Achilles Report Parts One, Two and Three
by A.K. Dewdney

Cell Phone Experiments in Airliners
By Germar Rudolf

"Cell phones traveling in airliners can get a service signal at heights up to some 6,000 ft, but it is not possible to make a connection, at least not while traveling at the usual cruising speed of a normal airliner (500-550 mph). Since in all cases (if at all) connections could only be established well after the pilots have pulled out the landing gear at some 2,000 ft and at a cruising speed of 230 mph or less, it seems safe to conclude that in summer of 2003, no connection could be made with a cell phone from an airliner flying in the U.S. when above an altitude above ground of 2,000 ft (610 m) and when traveling with a speed over 230 mph. Considering the fast descent of the planes and the fact that they kept slowing down as they approached the runway, the height at which a connection could be established might actually be as low as 1,500 ft (457.5 m), and the speed around 200 mph."

So far the evidence for being able to successfully place a call above 6,000 ft is not very compelling. To investigate this further, let's look at some of Mike's evidence:

"Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations... From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added."

So, Alexa suggests that calls may be possible at altitude, however, she doesn't specify how high. According to Marco Thompson of the San Diego Telecom Council:

“Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes."

He suggests that "it may work momentarily while near a cell site", however, explains that due to the speed of the airliner, the hand-off process is more difficult.

So far the experts' opinions are consistent with our own observations.

However, Mike presses on with an excerpt from the New York Times:

"According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."

The New York Times are claiming that older phones which operate on analog networks can be used up to a maximum altitude of 10 miles. Great! So that must mean my Motorola StarTAC 130 (purchased in 2000) will work at full cruising altitude? At least I should be able to get a signal?

Wrong! In an effort to investigate, I surreptitiously tried calling my voicemail while flying several routes. As soon as I got above the low-level clouds (7,000ft approx) I had absolutely no service whatsoever.

So, it would seem that the opinions of the "industry experts" were purely theoretical.

Mike's last "substantial" piece of evidence is the following excerpt from an FCC study in 2000:

"An FCC study in 2000 found that cell-phone use aboard aircraft increases the number of blocked or dropped calls on the ground. That's because at high altitude, cellular signals are spread across several base stations, preventing other callers within range of those base stations from using the same frequencies."

The article mentions cell phone use at "high altitude." However, you will see that the term "cell phone use" is ambiguous to say the least, and certainly doesn't imply the sending and receiving of calls.

When you first power up your phone, it will automatically attempt to communicate with local base stations. Cellular signals will be sent out for as long as the phone remains on, regardless of whether a call is being placed.,4065,1008z2,00.html

Therefore, it is most probable that these were the "cellular signals" detected from the ground. It's certainly one of the main reasons the FCC made the rule requesting all cell phones to be turned off while in the air. Does everyone remember to switch off their phone before take-off?

Furthermore, cell phones can store address books, games, music and more. There's ample reason for a person to switch on a phone without intending to place/receive a call. Also, bear in mind many older phones did not have a "flight safe mode".

The FCC study merely suggests that cellular signals have been detected from above base stations, nothing more.

We know that some of the alleged cell phone calls of 9/11 took place at full cruising altitude. One such call, a voicemail message left by CeeCee Lyles was apparently made from around 20,000ft. If you listen to the call, you will hear that the reception was incredible! However, neither Mike, nor any other proponent for the official story has put forth any evidence to explain this.

Mike rounds it off with several vague, anecdotal tales of cell phone use aboard commercial aircraft. However, none of these are specific as to the altitude or airspeed. Hardly convincing.

After reviewing Mike's evidence, we must conclude that he puts forth a very poor argument. As with many things, what is possible in theory will not necessarily work in practice. If Mike wishes to persue the claim further, he will need to conduct some experiments of his own to prove his point.

Posted by: Beached Dec 4 2006, 11:27 AM

Removal of Bomb Sniffing Dogs from the WTC complex

911Myths Claims:

The idea that all bomb-sniffing dogs were removed appears to be incorrect. Mike refers to the following quote:

"Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two..."

Mike claims that: "Presumably there would have been at least one other dog in tower one, perhaps others working different shifts. It looks like these at least were fixed and not wandering the building, but this would still pose a problem for vehicles bringing explosives. Maybe the WTC wasn't quite so insecure, after all."

Our Take:

Let's take a look at Mike's source:

Firstly, Sirius, the only dog reported on site, only checked for explosives in the parking lot. Mike's argument that other dogs had to be on duty lacks any supporting evidence. Also, note that this article refers to the presense of Sirius on September 11th, 2001. It says nothing of whether Sirius had been on duty in previous days, nor does it specify whether Sirius had actively been searching for explosives that day.

By the morning of 9/11, all explosives would have been placed in the Towers. At the time of the first explosion, Sirius was "locked in his six-foot by ten-foot crate" and was later found dead in his kennel.

Furthermore, the site referenced by Mike does not have any contact information whatsoever. At the following quote was added to the story:

" ... one must have gotten by us."

...which is missing from this site:

However, this site contains a quote missing from

"I'll be back to get you,"

... which is very strange, and suggests that it is probably not the most reliable source.

Even if the "WTC wasn't quite so insecure", the WTC was still insecure! Bomb sniffing dogs were called off, and the only dog on site that day would only patrol the parking lot!

Posted by: Beached Dec 4 2006, 04:38 PM

Bin Laden's Denial of Involvement in 9/11

911Myths Claims:

The denial most commonly quoted comes from an interview by a Pakistani newspaper, the Daily Ummat.
The paper quoted bin Laden as saying: "Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida is involved in the attacks and the US has traced the attackers within America.

"The attackers could be anybody, people who are part of the American system yet rebel against it, or some group that wants to make this century a century of confrontation between Islam and Christianity," he said.

Referring to evidence obtained by American intelligence, bin laden said: "Ask this question to these intelligence agencies that get billions of dollars every year."

Ummat quotes bin Laden as saying: "We are against the American system but not the American people. Islam does not allow killing of innocent people, men, women and children even in the event of war."

This is fairly unequivocal, and many people ask why would he deny responsibility for the attacks? Well, maybe because the Taliban were reportedly always against them, and understandably didn't want to be bombed into oblivion by the US. Perhaps they pressured him into issuing this statement. Perhaps they even made it themselves, after all no-one at the Daily Ummat actually met bin Ladin for the interview:

The newspaper says it submitted questions for bin Laden to Taliban officials and received written replies.

What’s more, if bin Ladin admitted the attacks immediately then he instantly gave America a pretext for war. By denying them he ensures a degree of uncertainty, meaning the US will be criticised if they begin any attacks.

There may arguably have been similar reasoning behind a statement to CNN, where bin Ladin specifically defended “the current leader” of Afghanistan:

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Hamid Mir, bin Laden’s Pakistani biographer, revealed a very different story in account given to Peter Bergen:

I was not ready to say that bin Laden is involved in the [9/11] attacks. You see, I was questioning the assumption that he is involved. When I visited Afghanistan, I spent some days there, I was totally changed because I saw the pictures of Atta [the lead hijacker] hanging in the [al Qaeda] hideouts. Privately they admitted everything. They said, they [who attacked on 9/11] are our brothers, but they said that “When the Americans kill Muslims in Sudan, they don’t admit that we are responsible for the attacks. When the Indians kill Kashmiris, they don’t admit that we have killed them. So now this is our turn. We have killed them and we are not going to admit that.

My tape recorder was on and one very important al Qaeda leader he turned off my tape recorder and said, “Yes, I did it. Okay. Now play your tape recorder.” I played the tape recorder and he said “No, I’m not responsible”.

Hamid Mir interview with Peter Bergen, Islamabad, May 11 2002 and March 2005
Chapter 10
The Fall of the Taliban and the Flight to Tora Bora
The Osama bin Laden I Know
Peter L Bergen

This approach didn’t last for long, though. Soon after the initial denial, both bin Ladin and other Al Qaeda members have made many admissions that variously accept that Muslims were involved, that they were those named by the US, or that Al Qaeda were directly responsible.

7th October 2001: bin Ladin

In this statement he appears to be saying that the attacks were committed by Muslims, and threatens the possibility of more

When Almighty God rendered successful a convoy of Muslims, the vanguards of Islam, He allowed them to destroy the United States...

I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him.

October 9th, 2001: Suleiman Abu-Ghaith

Just in case that’s not enough, another Al Qaeda spokesman makes the threat explicit:

"He issued a chilling warning to the U.S., saying there would be no peace until it stops supporting Israel and ends blockades against Iraq.

"The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living."

14th October: Suleiman Abu Ghaith

And the same message is repeated a few days later. Why would someone who knew nothing of, and disagreed with the attacks threaten more?

Finally, I address the US secretary of state, who cast doubt about my previous statement and downplayed what we said that there are thousands of Muslim youths who are eager to die and that the aircraft storm will not stop, God willing.

"Powell, and others in the US administration, know that if al-Qaeda organisation promises or threatens, it fulfils its promise or threat, God willing.

"Therefore, we tell him tomorrow is not far for he who waits for it. What will happen is what you are going to see and not what you hear.

"And the storms will not calm, especially the aircraft storm...

We also say and advise the Muslims in the United States and Britain, the children, and those who reject the unjust US policy not to travel by plane.

We also advise them not to live in high-rise buildings and towers...

27th December 2001, bin Ladin:

"Those who carried out the act (September 11) were not 19 Arab countries... they were 19 secondary school students..." He then went on to say how they should all become martyrs, ie: "Another, Muhammed Atta came from Egypt. We beseech God to accept them all as martyrs".

February 2002, bin Ladin:

Now he appears to be accepting that the attacks were carried out by the Muslims named by America, but claims he did no more than "incite" them:

"What many leaders have said so far is that America has an indication only, and not a tangible proof. They describe those brave guys who took the battle to the heart of America and destroyed its most famous economic and military landmarks.

They did this, as we understand it, and this is something we have agitated for before, as a matter of self-defense, in defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine, and to liberate our sacred religious sites/things. If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists".

April 4th, 2002: al Qaeda statement

The first charge of the heroes of the New York and Washington attacks was obedience to all of their orders, an obedience that was established before their departure to the enemy's land, beginning with the hero Ahmad al-Ghamdi, may Allah almighty have mercy on him...

We have put forth this directive in order to deliver a new blow to America and to expose to the world the fallacy of the American propaganda which claims it has irrefutable evidence regarding the warriors (mujahideen) who carried out the operation. It claims it has twenty-four thousand threads leading to knowledge of the agents of the operation. But what appears to it as evidence is weaker than a spider's web, and the American case cannot rely upon it to indict the suspects, let alone convince the world with it. In this directive we say to America that hiding all trace of the agents of the operation was not something we considered. Rather, some of the heroes were intent on leaving Islamic fingerprints on the operation. This is a new blow received by the American security agency that has looked here and there in confusion unlike anything ever seen before. On account of the hunt for a trace of the heroes who entered their country, noses have sniffed with honor and pride.

[there then follows a lengthy justification explaining why they claim the attacks were permissible under Islam]

These comments about the permissibility of the martyrdom operations in the attack of New York and Washington are taken from the book The Truth about the New Crusader War. Whoever wants further evidence and a detailed discussion of the matter should consult the entire book.

Why are al Qaeda writing about and naming a “hero” of 9/11 if they don’t know anything about it? Doesn’t the statement “hiding all trace of the agents of the operation was not something we considered” indicate their involvement? Why are they bothering to justify the attacks (and write a book about them) if they had nothing to do with it?

No, this is clear acceptance of al Qaeda involvement. Read a detailed analysis of the statement here.

April 2002, Ahmed al-Haznawi:

"For the first time, one of the 19 suicide hijackers involved in the September 11 attacks has been shown explaining his motives, with the broadcast yesterday by an Arab television network of a videotape made last year by a man identified as a Saudi conspirator.
The Qatar-based al-Jazeera station named the man as Ahmed al-Haznawi - a hijacker on United Airlines flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11. He is shown angrily reciting a prepared statement, which al-Jazeera described as a last will and testament".,11209,685127,00.html

September 10th, 2002: bin Ladin and others

"Two days before the anniversary of the September attacks and at a time the U.S. is using its war on terror to launch an attack against Iraq, Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite channel on Monday, September 9, aired video-clips in which it says Osama bin Ladin claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks on the United States"...

Apart from Atta, bin Ladin named Lebanese Ziyad al-Jarrah, Marwan al-Shehhi from the United Arab Emirates, “who destroyed the second tower” of the World Trade Center, and Hani Hanjour (from the Saudi city of Taef) “who destroyed the Pentagon.”

Al-Jazeera showed photographs of Hamza al-Ghamdi (alias Julailib al-Ghamdi), Saeed al-Ghamdi (alias Mutaz al-Ghamdi), Wael al-Shehri (alias Abu Suleiman) and Ahmad Naami (Abu Hisham), whose names, like those cited by bin Ladin, figure on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) list of hijackers.

Al-Jazeera also aired footage of one of the hijackers saying in his “will” that he was trained by Laden.

“May God reward all those who trained me and made possible this glorious act, notably the fighter and mujahid (Islamic warrior) Osama bin Ladin, God protect him,” said Saudi kamikaze Abdul Aziz al-Omari.

Al-Omari, who according to the FBI was one of five hijackers who slammed an American Airlines Boeing 767 into the north tower of the World Trade Center, was shown wearing a grey robe with his shoulder-length hair turbaned in a keffiyeh (chequered headdress).

The September 11 attacks were “a message to all infidels and to America to leave the Arabian peninsula and stop supporting the cowardly Jews in Palestine,” he said.

“Let it be known that we can bring you and other enemies down,” Al-Omari said, addressing the United States.

September 2002: Ayman Al Zawahiri

it is imperative that we acknowledge the victory achieved by the Muslims against the Crusader forces, in New York and Washington... This small group, in numbers and equipment, were able to inflict immense slaughter on the greatest idol worshipped today, despite its power and arrogance...

October 2002: Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

In an interview by Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda, Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admit responsibility for 9/11, and describe their planning. These interviews were audiotaped, and segments broadcast on Al Jazeera.

“Immediately, Khalid introduces himself as head of the military committee of Al Qaeda,” says Fouda. “That committee actually was the arm of Al Qaeda, which decided, first of all, according to Khalid, to strike America inside America and to eventually choose the targets, which were actually hit on Sept. 11.”

In the second part of a documentary aired by the Arabic television news network Al-Jazeera, two al Qaeda terrorists wanted by the United States give an account of their planning of the September 11 attacks and describe the actions of some of the main hijackers in their final days...

About three weeks before September 11, targets were assigned to four teams, with three of them bearing a code name: The U.S. Capitol was called "The Faculty of Law;" the Pentagon became "The Faculty of Fine Arts;" and the North Tower of the World Trade Center was code-named by Atta as "The Faculty of Town Planning."

One of the terrorists, Abu Abdul Rahman, pretended to send a love message via an Internet chat room to his German girlfriend, who was actually Binalshibh. It contained more code for the attacks:

"The first semester commences in three weeks. Two high schools and two universities. ... This summer will surely be hot ...19 [the eventual number of hijackers] certificates for private education and four exams. Regards to the professor. Goodbye."

Soon after, Fouda says, the hijackers began "moving fast," picking the flights to be hijacked, choosing ones involving large planes with "maximum volume of fuel and best punctuality."

Seats in business class were chosen for some to allow for "mobility and maneuverability," according to Binalshibh.

March 2003: bin Ladin

...because of the way they oppress us in the Muslim world, especially in Palestine and Iraq, and because of their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Places... the Mujahideen... decided to act in secret and to move the battle right into his [the U.S. president's] country and his own territory.

They carried out the raid by means of enemy planes in a courageous and splendid operation the like of which mankind had never before witnessed. They smashed the American idols and damaged its very heart, the Pentagon. They struck the very heart of the American economy, rubbed America's nose in the dirt and dragged its pride through the mud. The towers of New York collapsed, and their collapse precipitated an even greater debacle: the collapse of the myth of America the great power and the collapse of the myth of democracy; people began to understand that American values could sink no lower. The myth of the land of freedom was destroyed, the myth of American National security was smashed and the myth of the CIA collapsed, all praise and thanks to Allah.

May 2003: Ayman Al Zawahiri

Learn from your 19 brothers who attacked America in its planes in New York and Washington and caused it a tribulation that it never witnessed before and is still suffering from its injuries until today.

September 21, 2003: Abu Muhammad al-Ablaj

Abu Muhammad al-Ablaj, "the man in charge of training in al-Qa'ida", describes bin Ladin as "the one who destroyed its economic pride, sullied its military dignity and wrecked the impregnable Pentagon fortress". Also says of "The September Team": the soldiers of The Most Gracious who implemented are gone to their Lord in that regiment. The brains that plan still remain".

August 2004: Abu-Jandal

The former personal bodyguard of bin Ladin and leading Al Quaeda member in Yemen says "among the elements that carried out the September incidents I knew Muhammed Atta..."

October 30th 2004: bin Ladin

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind..."

"And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children"

September 12th 2005:
American Al-Qaeda operative Adam Gadahn:

Four years after the blessed raids on New York and Washington, we find the people of the West continuing to speculate about the causes and objectives which lie behind those historic events and subsequent developments. We find them in disagreement over the nature of the people who carry out operations like those on September 11th, March 11th, and July 7th, the nature of their motives, and the nature of the demands they harbor, if any. And most crucially, and as a result of their speculation and disagreement, we find them uncertain about which steps or actions they must take to achieve the restoration of the security they once enjoyed.

Allah is our witness that the numerous audio and videotapes issued by Sheikh Osama bin Ladin, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the other leaders of the jihad have... been released to explain and propound the nature and goals of the worldwide jihad against America and the Crusaders and convey our legitimate demands to friend and foe alike...

As Sheikh Osama has told you repeatedly, your security is dependent on our security. You can't have one without the other. If you ensure our security, you will have automatically ensured your own.

Our Take:

First of all, when Ayman Al Zawahiri or other figures in the As-Sahab videos acclaim sole responsibility for 9/11 it is a figment of their imaginations. In fact, to label these men delusional is an understatement. These men know full well that they have no ability to live and breathe without intelligence (Mossad, CIA, ISI, GID) help. Hence, they are applying the Al Harb Al Khida role (war is deceit) for many purposes:

1. To further their goal and to be the "legitimate authority" in the Muslim World.

2. To push their "covert" ideology (Wahabism) and gain mass appeal.

3. To boost the morale of the weakened, colonized, oppressed Muslim nations. In other words, to exploit their feelings.

4. To fool the world, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that they are an established unit or foe that is capable of masterminding these events.

5. To instill fear. This helps to perpetuate the myth that the"war on terror" is real and legitimate.

6. While they know that they are a tool of Western propaganda and are no "real" threat, yet due to the weakening of the Muslim nations, they play a "deceitful" role purposefully and portray themselves the as a formidable foe due to desperation on their part primarily.

If the mysterious and ever elusive "Al Qaeda" were as they appear, they would debunk every claim that is thwarted at them. So why don't they do it? I believe reasons 1-6 provide a satisfactory answer.

Furthermore, the organization known as "Al Qaeda" does not even exist. Literally translated as "the database", it was actually the computer file of the thousands of Mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Soviets back in the 1980's.,12780,1523838,00.html

It has since been coined as a collective term for loose knit terror cells, the majority of which are guided by the Pakistani ISI, Mossad, Saudi GID, MI6 and the CIA.

Former French Military Intelligence official, Pierre Henry Bunel, explains that "Al Qaeda" was an early form of intranet, used by Islamic nations and influential families to communicate with each other. This was also used by Bin Laden to send covert messages back to his CIA handlers from Afghanistan.

More on "Al Qaeda" can be found in the 2004 BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares". You can watch the relevant excerpt here:

We strongly encourage you to obtain and view the complete documentary.

With regards to the apparent "9/11 admissions" by Bin Laden, let's look at these idividually:

7th October 2001 - In this statement Bin Laden appears to be claiming that the attacks were committed by Muslims. He threatens the possibility of more, however, Bin Laden does not take responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.

27th December 2001 - In his last authentic statement, Bin Laden states that: "Those who carried out the act (September 11) were not 19 Arab countries... they were 19 secondary school students..." However, he does not take responsibility for the attacks of 9/11.

Since Bin Laden's statement of December 27th, 2001, none of his later videos or audio tapes have been confirmed as authentic.

Numerous Intelligence agencies have commented on the supposed Bin Laden videos, and most of them have confirmed the Bin Laden tapes to be fake. They have compared the voiceprint to actual recordings of Bin Laden, and have stated that this is clearly not Bin Laden in the videos. Many of the videos have actually been compilations of footage from the 1980's...

A French terrorism expert, Roland Jacquard, head of the International Observatory on Terrorism based in Paris, told French radio that these tapes were mostly a collection of old footage and soundtracks:,12469,1040347,00.html

In fact, the evidence strongly suggests that Bin Laden died in December, 2001:

"Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.

With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?"

Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years. According to Le Figaro, last year [2000] he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan.,1361,584444,00.html

In response to the December 2001 video, Peter Bergen of CNN stated that, "This is a man who was clearly not well. I mean, as you see from these pictures here, he's really, by December [2001] he's looking pretty terrible."

According to the Telegraph, "The [December 27, 2001 video] was dismissed by the Bush administration ... as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa'eda leader was already dead. 'He could have made the video and then ordered that it be released in the event of his death,' said one White House aide."

Pakistan's President Musharraf said that he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai claimed that Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead.

The FBI counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead.

The a London-based Arab news magazine claimed that a purported will it published was written in late 2001 by Osama bin Laden, and shows that "he's dying or he's going to die soon."

According to FOX News: "Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. 'The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead,' the source said.,2933,41576,00.html

A Funeral Article was published by the Egyptian Paper: al-Wafd, on Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633:
The translation reads:

"News of Bin Laden's Death and Funeral 10 days ago: A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death."

And according to Israeli intelligence: "Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen: Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported."

So, in light of his death, it seems highly unlikely that any of Bin Laden's alleged statements made post December 2001 would have been authentic.

Posted by: johndoeX Dec 4 2006, 04:49 PM

Beached. .you da man! good work...


Posted by: Cary Dec 4 2006, 05:02 PM

Beached is kicking some serious ass. Go head Beached.

Posted by: Beached Dec 4 2006, 05:48 PM

Thanks guys! cheers.gif I want to try and get the important stuff done a.s.a.p. since the rest of Mike's site is mainly strawmen like "the was no 757 wreckage at the Pentagon" etc.

Just wondering, do you guys think it's worth turning his strawmen into a valid claim such as "no Boeing hit the Pentagon" or just not bother with the strawmen and merely focus on the more important points?

Posted by: johndoeX Dec 4 2006, 06:05 PM

Focus on important stuff. .stick to facts... my 2 cents.. wink.gif

Posted by: Beached Dec 5 2006, 06:49 AM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 4 2006, 10:05 PM)
Focus on important stuff. .stick to facts... my 2 cents.. wink.gif

Agreed! cheers.gif

Posted by: Beached Dec 5 2006, 08:57 AM

Automated Control of the 9/11 Aircraft

911Myths Claims:

Remote control of large planes isn’t in itself a new idea. Successful tests have been carried out long ago, for example this experiment in 1984. However, some go further and say the Boeing 757 and 767 come with this ability already.
"The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury... No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it.”

Unfortunately, it's mostly nonsense. The Boeing 757 and 767 do have autopilot, but turn it off and you can do what you like.  What's more, the 757 and 767 do not have "fly by wire" capabilities (their control systems are mechanical, not electronic, with cables and hydraulics to move the control surfaces).  The only plane that did at the time was the 777, and even this could be overridden by the pilot.

"On Boeing jets, the pilot can override onboard computers and their built-in soft limits.
"It's not a lack of trust in technology," said John Cashman, director of flight-crew operations for Boeing. "We certainly don't have the feeling that we do not want to rely on technology. But the pilot in control of the aircraft should have the ultimate authority.""

But okay, let’s take this further. Maybe the planes were modified to be remote controlled.  After all, America has remote controlled planes like the Predator and Global Hawk, so why couldn’t the technology be applied here?

Some people point to the planes final movements as indications of remote control.  They talk about last minute corrections as planes flew into the WTC, or the difficulty of flying low-level into the Pentagon, as being far beyond the capabilities of the inexperienced hijackers. So is this really plausible?

We say no. Problem  #1 is the major modifications that would be necessary to the plane, and the control system.  You’d need several cameras mounted on the plane to show the “remote controller” what was going on, too, and a transmission system to send images back, and receive commands.  All to be achieved without anyone noticing.

But that’s only the first issue. Consider this press conference reply from American General Ronald Keys:

Q: Referencing the E-10, if we can control a Predator from Nevada, why do we need to put a battle staff airborne in the E-10?

General Keys: Well, you can control them, but for example, we missed shooting down a MiG-25 during the war because of the latency in the system. We had the Hellfire-armed Predator up and the MiG-25 was coming in to intercept and we had him locked up, but by the time we had fired the missile, he had started his turn and so he broke lock. The reason was there's about a several second delay in the latency.

The “latency” the General refers to here is the delay any remote controlled plane faces. To take an example of flying into the Pentagon, what would happen if you appear to be coming in too low?  First, there would be a delay while the cameras on board the plane processed the image. There’s then a delay while the image is transmitted, and another while it’s displayed to the remote pilot. There’s a natural delay while he reacts to the situation, then another in transmitting his commands back to the plane, and another while it adjusts the control surfaces accordingly.

How long is this delay, in total?  The general says “several” seconds, and that’s based on current technology, not anything available in 2001. But let’s be generous, and say the latency adds just an extra two seconds to a pilots response time.  What does that mean for the 9/11 flights?

A little math begins to make it clear. At a flight speed of 500 mph, say, our planes would be covering 733.33 feet per second. In other words, even on our generously low estimate, they would fly 1466.33 feet, heading for a third of a mile, before they could possibly even begin react to anything the remote pilot has seen. Any sudden reactions in the final fraction of a second, as has been claimed at the WTC, just don’t look possible by remote control. In fact, they more than anything indicate the presence of a real, live pilot flying the aircraft.

Our Take:

While the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft are not "fly-by-wire" in the same sense as the more recent 777's; according to Boeing, they can be flown entirely under the control of their Flight Management Computer Systems (FMCS):

"A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system ensures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload.

The precision of global positioning satellite system (GPS) navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer."

Boeing also provides information on the ease of reprogramming various systems including the FMCS:

"Airplane systems that can be modified with loadable software are standard on several later-model Boeing airplanes (see table 1). This feature allows operators to change the configuration of loadable systems without physically modifying or replacing hardware components. Benefits include the ability to meet new requirements, incorporate design improvements, and correct errors. In addition, software often can be loaded just in the time required to turn an airplane around for the next flight. A major advantage of changing system functionality without changing hardware is the reduced number of line replaceable unit (LRU) spares both operators and Boeing must keep in stock."

So, if the FMCS had been hacked to take control of the aircraft, then the only remaining problem would be the flight crew attempting to override this. However, had the crew and passengers been incapacitated, the FCMS would have been able to fly the aircraft directly into their targets.

One way the crew and passengers may have been taken out is if the cabin were filled with a potent gas at a predetermined point in flight. Since pressure variations are a predictable behavior of changing altitude, a barometric-triggered device could have been used.

The scenario of the aircraft flying under the control of the FMCS seems the most likely, however, as Mike has brought up the subject of remote control, let's look into this too...

Interestingly, British aeronautical engineer Joe Vialls claims that, the 757 and 767 flight control computers incorporate a feature which enables them to be remotely controlled, for the purpose of aborting hijackings. In a January 2002 interview, Former German secretary of defense, Andreas Von Bulow claimed that this technology has existed for decades. He also said that if such systems were operative on 9/11, they should have been used to take control of and land the hijacked jets.

More on this system can be found here:

Regardless of whether this feature had already been incorporated into 757 and 767 aircraft, the possibility of such a modification is not at all far fetched. Furthermore, Mike's claim that the flights could not be remote controlled, as last minute corrections would be prevented by a time delay is also fallacious.

Here is Mike's source:

"Q: Referencing the E-10, if we can control a Predator from Nevada, why do we need to put a battle staff airborne in the E-10?

General Keys: Well, you can control them, but for example, we missed shooting down a MiG-25 during the war because of the latency in the system. We had the Hellfire-armed Predator up and the MiG-25 was coming in to intercept and we had him locked up, but by the time we had fired the missile, he had started his turn and so he broke lock. The reason was there's about a several second delay in the latency."

General Keys was referring to a missile lock broken due to the MiG-25 turning before they had a chance to fire. In other words, this was an unpredictable moving target! Had the MiG-25 been static, it is unlikely that the remote pilot would have had the same problem. Under those circumstances, an experienced military pilot could have easily taken the time delay into consideration.

The only 9/11 plane which hinted at a last minute correction was Flight 175 just prior to impacting the South Tower. However, WTC 2 was a very large, stationary target.

It is clear that while the aircraft was flying a straight path into the tower, it was descending too rapidly, and therefore, the remote pilot needed to pitch up slightly. Had the aircraft pitched-up several seconds earlier, it would have hit WTC 2 higher up, closer to where Flight 11 impacted WTC 1. Furthermore, it would appear that the upper floors were the intented target, and thus strongly suggests that the late change in altitude was due to a poor estimation of the time delay.

Had a correction been made by a kamikaze pilot in the last seconds of his life, due to the intensity of the situation it is more than likely that he would have pitched-up too far, and over-exaggerated the maneuver.

However, the impact video hints at another possibility - What was thought to be a "correction" to the trajectory of Flight 175, may not have been a correction after all. Had the aircraft been flying under the FMCS, then this maneuver may have been a part of the pre-defined route, taking the aircraft through the tower. Since this took place just prior to impact, it is easy to see how this could have been misinterpreted as a "correction".

If you believe that there were real, live hijackers in control, then you have to ask yourself how these men, without any training in flying 757/767 aircraft, could have flown these at full-throttle, and with such skill and precision into the Twin Towers.

Posted by: Beached Dec 5 2006, 04:29 PM

Coleen Rowley, and the FBI's Sabotage of the Moussaoui Investigation

911Myths Claims:

Mike claims that in her letter, Rowley's phrase, "deliberately sabotage" has appeal for those who want to believe in a Government conspiracy, however this is not her view at all:

Mike claims: "Plenty of institutional reasons why the FBI behaved as it did, then, without requiring foreknowledge of or complicity in the attacks."

Our Take:

So, as with everything, Mike's excuse is incompetence. Isn't that the same excuse given for the stand down? Isn't that the same excuse given for pretty much everything relating to 9/11, the so-called "war on terror" and The Bush Administration? It's amazing how incompetent these people can be when it comes to incidents from which they stand to gain.

Did you hear about the time the US Military accidentally airlifted 8,000 members of the Taliban and "Al Qaeda" to safety?

"NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2001 - The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States."

Can anybody else see what's wrong with this picture? Anybody at all??

Posted by: Sanders Dec 5 2006, 05:06 PM

Slow down, Beached, I can't keep up with you! (this is all getting linked)

Great stuff.

Posted by: Beached Dec 5 2006, 05:09 PM

HEHEHE... Well, I'm planning on taking a break from this over the Christmas holidays! But I still have a few more to go... biggrin.gif

Posted by: Beached Dec 6 2006, 09:56 AM

The "Put" Options and Unclaimed UAL Stock

911Myths Claims:

This is a complex story, but the reality is a little different from the claims.

Although there were high volumes traded on these days, for instance, they weren’t as exceptionally high as some sites like to claim. Here’s one analysis.

There were very good reasons to sell American Airlines shares, too, as they’d just announced a string of bad news. Read more here.

United Airlines stocks were falling in price, too. If investors anticipated they were about to release bad results then their put options would also be worth buying (although keep in mind that the UAL put volumes weren’t the highest in the year anyway). Here’s our thoughts.

Some point to stories like the “unclaimed millions” from UAL puts as having a sinister explanation, but we disagree.  Here’s why.

There was plenty of talk about potential insider dealings in other stocks, too.  We haven’t researched these in any depth, but it’s worth pointing out that some people believe the claims were overblown.

What about most of the options being put through a CIA-linked bank?  We weren’t convinced.

The 9/11 Commission Report mentions this issue in its notes to Chapter 5:

"A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10...

Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10th was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades".

Some suggest they should have paid more attention to it, but we’re not entirely sure why.  As you can see from the other links here, the UAL trades weren’t exceptional, and there was news to justify the sale of American Airlines shares.  Foreknowledge of 9/11 isn’t required to explain these trades.

Our Take:

Firstly, let's take a look at how the 9/11 Commission Report responded to the issue of insider trading on 9/11 (chapter 5, note 130):
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

So, according to the 9/11 Commission, "Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11."

What was the reason for the Commission's claim that "the trading had no connection with 9/11"? Because these trades were made by "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda". That means the investigation is blocked for the reason that the trail doesn't lead to the largely mythical Al-Qaeda! What is that for an "investigation" when the result stands before the investigation has even begun?

The commission are claiming that a "single U.S.based investor... purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts".

Therefore, as this turned out to be only one company, how could such a claim be made that said trading is referred to a general fall of airline-options and a general recommendation made by a trading newsletter? That fact that 95% of the put options were purchased by one investor is proof that this options-trade wasn't result of general business. This investor had a very special interest in these put-options. Who was this single investor?

The bank which purchased 95% of the UAL-Put-options was Alex Brown Inc, headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, who became executive director of the CIA in March 2001 (resigned December 2004). Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc, America's oldest investment banking firm. Alex Brown was acquired by Bankers Trust, which in turn was bought by the German His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust – Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.

Now, as we've just seen that the Commission Report contradicts itself, let's look directly at these suspicious trades:

On Sptember 10th, 1,535 contracts changed hands on options that bring a profit if AMR stock falls below $30 per share before Oct. 20. That was more than 60 times the previous daily average, according to a Bloomberg analysis of options market data (BLOOMBERG NEWS, Sept.20, 2001, also CBS News, Sept.26,2001)

In "Unusual Options Market Activity with an Application to the Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" by Allen M. Poteshman of the University of Illinois, the author states:
"When the option market activity in the days leading up to the terrorist attacks is compared to the benchmark distributions, the volume ratios and call volume indicators are seen to be at typical levels. The indicator of long put volume, however, appears to be unusually high, which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks."

According to Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001, October $30 put options for UAL soared, with 2,000 contracts traded on Sept. 6, three trading days before the attack. That was 285 times the previous average trading.

According to CBS News, Sept. 26, 2001, there has been a jump in UAL put options 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

The Put/Call Ratio for UAL was 25 times higher than normal:

But there were more suspicious trades before 9/11:

On 21 September 2001, the Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, states in the report entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" :
„Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45.00 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6.“

That means 719 daily average the last three day before 9/11, compared to 27 daily average. That's 26 times more than before. The report goes on:
„Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45.00 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in these options had been 252 contracts per day“

That's 12 times more than the previous average volume.
Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.

Again, Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001:
Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09.

„European regulators are examing trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster.... It is not clear if any trades in these stocks ring alarm bells.“

Also, note that German central bank president Ernst Welteke reports that a study by his bank indicates,
„There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge“,
not only in shares of heavily affected industries such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01] His researchers have found
almost irrefutable proof of insider trading“ [Miami Herald, 9/24/01]. „If you look at movements in markets before and after the attack, it makes your brow furrow. But it is extremely difficult to really verify it.“
Nevertheless, he believes that
„in one or the other case it will be possible to pinpoint the source.“ [Fox News, 9/22/01]
Welteke reports
fundamentally inexplicable rise
in oil prices before the attacks [Miami Herald, 9/24/01] and then a further rise of 13 percent the day after the attacks. Gold rises nonstop for days after the attacks. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01]

There were also other suspicious winners of 9/11:

Raytheon saw its stock rise immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.
A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. Bloomberg News, 10/3/01

Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volums before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.
The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11.

In conclusion:

1. A jump is seen in United Airlines put options. This is 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. In the case of the UAL put options, even Mike admits that, "[he] cannot definitively show why the UAL put options were purchased".

2. A jump is seen in American Airlines put options. This is 60 times above normal on the day prior to the attacks.

We should also consider that while the American Airlines shares were falling in price, if we look at the share prices, we will see that their decline in previous months was not as dramatic as Mike makes out:

According to Mike's chart, between July 16th and September 10th 2001, the price of AA stock fell from $38 to $29.95. However, if we review the complete history, we will see that between June 26th and July 16th, the opening price had gone from $32.50 - 38.00, where it peaked. Of course, Mike begins his chart from July 16th, thus presenting the illusion of a more dramatic, long-term decrease!

From July 16th there had been a gradual decline in price, albeit very slow. Considering none of Mike's evidence suggested a huge plummet on the horizon, the sheer volume of put options purchased appears to be overly speculative.

To put this into perspective, we should consider that the price of Continental Airlines stock was also in decline. This was also the case with many other airlines. In 2001, Continental stock fell from $51.85 on July 16th, to $39.75 on September 10th. In fact, it fell further than the American Airlines stock in less than 2 months!

The Continental share prices followed a similar pattern to those of American Airlines, however, no similar trades occured on this airline, or any others in the days immediately prior to 9/11.

3. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 26 times in the purchase of put options on its shares. 2,157 of its October $45 put options were purchased in the three trading days before Black Tuesday. This compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. In the aftermath of the attacks, Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50.

4. Merrill Lynch & Co., whose headquarters were near the Twin Towers, saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put opinions in the four trading days before the attacks. 12,215 of their October $45 put options had been bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day. That's an increase of 1200%!

5. A jump is seen in Raytheon call options, more than 6 times their daily average

6. Extraordinary high volumes of trading is seen in both gold and US Treasury notes.

What a coincidence! In the days prior to 9/11, a large spike is seen in the stock of American and United Airlines, together with several other businesses also to be directly affected by the disaster!

Don't you think there should be a real investigation, even if the result would be that the investors have "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"?

Posted by: Beached Dec 6 2006, 12:39 PM

Ok, I think I've covered most of the important stuff, and so I'm going to take a break until the new year! Having trawled through Mike's site, the rest are strawmen and idiotic "claims" such as:

"The Pentagon had foresight of AA77's impact because they had a drill of an aircraft crashing into their building" which Mike's reply is something like...

"The Pentagon is near a major airport and so such drills could normally be expected"

What a stupid strawman/reply! It debunks the strawman of "foresight", however, it doesn't mean they hadn't envisioned such a scenario!! laugh.gif

Interestingly, I also noticed that he's updated his Hanjor "debunk" and now conceeds that it was a 330 degree turn. Hmmm.. I wonder if we've had a secret the govt loyalist site visit? dunno.gif

But the rest of it is still the same crap about how he had to make the turn to be able to "find" the Pentagon! [laugh] I noticed there's now even a link to a pseudo "expert" (and probably a closet JREFer) "backing it up"! laugh.gif

Posted by: conspiracy_chestnut Dec 6 2006, 10:26 PM

I missed what a the govt loyalist site is.

Posted by: Beached Dec 6 2006, 10:37 PM

QUOTE (conspiracy_chestnut @ Dec 7 2006, 02:26 AM)
I missed what a the govt loyalist site is.

the govt loyalist site are the Randi cult tongue.gif I think it stands for James Randi Educational Foundation

Posted by: Beached Dec 7 2006, 10:03 AM

I was just looking at the 911myths FAQ page and this cracked me up...

What do you think happened on September 11th?

I think the attacks were carried out by al Qaeda, and involved the 19 named hijackers.


There is no way a genuinely intelligent, critical thinker could believe such tripe! On his website, he conveys himself as a seemingly intelligent individual, especially in his manipulative style of writing, which is why his "takes" appear so convincing. However, it's only when people carefully dissect, and analyze what he's written, that it becomes apparent that most of it is nonesense.

Interestingly, his FAQ goes on to say:

Why spend so much effort on this?

Why do you ask? Oh, I know. It’s the old one where anyone who spends a lot of time promoting a particular 9/11 theory is A Fearless Seeker After Truth (even if their site is packed with “Donate” buttons and invitations for you to “buy the book/ DVD/ video”), but anyone who spends the same amount of time on the other side of the argument is A Government Shill/ Paid Disinformation Agent, right?

Well, believe what you like, but I do this because I enjoy it. It’s an interesting exercise in collecting information online, and sharpens my research skills. Plus I didn’t see anyone else bothering to do the same thing (plenty of sites making these claims, not so many questioning them), so arguably the site is performing a useful function as well. Although that’s really just a side issue: I’m doing this for me, not for anyone else.

Well, despite what Mike says, his motivation is too suspicious. He blindly accepts the "official" fairytale despite the many holes in the story. However, when it comes to an alternative explanation, he follows the Randi methodology; dictating that unless full confessions are provided by all parties involved, he denies all possibility.

There is no way he could be so obtuse, unless it were deliberate. However, the top of his FAQ may hint toward his true motivation...

Who are you?

I'm Mike Williams, a software developer and freelance writer from the UK.

Could he be doing this on behalf of a particular client? Considering his talent for spin, Mike could even give "Mein Kampf" an innocuous twist! laugh.gif

Well, if he is doing this on behalf of a client, it may be one who pays very well...

... but of course, I may be wrong, and it may turn out that Mike is just a misguided fool, however, as with everything else, common sense dictates taking an alternative explanation into consideration.

Posted by: Beached Dec 21 2006, 10:07 AM

The passenger lists did not include any of the alleged hijackers

9/11 Myths Claims:

The claim that none of the passenger lists included any of the alleged hijackers is false. Mike points toward the following low-quality reproductions of alleged passenger manifests:

Our Take:

The passenger lists cited by Mike were revised manifests which did not appear until July 2006; released by an unverifiable source. All passenger lists published by CNN and elsewhere are free of any Arab names, much less any matching the alleged hijackers:

It has always been claimed that the names of the hijackers were on the airlines' flight manifests, however, there had never been any public evidence of this. Furthermore, researchers who have attempted to obtain this information from the airlines have been rebuffed.

However, almost 5 years later, the revised passenger lists cited by Mike were released on a website of Moussaoui trial exhibits. Interestingly, according to these latest manifests, Mark Bingham is no longer onboard Flight 93.

So, if these were the original manifests, then why did it take almost 5 years for these to appear? Why were they not published previously? Any red flags going up?

Considering the suspicious circumstances under which they surfaced, and without any means of verifying their authenticity, we must conclude that they are nothing more than fabricated evidence, intended to fill in some of the holes in the official story at a time when a record number of people are beginning to question this.

Posted by: Sanders Dec 21 2006, 10:40 AM

Did you hear that folks? "Interestingly, according to these latest manifests, Mark Bingham is no longer onboard Flight 93". If that had been said by Columbo, the end-credits would then start rolling.

Posted by: conspiracy_chestnut Dec 21 2006, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 6 2006, 09:37 PM)
the govt loyalist site are the Randi cult tongue.gif I think it stands for James Randi Educational Foundation

Thanks. I couldn't find this post again to see if anyone had replied. I recently found out myself after slapping someone about Randi.

I had forgotten that he had started calling his site the govt loyalist site. What a joke that is. It sure sounds good, though. Kind of "official" and "real" and everything.

Those poor Randi-ites. He has them all mesmerised using his half-rate magician skillz.

I met a local Randi-ite who is, of course, anti-9/11 Truth, and he almost blew a gasket when I told him I was "not a fan of James Randi", to put it politely. They, literally, almost worship Randi. It's a very sick relationship, both ways.

I used to be a big Randi fan myself, until I realized several years ago what kind of person he is and chooses to be. When you saw him on The Late Show and other shows like that every once in awhile, it was easier for him to act halfway normal and seem like what the Randi-ites think he is. But once he hit the net, he could not hide is true self anymore. And that was that. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that, so it definitely speaks largely about the Randi-ites about who and what kind of people they are and choose to be, as well.

I just ignore him and them anymore, for the most part. When they are all proved wrong about their rather severe asininities, you will find them all claiming that they "really knew all along." They are big into 'rewriting history' and the like.

Posted by: johndoeX Dec 29 2006, 07:17 PM

QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 6 2006, 11:39 AM)
Interestingly, I also noticed that he's updated his Hanjor "debunk" and now conceeds that it was a 330 degree turn. Hmmm.. I wonder if we've had a secret the govt loyalist site visit?......  But the rest of it is still the same crap about how he had to make the turn to be able to "find" the Pentagon! dunno.gif

Mike claims Hani made the turn away from the pentagon to FIND the pentagon? Uhhh... yeah.. ok... blink.gif rolleyes.gif

The upcoming documentary will fully cover the turn.. in shocking detail. Even Mike himself will be shocked im sure. Unless he is blind... (and deaf)... lol


Posted by: conspiracy_chestnut Dec 29 2006, 09:01 PM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 29 2006, 06:17 PM)
Mike claims Hani made the turn away from the pentagon to FIND the pentagon?

I thought the 'official story' is that they had GPS units.

In which case, they wouldn't need to make any turns they didn't need to make.

So, either they had GPS units, or they didn't, or they couldn't figure out how to use them. (but could fly jets without ANY experience (a flight simulator is NOT experience))

Posted by: Beached Dec 29 2006, 09:04 PM

QUOTE (conspiracy_chestnut @ Dec 30 2006, 01:01 AM)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 29 2006, 06:17 PM)
Mike claims Hani made the turn away from the pentagon to FIND the pentagon?

I thought the 'official story' is that they had GPS units.

In which case, they wouldn't need to make any turns they didn't need to make.

So, either they had GPS units, or they didn't, or they couldn't figure out how to use them. (but could fly jets without ANY experience (a flight simulator is NOT experience))

They had GPS units?? I thought they used a compass or the sun!! [laugh]

Posted by: paranoia Jan 15 2007, 08:52 PM

beached, great job for accumulating such a comprehensive rebuttal to the so-called "debunkment". and thanx jdx and librarian for making it accessible and easy to follow.

i have been immersed in the pft library for 2 days and realize now that the library should have been my starting point here at the site. i intend to spend many more hours reading up everything in the library and i highly recommend it for everyone from novices to "skeptics".

i dont have much to add, but i thought this was pertinent: the fbi's most wanted page of bin laden:

NOTE: i highlighted (in red rectangles) the words "OUTSIDE", and the text of the "CAUTION" paragraph on the page.

curious thing how the FBI does NOT even imply any relation between OBL and 911 crimes... anyhow, i thought it was worth a mention.


Posted by: Cary Jan 15 2007, 09:15 PM

Damn straight, paranoia. UBL/OBL has never been wanted by the FBI for the attacks of 9/11 despite the propaganda of the govt. Hell, I'll see if I can find the White House site article where Cheney says OBL and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 in an interview with Tony Snow before he became the WH presstitute. Fascinating and entertaining. LOL The skeptics don't have sh*t to say about that when you put it in their face.

Posted by: Tarya Jan 16 2007, 02:57 AM

QUOTE (paranoia @ Jan 16 2007, 03:52 AM)
curious thing how the FBI does NOT even imply any relation between OBL and 911 crimes... anyhow, i thought it was worth a mention.

At least they're honest about it rolleyes.gif
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1]  (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page)  In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?”  The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.  According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people.  The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” 

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?”  Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”  I asked, “How does that work?”  Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence.  Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice.  The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury.  In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.  He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure.  If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered.  First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?”  The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban.  Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001.  Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Maybe shure can make another call to the FBI so we can have that on tape idea.gif

PS: @ Beached worthy.gif

Posted by: Sanders Jan 16 2007, 03:17 AM

@ paranoia

Thanks, we're still getting it together in there - some topics still haven't been sorted yet... but we're working on it gradually.

Yeah, beach's Debunking 911 Myths is a great series.

P.S., I just swiped your FBI image and used it in the bin Laden, Osama topic intro tongue.gif nice...

- Sanders (aka librarian)

Posted by: mftorso Feb 6 2007, 03:37 PM

This site needs to be slammed.
Let's go get them!

I'll try to draw them to the pilots forum as well.

Posted by: Beached Feb 6 2007, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (mftorso @ Feb 6 2007, 07:37 PM)

This site needs to be slammed.
Let's go get them!

I'll try to draw them to the pilots forum as well.

If I remember correctly, that blog belongs to an idiot over at LC called MinesotaLover. Rather than debate me, that person told me that I'm a sicko for even comparing Bush to Hitler, and that my avatar made him/her want to vomit! laugh.gif See, that's the mentality of the kind of people we're up against!

Like 911myths, that site relys heavily upon the NIST report, and is a compilation of other strawmen which have been covered here. However, my support goes to anyone willing to write a custom debunk for that blog! salute.gif

Posted by: Beached Feb 7 2007, 08:17 PM

Just a quick update...

I've made a couple of updates to the debunks of the "Bin Laden Confession Tape" and Mike's rebuttal to the claim that some of the alleged hijackers may still be alive. Please take the the time to look over these, and if you can think of anything else that should be included please let me know! Thanks!

Posted by: Graham Feb 24 2007, 07:51 AM

Great work Beached.

Is this going on a website, or shall we just copy and paste from here?

Posted by: Beached Feb 24 2007, 09:51 AM

I believe some of the posts are linked from the relevant sections in the library, however, other than that, feel free to copy paste whatever you like! thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Beached Apr 4 2007, 02:04 PM

This was posted over at LC by 28th Kingdom. Dr. Frank Greening, whose articles are often used by Mike Williams at 911myths, weighs in on the govt loyalist site...

QUOTE (28th Kingdom)
"I’m new to posting on the govt loyalist site but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?"

Username: Apollo20

I cannot even express the level of joy and glee I felt from reading this... Anyone who knows anything about the Pseudoskeptic Bowel Movement... will know that Dr. Greening is someone who JREFers frequently quote (worship) and hold in high regard for his level of knowledge and expertise... 

Some of his articles have even been used on sites like - so that kind of shows you how much these "debunkers" respect his work.

Here's my one word review for Dr. Greening's post about the govt loyalist site:



Posted by: Sanders Apr 4 2007, 05:06 PM

QUOTE (Beached @ Feb 24 2007, 10:51 PM)
I believe some of the posts are linked from the relevant sections in the library...

They ALL are yes1.gif


Posted by: Beached May 6 2007, 08:57 AM

I found this essay on Mike's site concerning the anti-terror drill that occurred at the exact same time as the 7/7 bombings. While I happen to agree that AJ's calculation of the chances being 1 in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to be over-exaggerated, you should read Mike's essay carefully as it proves that Mike is no misguided fool. He is a highly intelligent individual who knowingly disseminates disinformation.

7/7 Training Excercises

911Myths claims:

Sounds staggering, right? But it's also twisting the statistics very considerably. We'd recommend you read the original calculation at, then we can consider the many problems.

1. The accuracy of the exercises is based on this quote from Peter Power:
At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning

But when asked to clarify he said "Almost precisely", and

"we based on a scenario of simultaneous attacks on a underground and mainline station"

However, there was no mainline station attacked. Power may have predicted a bomb on Kings Cross mainline station, and counted this a "hit" because a bomb actually occurred close to Kings Cross underground station, but they are not the same place. He also did not predict a bomb on a bus.

Further, in later clarifications, Power said this:

"It is confirmed that a short number of 'walk through' scenarios planed [sic] well in advance had commenced that morning for a private company in London (as part of a wider project that remains confidential) and that two scenarios related directly to terrorist bombs at the same time as the ones that actually detonated with such tragic results. One scenario in particular, was very similar to real time events".

So now it appears that Power was running several scenarios, or at least more than two. One of these was similar (but not identical) to real-world events, we would guess in predicting two out of three of the named stations. It may be that another referred to a bomb at the mainline station instead of the underground, and the fourth bomb (on the bus) was missed altogether. Not quite as precise as the headline figure would have you believe, then.

2. The calculation assumes that the attacks are randomly spread and independent of each other. Let's look at how realistic this is.

In terms of location, they mention that there are 274 Underground stations, and assume that each are likely to be hit.  There's no reason to believe this is true. Many of these stations are far outside Central London, and bombs there wouldn't cause nearly as much disruption. It makes far more sense to hit Central London stations only, and for multiple terrorists working together from a single starting point, this greatly reduces the figure. We'd say 30 to 50 stations is far more realistic.

In terms of time, the calculation mentions that each station is open for 19 hours, therefore the chance of an attack within a particular 1 hour block is 1/19. This is also implausible. Terrorists want to cause the maximum disruption and casualties, which means striking in the morning rush hour between 8 and 9am. They did this in Madrid, it's the obvious thing to do in London.

In terms of date, the calculation mentions that the stations are open 364 days a year, and assumes each day is equally likely to be hit. Wrong again. At a minimum, they would hit working days only (that's 260 in a year). If Thursdays are a particular favourite (as with Madrid) then that's reduced to 1 in 52.

Finally, the calculation assumes that each bombing is independent. So they state that the chance of one bombing occurring at the time and place it did was 1 in 9,474,920, therefore the chances of three occurring were 9,474,920 x 9,474,920 x 9,474,920 = 1 in 850,602,500,906,920,000,000. It's a big figure, but an inaccurate calculation. The whole point of these bombings is that they're coordinated, so if one happens, then the others are going to follow. The extra multiplications only serve to make an impressively large figure, and in no way affect the real probability.

Which should be what, exactly? They've gone for the maximum figure, so let's see how it might be if we take a more conservative view.

Likely hours of attack = 1, the 8 to 9 rush hour
Likely days of attack in 1 year = 52 if we're aiming at Thursdays
Likely stations of attack = perhaps 30 in Central London
Likely period of attack = 3 years max, not the 5 they specify

Probability of an attack on one station at a particular hour is now 1 x 52 x 30 x 3 = 1 in 4,680

Probability of 3 attacks at named stations = 4,680 x 29 x 28 = 1 in 3,800,160

...and in fact that could be even less if we decided it's likely that the attacks wouldn't occur at adjacent stations...

4,680 x 27 x 25 = 1 in 3,159,000

Which is a little big less than 1 in 850,602,500,906,920,000,000, although the problems don't stop there.

3. Even our figure of 1 in 3,159,000 seems high, but that's because we're calculating the chance of the bombings occurring at that particular time and date. Again, that's irrelevant, just a trick used to boost the figures. The probability we need to be finding out is given a terrorist attack at any time (regardless of whether it occurred on the 7th of July, 8th, 9th or any other time), how likely is it that a matching antiterrorist exercise would occur at the same time?

Think about it that way and we have to ask other relevant question, that the original article entirely ignores. Like, how many antiterrorist exercises are going on? If Peter Power has one of these a week, for instance, then the chances of a hit on the same day are 1/5. And it's likely they'll be at the same time, too: between 8 and 9am for a terrorist hit, with the exercise beginning just after 9am once everyone's arrived for work.

4. There's still the probability of predicting the stations, of course, but what counts as an accurate prediction? That's not clear.

The first bomb exploded in the tunnel between Liverpool Street and Aldgate, for instance ( ). Some media reports described it as a bomb at Liverpool street ( ), a Government statement said it happened at Aldgate ( ).

Another bomb exploded about half way between Russell Square and Kings Cross ( ). Again, Power is getting two chances at a hit (so he could name any two of four Central London stations and say he got it right).

It appears Power may also have accepted as a hit, his prediction of the bombing of a mainline station, when the bomb actually hit an underground station with the same name.

What does this mean? Although only three bombs went off on the underground, we've multiple chances of naming them "correctly". Liverpool Street Underground, Liverpool Street Mainline, Aldgate, Russell Square, Kings Cross Underground, Kings Cross Mainline, Edgware Road and possible Paddington Underground and Paddington Mainline may all be close enough to be scored as hits.

Factor in an extra free guess (Power didn't predict the fourth bomb, so either he only predicted 3 events or his fourth guess was incorrect), and the fact that he had more than two scenarios, and that he may only have scored two hits on the best of them, and this is beginning to look not so improbable at all.

Still not sure? Do the math. If we accept that 30 mainline stations are most likely to be bombed, and 7 of these names count as a successful prediction, then there's a 7/30 chance of a successful prediction. That's almost one in 4, so make 4 guesses and you'll probably have at least one hit. Make several sets of guesses, and it's not at all inconceivable that you'll have two, or even three.

Of course some will argue with our assumptions. Maybe it's not 30 stations, they might say -- you should say 40, 50, 60 or more. But that's not the point. What we're trying to say is the original 1 in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 probability figure is a gross distortion. The reality is very different, and the chances of these two events coinciding certainly aren't so high as to prove conspiracy.

See also a special report from UK TV station Channel 4 at

The reality:

So, Mike is claiming that the chances of this being a coincidence are only around 1 in 3 million? That's good to know - there's certainly nothing suspicious there Mike! rolleyes.gif

Maybe it's not 30 stations, they might say -- you should say 40, 50, 60 or more.

What is clear from this statement is that Mike is not only a disinformant, but also a handler training individuals in the art of defending Zionist propaganda.

Posted by: maturin42 May 18 2007, 11:46 PM

QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 5 2006, 04:29 PM)
Coleen Rowley, and the FBI's Sabotage of the Moussaoui Investigation

911Myths Claims:

Mike claims that in her letter, Rowley's phrase, "deliberately sabotage" has appeal for those who want to believe in a Government conspiracy, however this is not her view at all:

Mike claims: "Plenty of institutional reasons why the FBI behaved as it did, then, without requiring foreknowledge of or complicity in the attacks."

Our Take:

So, as with everything, Mike's excuse is incompetence. Isn't that the same excuse given for the stand down? Isn't that the same excuse given for pretty much everything relating to 9/11, the so-called "war on terror" and The Bush Administration? It's amazing how incompetent these people can be when it comes to incidents from which they stand to gain.

Did you hear about the time the US Military accidentally airlifted 8,000 members of the Taliban and "Al Qaeda" to safety?

"NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2001 - The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States."

Can anybody else see what's wrong with this picture? Anybody at all??

Beached, I don't think it matters a tinker's dam what Rowley believes. Rowley appears to have been a good FBI agent trying to do her job but she was working within the system and being thwarted by guys acting on their orders to sit on any effort to draw attention to the patsies' before the deal went down.

Frasca, et al blocked her warrant and Ken Williams' memo because that is what they were supposed to do. They were rewarded and promoted because they did that, much to Sen. Grassley's confusion. It seems to be all about plausible deniability and preserving the upper echelons in blissful ignorance that was itself a cover story.

That entire episode sticks in my craw about as much as anything else. That's saying something.

Posted by: Firsk Feb 18 2008, 02:44 PM is one of the 911 debunking sites, and it is run by a "Mike Williams" who is allegedly from the UK. Supposedly, he is a "free-lance writer" and "software developer" although I couldn't find anything about him in those respects on the Internet. On his site, he takes to task every argument and every piece of evidence that disputes the official story of 911. Well, I sent him the letter below asking him to debunk my concerns, and his only reply was: "I suppose paranoia has its uses if it makes you feel that special, like you're combatting dangerous CIA-funded fronts. Unfortunately you're just making an idiot of yourself. Have a nice day." Not one word about any of my objections!

I'll post my letter to him below, so that you can see what you think. Are these legitamate questions about 911 or not? I regard his silence, his refusal to answer, as a smoking gun that he is not legit. What does anybody know about this guy? Thank you, Raff

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Mike, I wonder if you have considered the issue of smuggling the box-cutters on the planes? It was already prohibited by the airlines pre-911. And even pre-911, you had to walk through a metal detector, and your carry-ons were x-rayed. So how hard was it to smuggle a razor knife on a plane? I don't know, but if we assume that each of the 19 hijackers had one such knife, then it happened 19 times in one day at 3 different airports. What are the odds of that?

And have you given much thought to how easy it would have been for the hijackers to overcome the crews and take control of the planes? A box-cutter is a formidable weapon, but the hijackers were vastly outnumbered. And while a hijackjer was slashing one guy, one or more other guys could have been jumping him.

And what about the part about the pilots surrendering the planes to the hijackers? For instance, Barbara Olsen said that the pilots were huddled in the back of American 77 with the passengers. Would Captain Burlingame have surrendered the controls of the plane to a guy just because he was waving a box-cutter at him? Or, let's say the hijacker had the knife to the jugular of a stewardess. So, he had no choice, is that it? Well, think about it: What reason would he have to think that the guy could competently fly a 757? How many people in the world can do that? What is it about a swarthy Arab guy wielding a box-cutter that would inspire confidence in his piloting ability?

I have a good friend who is a commercial pilot, and he tells me that a terrorist could be "de-emboweling a stewardess," and he wouldn't give up the controls. Doesn't it seem more likely that he would fight the guy to the death? I know I would. So, how did Burlingame wind up in the back of the plane? Any ideas?

There are all kinds of problems with the notion of 4 guys taking over a plane with box-cutters. I don't know how you British guys are, but I can tell you American men are rather a feisty, hot-headed bunch. You might say that rage becomes us. There's plenty of us who, upon realizing some guy was on a rampage with a box-cutter, would take it right to him. Remember, the hijacker has got the element of surprise only once and for a very short time. After that, it's mano-o-mano. Sure, he's still got an advantage. But I'm not helpless. I, for instance, travel with a rather heavy briefcase that's quite solid, which I keep under the seat. If I slam that thing into his face, he's not going to be feeling too bueno- with or without a box-cutter. But whether I succeed at taking him out or not, if he's fending me off with his box-cutter, he's not paying attention to the other American who's coming at him from behind.

Now think about it: they had to start with the pilots and get control of the planes because if they started anywhere else, the pilots would have gotten wind of it and sent a distress signal- which none of the four pilots did. Agreed? And again, I don't think any of the pilots would have handed over the controls of the plane under any circumstances because there was no basis to assume flying competence among the attackers. But if somehow, two hijackers did wind up behind the controls, then they are out of commission as fighters. You can't fight and fly at the same time. Right? So how could the two remaining hijackers with box-cutters subdue all those people?

Well, let's just say it wouldn't be easy. How hard would it be? I don't know, But it's got to be at least as hard as getting a hit in baseball. Right? Or are you more of a cricket man? But let's see, a good batting average in baseball is in the high 200s. Getting above 300 is darn good. And the best batting average of all time was Ty Cobb at 367. But these hijackers actually batted 1000. Imagine that. They hit 4 for 4. And they did it without causing the slightest ripple or disturbance in the flight path of the planes, going from pilot control to hijacker control. Smooth as silk! They did it before any pilot could move the transponder down into hijack mode. Amazing grace.

Of course, we all know about Todd Beamer and the "Let's Roll" gang on Flight 93. But the thing is, and again, you being a limey maybe you wouldn't understand, is that for American men, the resistance would have come much earlier. The peril of just turning the plane over to the terrorists to fly would have registered very fast, and I mean instantly. Think about it! What were the hijackers going to do? Land the plane somewhere? If so, why remove the professional pilots? Hijackers know that pilots are instructed to take hijackers wherever they want to go, fuel permitting. Why waste hijacker manpower flying the plane when you've got commercial pilots who will cooperate and do exactly as you ask? As soon as the hijackers demanded the controls, that would have sent off alarm bells in the minds of the crew and passengers alike.

So, the part of the story with the least credibility is the part about the pilots turning over control of the plane to hijackers, presumably to avoid getting cut or someone else getting cut. They just wouldn't do it because it doesn't make sense. It would only increase the peril to everyone. I'd like you to respond.

I've done some searches for Mike Williams. If you are a free-lance writer, I presume you have done more than this 911 website, but I can't find anything on you or what you have written. And I guess you don't develop the software under your own name. Hmmm. Well, with all we hear about the CIA setting up phony companies overseas, it wouldn't take much to concoct one phony identity of a free-lance writer. Would it?

So, I am sending copies of this letter to a bunch of people, and let me make it crystal clear that I am not the least bit suicidal; I am not accident-prone; and I don't have any enemies. So my friends, if anything happens to me, start by telling the police about Mike Williams at Have a nice day.

Very truly yours,

Art Vadelay

Posted by: rob balsamo Feb 18 2008, 02:57 PM

Excellent letter Firsk... and right on the money.

Let not forget the reported "boxcutter" supposedly used also had break-away blades that would break the moment you apply the least amount of sideways pressure...

This is what the crew has at their disposal...

Welcome to the forums. Hope to see more posts from you.

Posted by: painter Feb 18 2008, 03:16 PM

QUOTE (Firsk @ Feb 15 2008, 10:44 AM) *
I'll post my letter to him below, so that you can see what you think. Are these legitamate questions about 911 or not? I regard his silence, his refusal to answer, as a smoking gun that he is not legit. What does anybody know about this guy?

Welcome to the forum, Firsk.

Of course they are legitimate, that is to say, "reasonable," questions. We have hundreds of such questions now. And we have more than questions -- we have evidence of a cover-up.

As to the motivation behind this person -- without direct evidence, what can you say? Maybe he is just a hard-headed individual who has taken it upon himself to ridicule the "conspiracy nuts". Makes him feel superior and gives him some recognition he wouldn't otherwise get. Just a yuck. Then again, my motto is, "whoever controls your perception of reality controls you." If I can get you to believe something that isn't true, then I can get you to act in favor of what you take to be your own self interest based upon that misplaced trust. "Agents," need not necessarily be on a payroll somewhere; all that is required is that they be 'gullible' or at least useful. Then again, of course there people who are paid to do precisely what he is doing -- help cover-up one of the biggest and most heinous crimes in human history. He could be a counterintelligence operative. But, if you're going to think along those lines, you have to keep in mind that such operatives are just as likely to AGREE with us. Their tactic isn't to "disprove" or "debunk" our analysis but, rather, to lead it astray -- keep it wandering forever in the wilderness of uncertainty where nothing ever gets accomplished. If they can keep us arguing over who did it or how it was done, then they get away with mass murder and treason in broad day light. No problem.

So, I don't know. My question to you is, why bother? Do you really think that anyone who puts up a web site such as this -- regardless of their underlying motivation -- has any interest in being "reasonable"? I don't. Quite the contrary.

Posted by: Beached Mar 4 2008, 11:53 AM

There has been much speculation as to "Mike's" true motivation. In my opinion, he is probably one of the following:

1) A self-delusional arrogant ass who likes reality the way he perceives it to be and aims to keep it that way.

2) An emotionally feeble cretin who is unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that most governments are rotten to the core.

3) A Sayanim (see Victor Ostrovsky's Book - By Way of Deception).

Whatever his true motivation, I am 99.9% sure he is not CIA/MI5.

Posted by: dutchskeptic Jul 17 2008, 04:20 PM

QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 10 2006, 10:37 AM) *
9/11 Myths has long been a favorite resource for skeptics and debunkers alike. Its author, Mike Williams, has compiled a collection of straw men, coupled with many distorted interpretations of valid claims. While many of Mike’s “takes” can be dismissed as patently absurd by most of us, his slimy nature and style of addressing these can be deceptive to those who are new to this material and haven’t had time to do their research. Therefore, I think it’s important that we have a thread dedicated to debunking 9/11 Myths. It’s a huge website and so I don’t know if I will ever have the time to write an entire debunk, however, if we all work together on this we’ll have Mike’s site debunked in no time!

QUOTE (Beached @ Dec 2 2006, 03:31 PM) *
Awesome! cheers.gif Let's blow 9/11 Myths right out of the sky!! biggrin.gif

Hi, I am new to this forum and just wanted to let you know that I do think 911 was an inside job and that I really like this thread. We should all work together to debunk "911 myths".
However I think perhaps we are wrong about the "fatty Bin Laden" on the confession tape.
I think the following information sounds reasonable and could be true.
I would like to know your opinion about it.

Posted by: Dool Sep 16 2008, 11:08 PM

I wish somebody someday can come out with a website of debunking the 9/11 debunking, this subject is worthy of a website and not just a topic.

Posted by: Sanders Sep 16 2008, 11:29 PM

QUOTE (dutchskeptic @ Jul 21 2008, 02:20 PM) *
Hi, I am new to this forum and just wanted to let you know that I do think 911 was an inside job and that I really like this thread. We should all work together to debunk "911 myths".
However I think perhaps we are wrong about the "fatty Bin Laden" on the confession tape.
I think the following information sounds reasonable and could be true.
I would like to know your opinion about it.

I tend to agree with you. There are however a dozen reasons why the bin Laden tape is not to be believed - the sound is barely audible. The official translation has been shown to be very misleading and native speakers claim that much of what is attributed to bin Laden can not be made out from the audio. The sections of the tape have been put in reverse order. Bin Laden refers to "your time", a very odd thing to say. The congratulations are said to have been related to the wedding announcement of bin Laden's son. The authorities changed their story 3 times on how they found the tape. It has "faked" written all over it, even if that's the real bin Laden.

To anyone who has looked into that tape and the true identity of bin Laden and his history of involvement with the CIA, it would not come as a surprise that the tape showed the real bin Laden, nor would it persuade them that 9/11 was perpetrated by "terrorists with box cutters". What I'm curious about is, if that's the real Osama bin Laden, then why was the aspect not corrected? Was this an attempt to create a strawman that they knew they could debunk, and so convince a few people that the government's story was legit? I wonder sometimes.

Posted by: dMole Oct 10 2008, 11:21 PM

A good related thread is at:

Scientists Debunk 9/11 Myths, at G. Washington's blog

Posted by: subedei Oct 16 2008, 07:25 PM

Does anyone have information regarding 67 scrambles before 911,911myths claims they were all offshore adiz .

PS is Pseudo science if you read thouroughly the articles on scholars 911 truth,they site basically takes questions that steven jones asks in his reports ( which he then goes about answering) and posts them on debunking webistes .

typically they say aluminium can be yellow.Its true when heated to such high temperatures but as soon as it loses contact with its heat source it turns silver.there are many videos of this.
Thermite claims.they claim the sulphur came from gypsum,but the XEDS anaylsis saw no calcium which is largely in gypsum.

Posted by: anorak Oct 24 2008, 01:38 PM

Hello All,

My apologies if there is something obvious I've missed. I need to ask a question and not at all sure how to start.

I have created an archive of info from sites, such as yours, to challenge the BBC's position on 911. I'm trying to ensure I do not post dubious info. Am working with the stalwarts of the British movement linked now to the emerging Reopen911 group. My archive and challenge to the BBC is at

It is draft form and will be changed to a simple black and white site and "launched" when I check a few more key points.

Key issue you should be able to help with is the 67 scrambles cited as happening in the year to 911.

Popular Mechanics says that the 67 were all overseas and most were training "scrambles" and did not lead to intercepts. This is quite important.

I'd be very pleased to get contact with someone in the know. I'm not even sure how I might get a reply to this post. I'd be very grateful if someone how knows the answer can ensure I get to hear.

Good luck to you all. JohnY

Posted by: subedei Nov 11 2008, 04:26 AM


The story...

Professor Steven Jones' examination of WTC steel has shown the presence of thermate-signature chemical elements. Could this be "Finally the proof: Thermate used to destroy WTC"?

Our take...

This claim arose from the tests Professor Jones performed on a "WTC dust sample" and "previously molten-metal samples". He reports finding chemicals that are associated with thermate, and suggests:

We (3 physicists and a geologist) have conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), also X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Electron Microprobe analyses on residue samples from the scene.

• We identify predominately iron, with very little chromium, along with uncommon chemical elements in abundance such as fluorine and manganese. Aluminum and sulfur are present (expected from thermate reactions).

• 1,3 Diphenylpropane was observed in dust, and interesting bit of possibly corroborative evidence.

• The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene such as the flowing yellow-hot liquid metal still red after falling about 500 feet (150 m, discussed earlier), provide compelling evidence that thermite reaction compounds (aluminothermics) were used, meaning thermite was deliberately placed in both WTC Towers and WTC 7.
Journal of 911 Studies Source

How reasonable is this conclusion? Let's consider the issues.

1. Where did the samples come from?

Jones' analysis is only relevant if his samples really can tell us something about conditions on 9/11. Fortunately he does tell us a little about where they came from:

The provenience of the WTC dust sample is an apartment at 113 Cedar Street in New York City, NY.

A monument constructed primarily from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, is the source of previously-molten metal samples...

The samples were sent directly to Prof. Jones at BYU, and inspected by him and Dr. Jeffrey Farrer together, and analyzed by the BYU group.

The line that "the samples were sent directly to Prof. Jones at BYU" is of concern, as it suggests an uncertain chain of custody. How sure can we be that Professor Jones' correspondent is accurately representing the origin of the samples? This need not be a hoax, just a simple error, and the entire basis of the study is destroyed.

There's a further problem in the comment that the metal samples came from a monument constructed "primarily" from WTC steel. Did some of it come from elsewhere, then? A quick search online revealed this:

Air Force ROTC cadets in the 536 Detachment salute World Trade Center beams as the National Anthem is played on Sept. 11, 2006, during a memorial ceremony at Clarkson University in Potsdam, N.Y. Clarkson alumnus Michael Bielawa, who supervised cleanup efforts at ground zero, donated three pieces of structural steel to the school, two of which were identified as part of the 55th floor of the south tower

It's good to get such solid information on two of the structural steel pieces, but not so great that the third is unidentified. Still, if Jones' correspondent is correct and the sample came from this steel, then it seems likely that it really is from the towers.

2. How pure are the samples?

Establishing the origin of the samples is just the start. The next point to consider is the way they may have been treated since 9/11, and whether that might have affected the results.

In terms of the dust sample, for instance, how sure can we be that it reflects the dust from 9/11 and the days afterwards? How confident can we be that it's not been contaminated in some way?

The metal samples face similar questions. Were they cut during the cleanup process, or otherwise treated in any way that could cause contamination? How were they kept afterwards?

The only answer we've seen up to the time of writing (November 2006) is this, claiming that thermite wasn't used during the cleanup process.

• Researcher Michael Berger checked with a number of steel-cutters and workers at Ground Zero. They reported that oxy-acetylene torches were used to cut the steel members -- Not thermite

• Also, reacting thermite ejects globs of molten white/orange-hot iron – would cause VERY dangerous burns! Therefore, thermite was not used in clean-up.

Otherwise we're left guessing. And in fairness that's no surprise, as these questions aren't easy to answer with any degree of certainty. So let's just assume that we'll accept the samples as reasonably pure, at least for the moment, and look at what's been discovered.

3. Was there enough thermite/thermate to leave detectable traces?

Professor Jones estimates the total amount of explosives required for the WTC here:

Phone interview with demolition expert, Brent Blanchard, 10 Feb 2006...

To bring down Southwark Towers, about 300 pounds of shaped charges (RDX) would be sufficient, he said.

(Then for a WTC Tower, about 1000 pounds of explosives would be sufficient. This would only require an estimated 10 men [foreigners?] to install the cutter charges, mostly in the central core/elevator shaft areas.)

Picking 1,000 pounds as a figure is convenient if you’re hoping to prove how easy it might be to plant explosives, for instance, but it does pose a problem when it comes to detecting traces later. Professor Jones suggests that Sulfur is typically only 2% of thermate by weight, for instance (although he says more can be added). That’s 20 pounds of sulfur per tower, let’s say 60 pounds for towers 1, 2, and 7, which is then mixed with this:

With the collapse of New York City's two World Trade Center (WTC) towers on Sept. 11, 2001, more than 1 million tons of dust enveloped lower Manhattan.

We’ve no idea how they calculated “1 million tons” here, it seems way to high, but even if we divide that by 10 it’s still going to swamp any thermate residue. Especially when you consider the next point.

4. Were there other sources for these chemicals?

Jones makes much of finding "uncommon chemical elements in abundance", however we can't help but wonder why this is any surprise. The destruction of more than 250 floors of office building, and subsequent fires burning for months might surely be expected to produce many different chemicals. And sure enough, that’s exactly what it did.

A USGS survey, for instance, listed the following major elements that it discovered in samples of WTC dust: Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. Four of these are flagged by Professor Jones as possible indicators for thermate (Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese), yet the authors of this study don’t seem to require any special explanations for them at all.

The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.

The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.

And another takes a similar approach:

The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building. The detected lead dust concentrations were lower than would be found outdoors in older cities affected by tailpipe emissions from leaded gasoline...

Neither study involved analysing metal samples, so can’t be directly compared with that part of Professor Jones research, but still, this does illustrate that many of these elements aren’t as uncommon as might be suggested. And is seems there are other possible sources at the WTC site.

5. Problems with specific claims

a) Professor Jones tells us that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel. Checking the steel specifications for the time tells us otherwise, though.

B) Sulfidised metal reported by FEMA, and sulfur recorded in Professor Jones’ own analyses are supposed to indicate the use of thermate. Take a closer look, however, and these claims don’t look so convincing.

c) Professor Jones explains that thermite is the only explanation he’s found for Fluorine traces in his WTC samples. But maybe it’s found in other places, too.

d) Potassium is sometimes connected with thermite, but does that really mean its presence in Professor Jones’ samples has no other explanation? No, it seems there were other potential sources at the WTC site.

e) Zinc was similarly found in significant quantities at Ground Zero. More here.

f) Titanium is another element that could be a thermite marker. Or it might have been found at the WTC through its use in paint, paper, and other common sources.

g) And then there’s the molecule 1,3-diphenlypropane (1,3-DPP), supposedly a possible indicator of sol-gel thermite. But what’s the other possible explanation that doesn’t make it into Professor Jones’ paper?

6. Do the chemicals discovered provide a complete thermite signature?

So far the argument seems to be that chemicals A, B, C and D are sometimes associated with thermite; Professor Jones has found them in his samples; therefore, in conjunction with other evidence (video of streams of metal from the WTC etc) this shows thermite may have been used at the World Trade Center. Although this sounds plausible at first, it’s deficient in some important areas.

First, there’s very little information about how the levels of each chemical relate to a typical thermate mix, or what you might expect to find in a post-reaction thermate residue. For example, Professor Jones reports that his “previously molten metal” sample “has (in spots) Aluminum (Al, possibly Al203) Sulfur (S) and Potassium”, along with “abundant Manganese”. Despite thermate having far more aluminum than sulfur, though, Jones sample seems to show more sulfur than aluminum. Perhaps we’re misreading that, maybe the aluminum is consumed in the reaction while most sulfur survives: we don’t know. But it seems to us that figuring out what the relative levels of these elements ought to be, after a thermite reaction, would be useful in proving (or disproving) the theory.

And second, there are other elements that are left out almost entirely. Professor Jones finds Sulfur on his metal samples, for instance, but doesn’t report any Barium Nitrate, even though that’s a much more significant part of the thermate mix. If that cannot be satisfactorily explained, then surely that means no thermate, at least of the type Professor Jones is describing? Read more on this page.


It seems we can’t be completely sure that these samples are from the WTC, and there’s no way to accurately assess whether they might have been contaminated.

The elements that Professor Jones reports finding have already been discovered by other WTC dust surveys, who for the most part don’t seem surprised by their presence. It seems likely that, in all cases, there are other WTC sources that can deliver far more of these elements than you would ever see from thermite/ thermate.

There’s also no clear evidence that the suspect elements are available in proportions that match what you’d expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction. And some products you might imagine would be produced, aren’t reported at all.

Proof of thermite/ thermate, then? No. Just assumptions, and avoidance of alternative explanations for the presence of these elements. That’s just fine when you’re telling an audience what they want to believe, but convincing the rest of the world is going to take considerably more evidence than is displayed here

thermate is a term to describe military grade th3 thermite.Essentially its the same chemical reaction but by adding additives such as barium nitrate and sulpur speeds up the reaction.Sulpur reduces the melting point of iron so it quickens the reaction.
In fact there are SO many additives and variations of thermite.Its imposible to name them all,each additive has different qualitys such as reaction speed,residue etc.
What is clear is that th3 was NOT used but different thermite variations.
KMN04 ,Copper oxide,Sulpur ,SI02 ,were added to the majority of the thermite .As seen from the X-EDS spectra, keeps coming up with those chemicals

the fires COULD not have caused a natural Aluminotheric reaction.Even though the Chemicals in the building were there ,for example you have aluminium cladding,iron from steel ,glass in the building(si02) and sulphur in gypsum CaS04.
Note that the X-EDS spectra did not show ANY Calcium ruling out gypsum.Gypsum is formed in volcanoes its stable and elemental sulphur cannot be released even with volcanic heat temperatures.

So somehow you need a chemical reaction in which al,fe,si02,kmno4,elemental sulphur are fused together into one Sphere.The only reaction known is called thermite

Jones saw the signature in
1.molten iron slag sent to him from freshkills landfill by concerned scientists.
2.Molten iron spheres .
3.Ends of beams of wtc memorial steel.
4.unexploded chips of thermite

It Turns out the problem of how much thermite u need and residue effects are negated by this newly developed thermite called nano thermite,The thermite powder is made in a nano scale,increasing the surface area of the thermite particles increases speed of reacion by
1000x far more than military grade thermate wink.gif
The particles are contained in a gel called sol gel.This sol gel is made of flourene and 1,3 diphenylpropane.
Mark swartz of EPA said '' weve never found levels of 1,3 diphenylpropane present at the wtc anywere else''
flourene was found.

Heres some interesting links

be warned this document is 18mbs i edited out some boring bits

"2.5.2. I The Thermite Cutting Technique
The thermite cutting process consists of heating and melting the metal in the cutting area by the
thermal energy released during combustion of a therrnite mixture (under conditions of an exother- ,
tic reaction). The products generated by combustion of the thennite mixture issue from the combustion
chamber under pressure in the form of a mixture of condensed gases, which affords the
opportunity of cutting almost any metal in any attitude. The application of this cutting technique to
nonmetallic materials also seems feasible, especially the dismantling of the reinforced concrete
structural elements. However, no domestic experience has been acquired to date using thermite
cutting in nuclear power engineering.
Research to substantiate the preliminary design and technological solutions of cutting metalwork
with the therrnite cutting technique have made it possible to identi~ the following conditions for
cutting plate-type materials and piping:

the products resulting from the combustion of a thermite compound must be generated in the
form of a directed jet and must possess a large store of heat and kinetic energy
the combustion products must ensure a high level of convective heat exchange during the
demolition of metalwork
during the combustion of a pyrotechnic compound, a maximum number of condensed liquid
products with a high heat capacity must be formed
the number of gaseous products formed must be nlinirnal, but sufficient for transporting the
condensed phase to the obstacle.

As a result of the experimental work performed, the following conclusions were reached:

Two conceptually diverse compounds were evaluated in the research studies: slightly gassy mixtures
based on a iron-aluminium thermite with the addition of potassium perchIorate and strontium
nitrate (compound “A” mixtures), and gassy mixtures based on an aluminum-magnesium alloy with
an oxidizer using Polytetrafluoroethylene as its base (compound “B” mixtures).

Almost any metal or nonmetallic material can be subjected to thermite cutting.
The thermite cutting process can be petiornied in different attitudes (i.e., without manipulating
the articles being cut).
The thermite cutting technique makes it possible to cut tube bundles when access is only
possible from one direction.
The therrnite cutting technique ensures autonomous work petiormance under conditions of high
radioactivity away ilom electric power, fiel gas, and oxygen supply sources (in the presence of
high ionizing radiation dose rate levels).
The thermite cutting technique is characterized by maneuverability and the small dimensions of
its devices, which allows use of the technique in hard-to-reach locations.
The pyrotechnic cutting torch can be used with automatic and remote-control systems"

Posted by: truthteller Feb 25 2009, 10:01 PM

Hey Beached,

Great work in debunking the famous faither site 9/11 myths. Although i agree with you on almost every topic, there's one "fact" that you got wrong. 9/11 Myths was right in saying that there were arab names in the pasenger manifests because what you posted was a victims list, not a passenger list. It even says on top of the page, the CNN page. Remember that only 9 of the hijackers were found alive, so there were most likely at least about 10 hijackers on those planes, which doesnt necessairly mean they were the ones who guided the planes by the way. There's strong evidence they were guided by remote control or some sort. Anywhos, i just thought I'd clear that up because as truth seekers, we cannot be fooled by disinfo such as "missile hitting the pentagon" BS.

Posted by: Sanders Feb 25 2009, 10:09 PM

So, the airlines would purge their "passengers/victims" lists of FBI reported-hijackers before handing them over to the media? I find that very hard to swallow. They had lists of passengers - why would they go to the trouble to purge the names of alleged hijackers from the lists? This often heard argument is a lot of semantics and twisting in the wind.

Posted by: truthteller Feb 26 2009, 12:19 AM

QUOTE (Sanders @ Feb 25 2009, 09:09 PM) *
So, the airlines would purge their "passengers/victims" lists of FBI reported-hijackers before handing them over to the media? I find that very hard to swallow. They had lists of passengers - why would they go to the trouble to purge the names of alleged hijackers from the lists? This often heard argument is a lot of semantics and twisting in the wind.

No thats what im saying. The CNN page was just a victims page, it wasn't the flight manifest from AA or UAL. The original manifests were released by the FBI during the Moussaoui trial and their names were in there. The airlines didn't purge anything because they just released the names of the innocent victims, and obviously the hijackers don't count as "victims" since they supposedly were the mastermind of the attacks.

Posted by: achimspok Sep 18 2009, 12:38 AM

Here is a debate about the 911myth-debunking of 767 remote takeover.

[Mod edit: some/most? of us prefer to have some indication of the link's "intent" rather than a >>>>>>>>>>> "surprise attack," especially after the recent hack-attack, FWIW]

Remote Takeover Of 767 Impossible, 911myths arguments

Powered by Invision Power Board (
© Invision Power Services (