9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

07/27/2010

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) held a major training exercise in October 2000 that included the scenario of a person stealing a large jet plane, which they planned to crash into the United Nations headquarters building–a 39-story high-rise in New York, just a few miles away from the World Trade Center. Furthermore, a NORAD exercise in June that year included one scenario in which a plane was hijacked with the intention of crashing it into the White House, and another in which a transcontinental flight was hijacked with the intention of crashing the plane into the Statue of Liberty, only a short distance from where the WTC stood.

The existence of these exercise scenarios was revealed in August 2004 by General Richard Myers, at that time the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) asked, “Did NORAD”– the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace–”conduct exercises or develop scenarios, prior to September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a high-value target?” In response, Myers outlined “five exercise hijack events” that NORAD had practiced for between November 1999 and October 2000, which all “included a suicide crash into a high-value target.” [1] Yet the details of these chilling scenarios, which were like premonitions of the attacks on New York and Washington that lay ahead, failed to receive the public attention they deserved.

OCTOBER 2000 SCENARIO: STOLEN PLANE TARGETS UN BUILDING
The scenario that included an attempt to crash a plane into the UN headquarters was practiced for twice–on October 16 and October 23, 2000–as part of an exercise called Vigilant Guardian. This annual exercise was conducted by NORAD, and all of the organization, including its headquarters and its three air defense sectors in the continental United States, participated. [2]

The scenario practiced for on October 16 was that, “Due to recent arrests involving illegal drug trafficking in Maine, an individual steals a Federal Express plane and plans a suicide attack into the United Nations building in New York City.” The October 23 scenario, according to Myers’s summary, was almost identical. It was based around “weapons of mass destruction directed at the United Nations,” and in it, “an individual steals a Federal Express aircraft and plans a suicide attack on the United Nations building in New York City.” [3] (At the time of this exercise, Federal Express was flying mostly the MD-11 and the DC-10, both large jet aircraft. Presumably one of those planes was the type considered in the scenarios. [4])

The next Vigilant Guardian–for the year 2001–was actually being conducted at the time the 9/11 attacks occurred. [5] One can only imagine what NORAD personnel must have thought when the real-world events of September 11 so closely resembled a scenario they had encountered in the previous instance of that day’s exercise–a suicide pilot trying to crash a large jet plane into a New York skyscraper.

JUNE 2000 SCENARIOS: HIJACKERS PLAN TO CRASH PLANES INTO WHITE HOUSE AND STATUE OF LIBERTY
On June 5, 2000, the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR) was conducting an exercise called Falcon Indian, in which its three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part. [6] Two scenarios were practiced for that day in which hijackers planned to crash an aircraft into a well-known, “high-value” target in New York or Washington.

One scenario involved a Learjet being hijacked, and “maintaining tight formation with [a] Canadair airliner, loaded with explosives,” according to Myers’s summary. (It is unclear from that summary whether it was the Learjet or the Canadair plane that had explosives on board.) The hijackers “planned to crash” the Learjet “into the White House.” In the other scenario, a “Communist Party faction” hijacked an aircraft bound from the western to the eastern United States. The hijackers had “high explosives on board,” and intended “to crash into the Statue of Liberty.” [7]

NOVEMBER 1999 SCENARIO: TERRORISTS PLAN TO CRASH HIJACKED PLANE INTO UN BUILDING
The fifth scenario Myers described was from an earlier Falcon Indian, held in November 1999. Again, NORAD’s three air defense sectors in the continental U.S. took part in the CONR exercise. And, again, the exercise included a scenario based around the hijacking of a transcontinental aircraft flying from the western to the eastern United States. In the simulation, a China Airlines plane bound from Los Angeles to JFK International Airport in New York was “hijacked east of Colorado Springs by five terrorists.” If the plane was not intercepted by the U.S. military, the hijackers intended “to crash into [the] United Nations building.” [8]

OTHER PRE-9/11 PLANE-INTO-BUILDING SCENARIOS
Just a few months before Richard Myers revealed the existence of these five exercise scenarios, USA Today and CNN reported that NORAD had conducted exercises in the years before 9/11 that simulated hijackers crashing aircraft into buildings in the United States. Some of the scenarios that had been practiced for were described. It is unclear whether any of them correspond with the five later outlined by Myers, although, from what has been reported, it appears they were separate scenarios, additional to those in Myers’s list.

USA Today reported that “in the two years before the September 11 attacks,” NORAD conducted exercises simulating “hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” In one exercise, “One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center.” Another exercise involved fighter jets performing “a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States.” These two scenarios were included in “regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises,” according to NORAD, and the planes in the simulations were coming from a foreign country, rather than from within the U.S. [9]

CNN reported, “Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of [a] training exercise scenario.” That scenario involved the airliner “being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad.” The exercise “was conducted at one regional sector, and was not conducted at the [NORAD] headquarters.” The identity of the building hit by the aircraft was classified, but military officials said that it “would be recognizable if identified, but was not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon.” [10]

How could it have happened that the organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace repeatedly practiced scenarios that so closely resembled the 9/11 attacks in the years leading up to those attacks? And considering that the existence of these plane-into-building training scenarios has largely gone unreported, might there have been other, similar scenarios practiced for by NORAD–or other U.S. military organizations–that we do not yet know of? A new investigation into 9/11 is clearly urgently required. And the role of these training scenarios is one of many aspects of the attacks that must be thoroughly examined.

NOTES
[1] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community. 108th Cong., 2nd sess., August 17, 2004.
[2] Ibid.; William M. Arkin, Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World. Hanover, NH: Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 545.
[3] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
[4] Greg Schneider, “FedEx to Buy 10 Airbus Super-Jumbo Jets.” Washington Post, January 17, 2001.
[5] William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 545.
[6] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community; William M. Arkin, Code Names, p. 362.
[7] Senate Committee on Armed Services, Implications for the Department of Defense and Military Operations of Proposals to Reorganize the United States Intelligence Community.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, “NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons.” USA Today, April 18, 2004.
[10] Barbara Starr, “NORAD Exercise Had Jet Crashing into Building.” CNN, April 19, 2004.

Source of article 911 blogger.

July 26, 2010

(PressTV) – Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad has once again stated that the September 11 attacks were a staged event, rejecting claims that his comments are a publicity stunt.

“What do I gain from a publicity stunt? I am merely going by a public statement. I am not going to be a Prime Minister anymore unless you (pointing to a journalist) want me to …” the former Malaysian prime minister told reporters on Friday.

After watching a three-hour video of the attack on the World Trade Center buildings, Mohamad, had suggested earlier in his blog that the twin towers had collapsed “demolition style.”
Later on Friday, Mahathir also called on local television stations to show the three-hour video.

“It sounds logical to me. Until today, you cannot even find scraps of the plane that crashed into the World Trade Centre and there is no picture of the other plane, which was supposed to crash.”

“The way the tower came crashing down was also funny. People who saw it were also not ordinary people. They were professional engineers and what they say is quite credible.”

“I wish some television stations would consent to show the video as it is not long and only three hours. You can then see what I saw.”

Mahathir also said some people were afraid of saying anything critical about the governments of powerful countries or accusing them of doing something wrong.

“But the government of powerful countries said lies to go to war,” he added

“I have great respect for the Arabs but for them to hijack four planes is not very Arab. Just imagine the amount of planning that would be involved.”

Rejecting claims that he was being insensitive to the victims, Mahathir stressed that he was “being more sensitive to the victims” as he was saying the attacks were carried out “deliberately.”

The former Malaysian prime minister also said that his views about how 9/11/2001 attacks were carried out would not affect Malaysia’s chances of attracting foreign investment.

“I have said this many times even when I was the prime minister. But we still have the foreign direct investment. However, we cannot rely on foreign direct investments alone. We must build on our own system,” he said.

Mahathir made the comments at a debut held for a book titled Civilizations, Nomadic Migrations, Empires and The Trail of Islam, at the Islamic Arts Museum in Kuala Lumpur.

The book which entails the history of mankind, origin and commonality of major religions, is authored by Syed Salem Albukhary.

Source : Ex-Malaysian Premier still says that 9/11 an inside job

“9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK” analyzes the events which took place in New York City on the morning of the 11th of September 2001. Analysis includes Black Box Recovery, Radar and Speed data analysis, Aircraft Control, and “Hijacker” Pilot Skill. Interviews with 757/767 Captains from United and American Airlines who have actual Command time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11 are featured.

The film was prepared by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Below is a trailer for the film.

OFFICIAL TRAILER – 9/11: WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK from PilotsFor911Truth on Vimeo.

The entire DVD can be ordered from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Former NASA aerospace research engineer, Dwain Deets, a member of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and leader of its writing team, launched a new web site in July that focuses on circumstances surrounding the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (the Salomon Building) on September 11, 2001.

Deets explains why he created the site, “7problemswithbuilding7” which devotes itself exclusively to building 7 rather than the two, more widely known towers: “I started it because I think just presenting a limited but well-rounded portion of the Building 7 story is easier to be understood and less intimidating. I hope people will give it a chance to be understood, rather than taking the easy route and rejecting it without even giving it a read,” he said.

He also said the site complements the decision by the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) to focus on Building 7 and David Ray Griffin’s suggestion for a “Building What?” campaign.

The seven problems with the official story regarding why WTC Building 7 fell are:

One

No plane struck the 47-story World Trade Center skyscraper (Building 7). More on no plane.

Two

No evidence of fires in Building 7 for the first 100 minutes after being struck by debris from Tower 1. (Yet fire from the debris is the official explanation for building collapse.) More on no fires.

Three

A free-fall drop of 2.25 sec. is finally officially acknowledged. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) lead investigator explained months earlier that, had there been free fall, there would have been no structural components below. More on freefall.

Four

Mainstream media quickly transitioned coverage of the building collapse to a “feel good” spin, focusing on the building being vacant when it came down. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings were more candid with their immediate comments, relating it to the familiar demolition of buildings we all well know.

Five

No mention of the collapse of Building 7 in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Six

The New York Times characterized as “perhaps the deepest mystery in the investigation,” a FEMA-report appendix about a steel specimen recovered from Building 7, rather like Swiss cheese, a product of extraordinarily high temperatures. More on FEMA.

Seven

No mention in the NIST Building 7 Final Report of this mysterious steel specimen.

For updates and more information, click on the link to go the website7problemswithbuilding7.

An unbelievable lineup of speakers is coming to Utah for a three day event, July 30 – August 1st…

With the final addition of Stewart Rhodes (Oathkeepers.org), the Axiom 2010 Conference is shaping up to be an unprecedented event. With the confirmation of our extraordinary panel of truth-tellers, including Prof. Steven Jones and rounding out the event with Alan Watt, live (via-satellite), Salt Lake City should be your destination July 30th through August 1st.

Our other confirmed special guests include: Sheriff Richard Mack, Luke Rudkowski, Dr. Tim O’shea, Walter Burien, Gary Franchi (with Camp FEMA movie screening), Daniel Estulin (via-satellite), Jake Shannon, Dr. Robert M. Bowman (head of the Star Wars program under Nixon and Reagan), Marc Stevens, Dr. A. True Ott, Byron Dale, and Dr. Ann Blake Tracy.

Click here to read more about the speakers at the upcoming Axiom 2010 Truth Teller’s Conference In Salt Lake City.

Seating is limited to 300, and tickets are going fast!

The event will also be streamed live over the internet by our friend and sponsor George Butler at the GCN Network here: www.liveonlocation.tv

We Are Change is also planning a mass 9-11 bannering of the Salt Lake area during the event to really wake the sleeping masses here in Utah, and asks that groups bring their banners and signs to the event.

Please join us at the Salt Lake Community College conference center in Sandy, Utah.

Press and vendor info contact: Clint Richardson (introspector48@yahoo.com)

This is the big leagues. AE911Truth is running a series of 30 second spots on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory in the build up to Richard Gage’s appearance as a guest on the show July 31st.

The ads start today, Thursday, July 15th, at 2:17 a.m. Eastern time.

Remember this will be a truly national spot airing on 500+ stations! A first for 9/11 truth. [There was a spot on Coast to Coast earlier this year, but it only ran in the Los Angeles market]. This is not just a local affiliate of a nationally syndicated show– this is a nationwide ad that will be heard by nearly a half million people.

So put on a pot of joe and listen this Thursday at 2:17 a.m. Eastern.

Thursday is the original spot by Ed Asner, while following versions will be modified to serve as promos for Gage’s appearance on the 31st.

Radio Affiliates: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/affiliates

According to a document obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on Tuesday March 16, the 9/11 commission was warned on Jan. 6th, 2004 by high-level administration officials to “not cross the line” in the investigation of the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

The document is available at http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/CIA.pdf

Here’s a copy of the letter in question (page 26 of the PDF document).

From:

Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

To:

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Thomas H. Kean, Chairman
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chairman

Gentlemen:

Your staff has advised us that the Commission seeks to participate in the questioning of certain enemy combatants detained in the war against terrorists of global reach. Such action by the Commission would substantially interfere with the ability of the United States to perform its law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions in the protection of the American people.

Your legislative commission has had extraordinary — indeed, unprecedented in the annals of American history — access to many of the Nation’s most sensitive secrets in the conduct of its work, including detainee information. In response to the Commission’s expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation. There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross — the line separating the Commission’s proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government’s ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks. The Commission staffs proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line.

As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission to not further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees.

Respectfully,

John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence

Source of the article Do Not Cross The Line.

This Skilcraft electric wall clock, which hung in the Pentagon helipad fire station, was knocked to the ground by the impact of the explosion at the Pentagon.

by Barbara Honegger

The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100th anniversary of California’s Great 1906 Earthuake with a series of front-page articles featuring a single icon—a charred clock frozen in time at 5:12 a.m. — the exact moment that “The Big One” hit.1

A century after that devastating event, this stopped-clock image serves as boththe ultimate evidence and historic symbol that “captures it all.”

Today, 100 years later, a series of Pentagon clocks frozen in time at the exact moment of the violent event there on the morning of September 11, 2001 also “capture it all” and are the ultimate evidence shattering the Official Lie of what happened that terrible morning – and who was really responsible.

The Pentagon was first attacked shortly after 9:30 a.m. – well before 9:37:46, when the Official Lie says a plane hit the building from the outside.

The Pentagon was first attacked much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim. The Pentagon and mainstream media first reported 9:43 as the time of alleged Flight 77 impact (some reports, reportedly also quoting official sources, were as late as 9:48 and 9:47). Over time, the time given by officials for the claimed outside impact on the building moved earlier and earlier, finally down to 9:37 (as of the time of this writing), but has never come close to the actual time of the first violent event at the Pentagon—shortly after 9:30 a.m. Clearly, if the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at almost 9:38 were true, Flight 77 could not have been the source of massive damage to the west side of the building which occurred between five and right minutes earlier.

Converging Lines of Evidence of a 9:30-to- 9:32 a.m. Violent Event at the Pentagon on September 11, well before the Official Story says anything hit the building:

Multiple standard-issue, battery- and/or electric-operated wall clocks on the walls of the area of the Pentagon attacked on 9/11—including one in the heliport just outside the west wedge—were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2 by a violent event, almost certainly a bomb or bombs inside the building and/or in a truck or construction trailer parked right outside the west face. The first Associated Press report, in fact, stated that the Pentagon had been damaged by a “booby trapped truck.” The Navy posted the stopped heliport clock on an official website and another of the stopped clocks was in the 9/11 display at the Smithsonian Institution.2 These are just some of the west-section Pentagon clocks – as well as an inside-the-building victim’s wrist watch (see below) – that were stopped between 9:30 and 9:32-1/2 on September 11.

April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance, was at her desk in the Army administrative offices in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the area of the building most heavily destroyed and with the most casualties, when what she said sounded and felt “like a bomb” went off. “Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb,” Gallop told the author in an under-oath videotaped interview.2A “There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel.” In those two hours of under-oath videotaped testimony, Gallop states that the explosion went off at the precise instant she hit the ‘power on’ button on her computer in the Army administrative area, to which she had just returned that morning after months of pregnancy and childbirth leave, and that the explosion stopped her wrist watch just after 9:30 a.m. 2B She has kept the stopped wrist watch in a safe deposit box as evidence of the exact moment of the initial explosion.

The FAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration] Timeline document “Executive Summary—Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis––September 11, 2001” includes: “0932: ATC (Air Traffic Control) AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.”3 The time is the critical fact here, not the claimed cause, which was taken from the official story and not the result of any ATC eyewitnesses.

Denmark’s soon-to-be Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller was in a building in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 from which he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his wrist watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.4.

On August 27, 2002, then White House Counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave an audiotaped Secretary of the Navy lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., a DoD educational institution, in which he clearly and explicitly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. A tape of this segment of his talk was played at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence at American University in Washington, D.C. in
July 2005, and is on the public record.

The Pentagon was attacked by bomb(s) between 9:30 and 9:32 a.m., possibly followed by an impact from an airborne object significantly smaller than Flight 77, a Boeing 757.

We have already seen that Army employee April Gallop, whose watch was stopped by the violent event at the Pentagon shortly after 9:30, says that her military training and experience led her to immediately determine the source of the initial explosion was a bomb.

I have interviewed an Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, who was on temporary duty assignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11. He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutes before the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11. He had just returned to his temporary office on the ground floor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the building shake.

Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor just outside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling “Bombs!” and “A bomb went off!” The witness has requested that his name not be used in this summary, but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent official investigation.

This Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, which was one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the Naval Command Center. The day before 9/11, September 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference at which he acknowledged that the Pentagon was “missing”—could not account for and needed to “find”—$2.3 Trillion
dollars (other reports said $2.6 Trillion). Were the auditors who could “follow the money,” and the computers whose data could help them do it, intentionally targeted? It is worth noting that the Pentagon’s top financial officer at the time, Dov Zakheim, who also acknowledged the “missing” trillions, had a company that specializes in aircraft remotecontrol technology. As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front-hub assembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior jet fighter,5 and as Air Force A-3 Sky Warriors—normally piloted planes—were secretly retrofitted to be remote-controlled drones and fitted with missiles in a highly compartmented operation at an airport near Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/11,6 the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors and their computerized data were intentionally targeted on 9/11.

The witness has requested that his name not be used in this summary, but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent official investigation. This Army financial management/audit area is part of, or contiguous to, the Army personnel offices, which was one of two main west section offices heavily destroyed in the Pentagon attack, the other being the Naval Command Center. The day before 9/11, September 10, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld held a press conference at which he acknowledged that the Pentagon was “missing”—could not account for and needed to “find”—$2.3 Trillion dollars (other reports said $2.6 Trillion). Were the auditors who could “follow the money,” and the computers whose data could help them do it, intentionally targeted? It is worth noting that the Pentagon’s top financial officer at the time, Dov Zakheim, who also acknowledged the “missing” trillions, had a company that specializes in aircraft remotecontrol technology. As remnants found in the Pentagon wreckage have been identified as the front-hub assembly of the front compressor of a JT8D turbojet engine used in the A-3 Sky Warrior jet fighter,5 and as Air Force A-3 Sky Warriors—normally piloted planes—were secretly retrofitted to be remote-controlled drones and fitted with missiles in a highly compartmented operation at an airport near Ft. Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport in Colorado in the months before 9/11,6 the question further arises as to whether Pentagon auditors and their computerized data were intentionally targeted on 9/11.

Click here for the rest of THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS.