Not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 ‘hijackers’ boarded any planes


Atta and al-Omari in Portland: note two different time stamps.

Atta and al-Omari in Portland: note two different time stamps.

By Craig McKee

To believe the official story of 9/11 you have to swallow an awful lot. You have to believe the laws of physics can be suspended for a day, that planes can disappear after crashing, and that Muslims accused of being suicide hijackers can still be alive after the deed is done.

About that last one. Essential to the deception was the premise that 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four domestic flights on the morning of September 11, 2001 with the intention of flying them into predetermined targets.

But do we really know who these alleged hijackers were? Do we know they carried out any hijackings? Do we know they were even at the scenes of the crimes? In fact, as researcher Elias Davidsson demonstrates in his recent book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence, there is not one shred of authenticated evidence that any of the 19 men blamed for the “attacks” ever boarded any planes. And even if there were, this would not prove they participated in any hijackings.

Davidsson shows that evidence proving that the guilt of the accused hijackers simply does not exist. Beyond that, the names on the official list have changed multiple times with no adequate explanation for why or how. Several accused even turned out to be alive after 9/11, a fact that is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report even though it was known long before the report was written. The North American media have also ignored this critical fact.

In his analysis, Davidsson lists five ways that guilt could have been proven but was not (we get into details a bit later):

  • Authenticated passenger lists or flight manifests that feature the names of the alleged hijackers;
  • Authenticated boarding passes showing that they boarded the planes;
  • Sworn testimonies of anyone who witnessed any of the accused boarding;
  • Authenticated security videos showing them boarding the planes and;
  • Physical remains with chain of custody reports.

Davidsson contends that not only has the government not proven its case against the 19, it has not even established probable cause.

Researcher Jay Kolar, in his article “What We Now Know About the Alleged Hijackers,” published in The Hidden History of 9-11 (edited by Paul Zarembka), points out that then FBI director Robert Mueller has admitted that the case against the “hijackers” would never stand up in a court of law.[1] This, however, does not stop the FBI and the mainstream media from calling them mass murderers. Mueller was also quoted in the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 21, 2001 as saying there is considerable doubt about the identities of the alleged perpetrators.

hijackers group

No proof these men hijacked anything.

“We have several hijackers whose identities were those of the names on the manifests,” Mueller said. “We have several others that are still in question. The investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain as to several of the others.”

Kolar writes that all the evidence used to support the allegations – including videos, photographs, in-flight phone calls, and cockpit audio tapes, “have been proven to lack authentication if not also proven, with corroboration from other evidence, to be fabrications or forgeries.”[2]

And the investigation Mueller mentioned didn’t last long. President George W. Bush called it off one month after it began with the excuse that the manpower was needed to investigate the anthrax attacks. Of course these turned out to be another false flag, directly linked to the 9/11 deception (see Graeme MacQueen’s book The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy).

David Ray Griffin also points out in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions that there are other key pieces of information that were available long before the release of The 9/11 Commission Report in 2004 that contradict the official hijackers scenario. One was that multiple media reports had made it clear that Mohamed Atta (allegedly the pilot of Flight 11) drank, used cocaine, received lap dances, and used prostitutes – and he was not the “fanatically” devout Muslim the Report claims. Another was that Hani Hanjour (the alleged pilot of Flight 77) was so poor a pilot that he had been refused rental of a two-seater Cessna just a month before 9/11. This contradicted the Report’s claim that Hanjour was the operation’s most experienced pilot.

THE ELEMENTS OF PROOF

Here is a more detailed look at the five types of evidence that Davidsson asserts might have proven the guilt of the 19 men accused of this momentous crime:

Authenticated passenger lists or flight manifests: Under normal circumstances it would be a simple thing to prove whether someone was on a particular flight or not. The official flight manifests are legal documents that are used to establish the identities of passengers when, for example, insurance claims are being made.

Davidsson requested these official manifests from American Airlines in 2004, but the request was denied. An airline spokesperson stated that the official lists had been turned over to the FBI and that they had in turn released a list of names to the media, adding that the airline “is not in a position to release further information or to republish what the government agencies provided to the media.”[3] He made another attempt in 2005 and was given a list of 53 passengers with the names of the alleged hijackers redacted. When he approached United Airlines, he was told to contact the FBI.

Davidsson made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI for the original passenger manifests and was told that the lists were available on the Internet and at the U.S. Department of Justice web site. But all that was available at the site were seating arrangements, not a passenger list.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the passenger lists that have been released is that the identities of several of the alleged hijackers have changed with no explanation. We also know that several of the people on the FBI’s list were still alive after 9/11 and could not have been part of any possible hijackings. Some names were deleted and others substituted, but even some of the new names belonged to people who turned out to be alive. Kolar reports that at least 10 of the current list of 19 were still alive after 9/11.[4]

In his book, Davidsson points out that former Drug Enforcement Agency administrator and former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Robert Bonner, testified before the 9/11 Commission that he had been handed a sheet containing the names of the 19 probable hijackers by 11 a.m. on 9/11. The problem is that this is well before the U.S. military had even confirmed which planes had been hijacked. Where did he get this list?

In 2012, Davidsson made another FOIA request to the FBI asking for “flight manifests for hijacked flights.” This was denied even though the names of the hijackers and the passengers had been publicly known for years. He concludes from his research that either the FBI does not possess the original flight manifests or those lists do not reflect the current list of alleged hijackers.

No authenticated boarding passes: As Davidsson reports, in 2001 American Airlines issued boarding passes with stubs to be torn off by airline employees. But no boarding pass stubs have been produced for any of the alleged hijackers that boarded either of the AA flights (11 and 77). The 9/11 Commission says it received “copies of electronic boarding passes for Flight 93.”

As Davidsson reports, there is one story recounted in Tom Murphy’s book Regaining the Sky that appears nowhere else: Terry Rizzuto, the United Airlines station manager at Newark Airport (where Flight 93 left from), had just finished arranging to release to the FBI the manifest and the Passenger Name Record from Flight 93. She headed to the gate that the plane had left from to speak with staff, and when she arrived, she was handed four boarding passes by an unnamed supervisor, who tells her that they are for the four alleged hijackers of the flight.

When she asked how they found this out so fast, the supervisor replied: “They were too well dressed. Too well dressed for that early in the morning. And their muscles rippled below their suits. Yes, and their eyes.”

No witnesses to boarding: There are simply no witnesses who can state that any hijackers actually boarded any planes. No ticket takers, no security personnel, no one. In fact, there is no one who makes a credible claim to have seen any of them at boarding gates or security checkpoints either – even though the 9/11 Commission Report states (p.451) that 10 of the 19 were selected by an automated system for additional security screening. And the collection of knives and box cutters that they allegedly used to take over the planes were somehow not detected either by electronic screening or through individual searches.

There were a couple of instances where airport staff did say they believe they saw one or more of the accused hijackers, but these did not stand up because of serious factual contradictions. These included wrong physical descriptions, incorrect descriptions of the types of clothes the men were wearing or whether they wore glasses, and in one case an airport employee said he believed he recognized one of the men from a photo who he said boarded one of the American Airlines planes. The problem was that this “hijacker” is supposed to have flown on one of the two United Airlines flights.

No authenticated security video: Had 19 hijackers boarded four planes, they should each have been caught on camera dozens of times as they moved through the terminals. Instead, there are only two videos that show any alleged hijackers at any airports on 9/11. These are examined by the 9/11 Consensus Panel in their “Point Video-1: The Alleged Security Videos of Mohamed Atta during a Mysterious Trip to Portland, Maine, September 10-11, 2001” and “Point Video-2: Was the Airport Video of the Alleged AA 77 Hijackers Authentic?

One video allegedly shows Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari going through security at the airport in Portland, Maine early on the morning of Sept. 11. This video was released to the press soon after 9/11. Atta and al-Omari were purported to have rented a car and driven from Boston to Portland on Sept. 10. They allegedly appeared on security video at a gas station and a Walmart that day.

In the case of Portland Airport video, not one but two times were stamped on the images – 5:45 a.m. and 5:53 a.m. The latter time is just seven minutes before the plane’s scheduled take-off. The trip itself makes no sense given that the two would have been taking a huge the risk that their early morning flight would be delayed, which would have kept them from making their Boston connection. Had this happened, the entire operation could have been compromised.

The second video, not released until 2004, is of much lower quality. It purports to show the five alleged hijackers of Flight 77 – Hani Hanjour, Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar, and Majed Moqed – passing through a security checkpoint prior to boarding Flight 77 at Washington’s Dulles International Airport.

But unlike all other video from Dulles surveillance cameras, this does not feature any camera identification number (which would establish where the video was shot) or any time stamp. It is therefore impossible to establish where or when this video was shot, which means it is useless as evidence of whether these five boarded Flight 77.

On top of this, two of the alleged hijackers who were shown in the dubious video and who were supposed to have boarded Flight 77, Salem al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhhar, turned up alive after 9/11. Also damning is that at one point the video (as it was aired on CBS and Court TV) zooms in on al-Mihdhar and pans with him, which suggests human intervention that would not be found on any other airport surveillance video.[5]

No positive ID of remains: Apart from how hard it is to believe that identifiable remains of alleged hijackers could even have existed (we’re told most Flight 77 passengers remains were identified, while the cockpit voice recorder was destroyed because of the extreme temperatures), the fact is that there is no verifiable evidence that any physical remains of any alleged hijackers were recovered.

According to Davidsson, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology used DNA to identify all the “innocent” passengers and crew members from the flights.[6] But none of the alleged hijackers’ identities were confirmed using DNA testing (no efforts were made to contact any of the families of the suspects to obtain DNA samples). Instead, a process of elimination was used with unidentified remains assumed to be those of hijackers.

Also, death certificates were issued for all passengers and crew of the four flights but none for the alleged hijackers. According to the FBI this is because they could not be sure of their identities. But in several cases, DNA samples could have been collected for comparison to the supposed remains. The family of Ziah Jarrah (alleged hijacker on Flight 93) even volunteered to co-operate with authorities, but this was declined.

Anomalies and mysteries for each flight

Let’s look at how some names were removed and replaced by others on the four flights and how at least 10 of the 19 men were still alive after 9/11:

Flight 11: Jay Kolar points to a very serious problem concerning the official story of the Flight 11 hijacker list: “A little-known fact is that besides the name of Mohamed Atta, it contained four names from the Flight 11 manifest, which the FBI dropped and replaced with four other Arab names. Are we then to believe there were at least nine Arab names on Flight 11 to choose from, and four of the FBI’s five choices were wrong?”

Mohamed Atta: ringleader?

Mohamed Atta: ringleader?

The original list for Flight 11 included Atta, Adnan Bukhari, Ameer Bukhari, Abdul al-Omari, and Amer Kamfar. On Sept. 14, 2001, federal sources told CNN that Adnan and Ameer Bukhari had been on one of the planes that originated in Boston. Later, this was changed, and they became the pilots of the two planes that were reported to have hit the World Trade Center. Finally this was narrowed down to Flight 11.[7]

We were also told that Adnan and Ameer had driven a rented car from Boston to Portland, Maine on Sept. 10, 2001. But that story had to be changed when CNN later reported that Adnan Bukhari was quite alive and still living in Florida, where he had been questioned by the FBI. And Ameer Bukhari had been killed in a small plane crash in Vero Beach, Florida on Sept. 11, 2000.

So these two names were dropped from the official “hijackers” list and replaced by two more: brothers Wail M. al-Shehri and Waleed M. al-Shehri. Both also turned up alive after 9/11. Waleed protested his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. The BBC reported that Waleed al-Sheri had attended a flight training school in Daytona, Florida but had left the U.S. in 2000 for Saudi Arabia where he became a pilot with Saudi Arabian Airlines. Thierry Meyssan in his book 9/11: The Big Lie (p. 54) reported that al-Shehri had been interviewed by the Arab-language London-based newspaper Al-Qods al-Arabi after 9/11. Also, according to the Associated Press, he contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco and explained that he lived in Casablanca and worked as a pilot.

On Sept. 12, 2001, eight FBI agents arrived at the door of Amer Kamfar’s neighbor in Vero Beach asking if the neighbor knew him. Later Kamfar’s name was removed from the list and replaced by Satam M.A. Al-Suqami (the alleged owner of the famous passport that we’re told floated to the ground near the towers after the first plane impact). But if Kamfar was on the original manifest, where did Al-Suqami’s name come from? And if Kamfar wasn’t on the original list, where did they get his name from?

And another name from the Flight 11 list was reported by the Boston Globe to be Abdulrahman al-Omari (who we were told sat next to Mohamed Atta on the plane). But on the list of hijackers released Sept. 14, 2001 by the Justice Department, the name was Abdulaziz al-Omari (sometimes written Abdul Aziz). Meanwhile, the Washington Post listed the name as Abdulrahman that same day. But Abdulaziz was living in Saudi Arabia, according to the Saudi embassy in Washington. The Independent reported on Sept. 17 that he had walked into the U.S. consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation for why he was being accused of being a suicide hijacker.

Kolar’s research turned up some fascinating connections between the suspects whose names were on the initial list and then removed. In addition to all being Saudi Arabian pilots living in Vero Beach, Abdulrahman al-Omari and his family lived at the same address as Amer Kamfar. Next door lived Abdulaziz al-Omari. Ameer Bukhari was listed as having the same address as Adnan.[8]

It seems that every time there was a problem with an element of the official story, the story changed. This happened with the inexplicable trip by Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz al-Omari to Portland, Maine mentioned above. Originally, the story was that it was the two Bukharis who had rented the car (a blue Nissan Altima) and driven to Portland. But when one turned out to be dead the year before and the other still alive, the story changed. Now it was Atta who had rented the car and driven with al-Omari to Portland. But it also came out that a white Mitsubishi rented by Atta was found at Logan Airport. Kolar notes the contradictions:

“When their destination was Boston, why would Atta and al-Omari rent one car in Boston and leave it at the Boston airport, then rent another car and leave it at the Portland, Maine airport, and take a flight back to Boston? The whole story makes no sense.” He adds that flying from Portland on 9/11 also makes no sense since the two risked missing their connecting flight in Boston. For more on the bizarre Portland trip, check David Ray Griffin’s article, “9/11 contradictions: Mohamed Atta’s Mitsubishi and his luggage.”

The original story reported in the media was that incriminating items, which helped cement the official story that the 19 men were working with al-Qaeda, were found in the car that Atta is supposed to have rented and that was found parked at Logan Airport. The items were said to include Atta’s will, an international driver’s license, instruction videos for flying Boeing airliners, an Islamic prayer schedule, and a Saudi passport. But this story later changed as well: the items were now found in Atta’s suitcase, which miraculously was the only one that did not make it on to the flight. Why would Atta bring his will with him on the plane if he was planning to crash it into a building?

To top things off, Atta’s father was quoted in The Guardian in September 2002 as saying that his son is still alive and in hiding from U.S. security services.

Flight 77: The first problem with the five alleged hijackers of Flight 77 is that Salem al-Hazmi turned up alive in Saudi Arabia, according to the Saudi embassy in Washington. He told reporter David Harrison of The Telegraph that he had just returned to a petrochemical complex in the city of Yanbu after a holiday when 9/11 occurred.

On Sept. 14, 2001, CNN had released the name of Mosear Caned, who they said was expected to be on a list of hijackers being released later that day. Instead, that name disappeared and was replaced by Hani Hanjour. But where did the first name come from? And if Hanjour purchased a ticket, then why wasn’t his name on the original list? On top of that, an ATM photo of Hanjour, taken six days before 9/11, does not resemble the Hanjour shown in the Dulles video.[9]

We know for a fact that the official (but unauthenticated ) passenger list from Flight 77 is not the same as the original one. We know that because the Counsel for American Airlines, in a 2004 letter to the 9/11 Commission, stated that they don’t know if Hanjour checked in at the main ticket counter. On Sept. 16, 2001, the Washington Post reported that Hanjour’s name was not on the original manifest because he may not have purchased a ticket. But his name appears on the list entered into evidence at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.[10]

Also, the spelling of the names of the other four were changed slightly from the first list: Cammid Al-Madar became Khalid Al-Mihdhar; Majar Mokhed became Majed Moqed; Salem Al-Hazni became Salem Al-Hazmi; and Nawar Al-Hazni became Nawaf Al-Hazmi.

Flight 175: The list originally contained four names but a fifth, Mohand al-Sheri, was added later. But he turned up alive and living in Saudi Arabia, according to the Saudi embassy in Washington. Hamza al-Gamdi was supposed to have been a hijacker on Flight 175, but his family came forward to state that the photo released did not resemble him although the name and birth date matched.

Flight 93: Another who turned up alive was Saeed al-Ghamdi. He told David Harrison of The Telegraph that he was shocked to see his name on the list of hijackers and that he had spent the previous 10 months in Tunis learning to fly an Airbus. According to the BBC, al-Ghamdi had also been interviewed by the London-based Arab newspaper Asharq Al Awsat.

Another alleged hijacker, Ahmed al-Nami, told Harrison after 9/11 that he was shocked to see his name on the list of hijackers, adding that, “I had never even heard of Pennsylvania.” He stated that he had been working as an administrative supervisor for Saudi Arabian Airlines.

Photographic evidence shows that the Ziad Jarrah accused of being a hijacker is not the same person whose half burned photo was supposedly found at the “crash site” in Shanksville, PA. Kolar contends that Jarrah had a double as did several others accused of being part of the plot. He says there are accounts of Jarrah’s whereabouts that have him in more than one place at a time.

Kolar writes that investigators found that Jarrah had spent three months in an al-Qaeda training camp in January 2001. But according to Florida Flight Training Center, Jarrah was a student there until Jan. 15. Jarrah later went to Lebanon Jan. 26-30 to be with his father, who was having open-heart surgery.[11]

LIES WITHIN LIES

Maybe the craziest pillar in the whole story comes from the so-called “confession” video of Osama bin Laden that was released in December 2001. The video is clearly a fake given that it features a bin Laden double, and not a very good one at that.[12]

But what’s really intriguing is that the fake bin Laden mentions the name of nine of the alleged hijackers during the confession. But five of those nine ended up still being alive. Why would the real perpetrator of the 9/11 crime give credit to five men who turned out not to be involved?

The story that 19 Muslims named by the FBI were responsible for hijacking four airliners and killing themselves in the process simply cannot stand up to examination. In fact we know for a fact that it is false.

This, like the rest of the official story of 9/11, is so thin you can see right through it.

 

Footnotes

[1] Kolar, page 3 of The Hidden History of 9-11.

[2] Kolar, page 40

[3] Davidsson, page 43 of Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence

[4] Kolar, page 11

[5] Davidsson, page 54

[6] Kolar, page 7

[7] Kolar, page 3

[8] Kolar, page 13

[9] Kolar, page 8

[10] Davidsson, page 33

[11] More details on the framing of Ziad Jarrah, Kolar, page 301

[12] Kolar, page 9

157 comments

  1. Regarding that Dulles video which has no time stamps, the Consensus Panel link regarding the authenticity of that particular video raises another interesting point:

    Whereas most 24-hour surveillance cameras use time-lapse photography with 1-second intervals (in order to meet data storage limitations), the videotape with images of al-Mihdhar and Moqed was shot at 30 frames per second (30fps), the norm in continuous consumer video-camera taping (i.e., many times the normal speed of security cameras), which suggests that this videotape was not taken by a Dulles airport security camera.

    Very interesting point.

    Especially in light of the fact that “debunkers” use the “1 frame per second to meet data storage limitations” as the standard excuse as to why the Pentagon camera didn’t get a smooth motion picture of that event.

    Well written as usual Craig.

  2. Very thoughtful and insightful article, as usual! I’ll respectfully question the last statement: “this, like the rest of the official story of 9/11, is so thin you can see right through it.” It depends on who “you” is. Independent analysts with much intelligence and much experience in large-scale obfuscation will indeed see right through it. Ordinary 9/11 skeptics, who trust in good faith the official 9/11 superstition, will necessarily find this article unconvincing: assuming they start to review it, they will be overwhelmed with discomfort long before being able to check most factual assertions and study the logical inferences. They will reasonably conclude that they cannot and should not judge whether the article is correct or not.

    It bears repeating that it is hard to find a more effective see-through introduction to 9/11 than TV’s global failure to bring to the public’s attention the extraordinary features of Building 7’s destruction by an office fire.

    Love,

    1. Daniel,

      These two parts of your sentence, separated by a comma, seem to be mutually contradictory:

      “Ordinary 9/11 skeptics, who trust in good faith the official 9/11 superstition”

      Myself and most 9/11 skeptics I’m aware of (who aren’t agents) definitely do NOT trust in good faith the official 9/11 superstition.

      1. 9/11 skeptics believe the official 9/11 myth and are skeptical of the reality of 9/11 as a false flag. Unlike 9/11 fanatics, they are amenable to changing their beliefs if they happen to understand some compelling information that falsifies them.

        You are not skeptical of 9/11’s essence. You are aware of it, cognizant of it. Just like you are not skeptical that 2+2=4.

        Love,

        1. Ah, I see what you mean. We have a different understanding of the term “9/11 skeptics.” You take it to mean people skeptical of the truth movement’s claims. However, I and probably most others as well (I could use some backup on this) take “9/11 skeptics” to mean people who are skeptical of the official account, i.e. truthers. I know many truth activists who use the term “9/11 skeptics” instead of the more cliched “9/11 truthers.”

          Anyway, this article is geared to anyone, whether already a truther or not, who has an open mind and enough intelligence to be able to see how weak claims are refuted.

          I think Craig has done an invaluable service in summarizing in a neat little package some of the most important points from two well researched in-depth books on the subject, books that most of us at this blog haven’t read.

      1. Good point! If you get them to be “overwhelmed with discomfort” over the official 9/11 superstition, indeed it was worth it. But if you get them to be “overwhelmed with discomfort” over you, it may be counterproductive.

        Some people in Plato’s cave will wake up when you repeatedly pinch them. They will realize that their chains render them incapable of enjoying the Platonic show until you go away and will humbly beg you to set them free. Most will not be convinced of your benevolence, though, and will respond only to a much softer approach. But this is another story.

        At any rate, the competition to wake up the general public to 9/11 and other grand conspiracies is best kept friendly, constructive, and mutually supportive. If the hijacks’ fairy tale ends up being the key to unraveling the 9/11 censorship, it will be great news for everyone!

        Love,

    2. It’s sad that you feel so powerless in your own lives that you take to creating imaginary scenarios in which you are the smartest people in the room, the only ones with access to the “truth.” Guess what–the brave thing is to face reality, even the harshness of it, and work to make change in real life, amongst real evil, instead of boiling down horrific events to entertainment fodder where you can pretend to be important, to be heroes. Yet not one of you is a terrorism expert, has worked in counterintelligence or security, is an expert on the complicated history of jihadism and Salaafism in the Middle East, or anything else. Just because you feel cynical about your own lives doesn’t give you the right to devalue the lives of others by turning heinous murders into a selfish game where you feel “in the know” and powerful.

      Additionally, if you are so convinced this is fake and you’re onto some great conspiracy, then you should be brave enough to get off the internet and prove it in real life. If this is of the greatest importance to the world, it would be wrong of you, the only ones “in the know,” to not properly expose this grand plan to the world with facts and hard proof from independent, verified, expert sources–not other Truther videos or websites. So go get proof–interview victim’s families, first responders, witnesses, engineers, Middle East scholars. In fact, why have you not done so in 14 years? You’ve had every opportunity to reach out to these people; most of them are publicly listed. It’s because you know your claims don’t stand a chance against facts, and your fragile sense of self-worth can’t take shattering the only place you feel powerful in your life–online, with people who think exactly like you do. You’d rather stick your finger in your ears and cover your eyes than admit the truth, because then your fun little game would be over.

      I’m sure you’re unsettled and feel the anger boiling up inside of you as you read this, because everything I am saying is true and it hit uncomfortably close to home.

      1. “I’m sure you’re unsettled and feel the anger boiling up inside of you as you read this, because everything I am saying is true and it hit uncomfortably close to home.”~Lana

        Hardly my dear, we have heard this jejune layman’s version of psychoanalysis for so long it has become a mantra of people like yourself; who come on here with such twaddle while never once making a substantial comment on real evidence.

        You say, “So go get proof–interview victim’s families, first responders, witnesses, engineers, Middle East scholars. In fact, why have you not done so in 14 years?”
        In fact much of what is discussed here is from those who have done exactly that; taken interviews victim’s families, first responders, witnesses, engineers, Middle East scholars.
        You’d rather stick your finger in your ears and cover your eyes than admit the truth, because then you couldn’t pop into a forum like this and blab the bullshit you just have.

        Go back to your knitting Lana, leave the serious thinking to those of us who have done our research.

        https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/wtc-1-2-reports-of-explosions-after-impact-and-during-collapses/
        \\][//

      2. I am sorry that the comment of mine you replied to may have made you sad. I meant it to make you think.

        Contrary to your affirmation, I am an expert in terrorism. I have authored what seems to be the authoritative analysis (www.global-Platonic-theater.com) of 9/11’s macrosociological context and subsequently pioneered ways to save the world through 9/11. Most contributors to this blog are also experts in this area. In fact, all of them affirm 9/11’s essence as a self-evident and poorly covered false flag.

        The points you make seem to be so foreign to my comment and to the page’s topic that readers will wonder if you meant to paste them on another web page. At any rate, if you reply, kindly indicate if you know for a fact that 9/11 was a self-evident and poorly covered false flag. This will allow other commenters to put your evaluations in their context.

        Love,

      3. @Lana I’m afraid the idea of a confirmed member of the truth movement admitting the truth – as anything other than what they already believe – is a bit of a forlorn hope since there are so many ways to protect themselves from the idea of even reconsidering what they believe.
        One is the fact that people who suggest they might reconsider what they believe are obviously trying to deflect them from the truth and are therefore part of covering up the truth i.e. suggesting they might be wrong is more evidence they are right.
        Two is that the evidence about 9/11 is prejudicially divided into two parts from the outset. There is ‘the official story’ on the one hand ,and ‘the evidence’ on the other. The official story consists of evidence but it is just regarded as a story, a narrative, that was somehow just conjured out of thin air. They have given themselves carte blanche to call any or all of it false, fake , a lie etc. thereby removing that evidence. In fact not only does it remove that evidence but it coverts it magically into more evidence of an inside job since it therefore means more things are being falsified and faked and lied about. Every piece of evidence is judged by whether it supports the official story or not. If it does it’s false – and therefore more evidence of things being falsified- , and if it doesn’t it’s just more evidence showing the official story to be false.

        1. “Two is that the evidence about 9/11 is prejudicially divided into two parts from the outset. There is ‘the official story’ on the one hand ,and ‘the evidence’ on the other. The official story consists of evidence but it is just regarded as a story, a narrative, that was somehow just conjured out of thin air.”~Agent Wright

          Yes Wright “conjured out of thin air.” by Philip D. Zelikow

          Zelikow’s record gets really interesting when we consider that he went on to write the 9/11 Commission Report. He earned a law degree from the University of Houston Law School and a Ph. D. from Tufts University. He wrote books too. He wrote a book on The Kennedy Tapes, and another on Why People Don’t Trust Government. One of his areas of expertise is PUBLIC MYTHOLOGY.
          While at Harvard he actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, “contemporary” history is “defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of ‘public presumption’,” he explained, “is akin to [the] notion of ‘public myth’ but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word ‘myth.’ Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community.” So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

          Indeed Wright; “conjured out of thin air.”
          \\][//

        2. What a complete load of shit. You love to present these mushy black-and-white generalizations about what “truthers” believe, but they are meaningless. What you don’t seem to get – and I think it’s very deliberate on your part – is that it is all about evidence whether you are addressing the official story or something that contradicts it. Facts and evidence determine which position stands or falls. You say we gives ourselves “carte blanche” to remove any evidence we don’t like? Bullshit. You had better stick to specifics or you can post somewhere else.

          1. @Craig McKee
            Quote Hr1 “Yes Wright “conjured out of thin air.” by Philip D. Zelikow”

            You should be aware of the difference between evidence and the interpretation and assessment of evidence.
            Having read many of your articles and many comments here, do you think that you and others here don’t look at the events of 9/11 and see it in terms of the official story on the one hand, versus the evidence against the official story on the other – on a thread with an article that starts with
            “To believe the official story of 9/11 you have to swallow an awful lot. ”

            The whole mantra of the 9/11 truth movement is that ‘the official story is a lie’. According to David Ray Griffin the 911 Commission Report is a ‘571 page lie’ which covers pretty much everything. There is hardly one aspect of the official story that hasn’t at one time or another been called false ,fake, staged, a lie, scripted, from no planes to no plane crashes to no passengers, no hijackers, faked hijackings, faked radar data, voice morphing, no debris, planted debris, staged lightpoles, faked FDR data , lying witnesses – the truth movement is built on the idea of it’s all a big deception. If that isn’t getting rid of evidence I don’t know what is. Saying evidence is false means someone is falsifying evidence. Flight attendants and passengers call to describe what’s happening on their planes – that’s faked. That gets rid of the ‘planes were hijacked’ evidence, to be replaced by ‘the hijackings were faked’ evidence.
            If you want an illustration of the difference between evidence and the interpretation of evidence, you only have to listen to someone like Rebekah Roth. A rational person would listen to the evidence she presents and reach rational conclusions about it. She on the other hand, using the same evidence, arrives at maybe the most cretinous and absurd conclusions you could wish to hear. And then talks about ‘what she discovered’ – having made it all up.

            1. ” If that isn’t getting rid of evidence I don’t know what is. Saying evidence is false means someone is falsifying evidence”~Agent Wright

              Agent Wright conflates two different propositions here as one. Saying evidence is false is not “getting rid of evidence,” it is addressing evidence.

              And depending on the nature of that evidence, it doesn’t necessarily mean that “someone is falsifying evidence”, it can simply be a matter of pointing out that the evidence claimed simply does not mean what those pointing to it say it does. Like the gash in the earth in Shanksville is claimed to be evidence of a plane crash. For it to have been evidence for a plane crash one would need to produce evidence of a plane. There was no evidence of a plane.

              The same goes for the Pentagon. There is evidence of damage in the Pentagon, and it is claimed that it was caused by a plane. But there is no evidence of a plane in the Pentagon.
              There is however evidence that a plane approached the Pentagon. However the best evidence proves that the trajectory of that plane is incompatible with the path of damage within the Pentagon.

              You lead with, “You should be aware of the difference between evidence and the interpretation and assessment of evidence.” But you have shown that it is you who cannot distinguish between the two.

              You mentioning Philip D. Zelikow at the beginning of your comment has no contextual connection to the remainder of your remarks.
              \\][//

              1. @HR1 You managed to illustrate just about everything I said – and not just declaring evidence to be false and failing to address it but saying that there isn’t any evidence.
                ‘There is no evidence of a plane ‘ – at Shanksville. I would have thought that over 90% of the plane recovered, the passengers identified by the Dmort team, over a dozen boxes of personal effects recovered and returned to their relatives, FDR data , an eyewitness who saw the plane crashing, phone calls from people on the plane, radar data , a CVR recording would constitute evidence. Unless all of that is false ,faked, staged , planted etc. Would that therefore be falsified? You can get rid of quite a lot of evidence just by saying there isn’t any. There is no need to address evidence when there is no evidence. Is this the ‘addressing the evidence’ that Craig McKee talks about?
                “The same goes for the Pentagon. There is evidence of damage in the Pentagon, and it is claimed that it was caused by a plane. But there is no evidence of a plane in the Pentagon. There is however evidence that a plane approached the Pentagon. However the best evidence proves that the trajectory of that plane is incompatible with the path of damage within the Pentagon.”
                It’s amazing what can be done with spin. A description of an event that no one who was involved in it or witnessed would recognise. Again, you can’t address evidence when there is no evidence. And I presume the damage is deliberately falsified and not some coincidental damage that just happens to line up with the path of a plane. Which means there is a big deception.
                Or to quote Craig McKee “I was blown away by the implications of the evidence presented in the film (NSA) , which were that unless all the witnesses were lying or mistaken in unison then the plane didn’t cause the alleged damage path (five downed light poles, C ring “exit” hole, damaged trailer, etc.). And if it didn’t do that, then this “damage” must have been staged.”
                -which would mean all these witnesses and four times as many other witnesses were lying or mistaken in unison.

                1. “Near the top, the specific mass (mass per unit height) µ = 1.02 × 106 kg/m. In view of proportionality to the cross section area of columns, µ = 1.05 × 106 kg/m at the impact level (81st floor) of South Tower. Generally, we assume that µ(z) = k0ek2z + k1 (where k0, k1, k2 = constants), with a smooth transition at the 81st floor to a linear variation all the way down (precise data on µ(z) are unavailable). The condition that ∫0 H µ(z)dz be equal to the total mass of tower (known to be almost 500,000 tons) gives µ = 1.46 × 106 kg/m at the base.”~ Bazant et al

                  Since µ(z) is unknown we can approximate the value for floors 82-110 using a linear variation from the value at floor 81 to the value at floor 110 (29 floors) and the proportion of the height for those floors. The height of WTC1 from the base to the roof is 437.69 m. The total number of floors is 116. µ(z)avg81-110 = 1.035 × 106 kg/m. µ(z)avgB6-81 = 1.2475 × 106 kg/m. Mass82-110 = µ(z)avg81-110 x (29/116) x h = 113.3 × 106 kg MassB6-81 = µ(z)avgB6-81 x (87/116) x h = 409.5 × 106 kg The total mass is then 522.8 × 106 kg or, converting to short tons, 576,000 tons. Bazant et al. most likely assumed metric tons for the popular 500,000 ton number but that doesn’t explain why we get 522.8 × 106 kg. The maximum error of using the linear approximation instead of the exponential equation is less than 2 × 106 kg. If Bazant et al. used the nominal height of the building (414.63 m from the concourse level to the roof) the result would be 493.9 × 106 kg which corresponds better to the statement “known to be almost 500,000 tons” assuming metric tons.
                  \\][//

                2. If you look at the illustration here, you will notice that the very floors that the planes impacted had been “re-fireproofed” just a couple of weeks prior. notice that these exact floors were the targets for the planes.
                  This is highly reminiscent of the fact that the area of the Pentagon said to be the target of the plane impact happens to be the very area recently refurbished, and “strengthened” shortly before 9/11.
                  Such coincidences become highly suspicious when added to the complete list of unusual coincidences asserted to have occurred on 9/11.

                  https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/#comment-8998
                  \\][//

                3. “Is this the ‘addressing the evidence’ that Craig McKee talks about?”~Agent Wright

                  Yes it is. By addressing the fact that all of the items you mention have no verifiable chain of custody for such evidence, nor public verification of such chains of custody; such assertions that it is actual evidence are not admitted in this court of public inquiry. Your assertions are deemed to be hearsay.
                  \\][//

                4. A. Wright… (or, Colin…. probably not your real name either… From Moscow, eh?… Yeah, right!)

                  Do you have no shame, man??? Do you let your friends and family and your kids read what you write??? Or do you just take a shower after each comment you post here to be able to go join them by the poolside?

      4. Lana – sorry, but your post makes you out to be a complete idiot. Also, it is eerily similar to that of a hasbara troll.

    3. No doubt,.The amount of innumerable small discrepancies still don’t pile as high as the WTC7 building collapse,.That is ALL you need to know that it was an inside job,.Regardless of what these “hijackers” were supposed to have been

  3. the ministry of truth CBC believe the OCT, and we pay their way to lie to us, how dumb are we? the enemy is the media, lets put Mansbridge on the stand and then somebody get a rope. keep up the great work Craig, and I hate to say this but, go habs.

  4. Well done Craig. I contacted a radio show in 2005, I think it was, and got on the air with a point about there being no video showing any of the alleged hijackers boarding any of the planes allegedly involved in 9/11. The host quickly cut me off and said there was videos showing the boardings and I was a crack pot of course. So interestingly back in 2005 I was censored by a koolaid drinking media flunky who defended the official story and now in 2015, some 10 years later, I am censored by supposed 9/11 truthers and prevented from talking about pentagon evidence. How the world turns huh?

    As to one point you made in the article Craig about human intervention in the video. I may have an explanation for that. In editing software there are functions commonly called pan and zoom which allow for limited panning and zooming of still framed videos. This can make a still shot look like it is moving. So this movement in the video may have been edited into the presentation later. Here below I have a video which is completely made from still photo’s and I used the pan and zoom effects to make it appear to be moving.

    1. Funny enough but at the end of this video I promoted the 911Blogger website. Today I know 911Blogger to be a cess pit of Stalinist censorship not worth a wooden nickle.

    2. I wondered if that might be the reason – that the networks did that after. But considering the importance of the evidence, they should not have been doing ANYTHING to the video. Talk about misleading.

      As for being called a crack pot, it seems that this will always happen if we have the courage to seek the truth no matter where that leads.

  5. Your article does a great job of exposing the fact that the official fairy tale of 9/11 is just smoke and mirrors, an illusion that isn’t even pulled off convincingly except to the most gullible dupes among us.

    You might also want to add into your final synopses about Bin Laden that the FBI spokesperson Rex Tomb said on the record that there is no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

    1. Yes, it’s quite a case, isn’t it? No proof against bin Laden. A faked confession video treated by the media as being genuine.No proof there were any hijackers. It’s incredible people believe this bullshit story.

      1. Indeed it is incredible that people believe in fairy tales in 2015. That is proof I suppose that we have not evolved much since the middle ages.

        1. Great website, if I may, I’ll just dive in for a quick comment.

          I don’t think it’s amazing. If you talk to anybody about it they will tell you exactly what happened. They know the story because it was so compellingly watched, re-watched and narrated and then padded out in the coming days. The stage management and conception was so daring and audacious that one had no choice to believe it. Why would anybody doubt it? The word ‘conspiracy’ is dirty and when ever I talk to people about an alternative story they laugh and mock, unless they are open minded or they know you. Once you break the official story down into constituent parts, it becomes truly unbelievable that it stood alone as believable. But……..in my humble opinion, it was believable because it was graphic, but also, the truth is so shocking. It really means that the USA put into action a Northwoods ‘esque’ plan. Local, domestic murder, followed up shortly after by more local domestic murder with the anthrax attack. People are comfortable in their lives, they don’t have the attention or time to look more closely and don’t want to have their foundations rocked!

    1. What they released was a list that they claimed was taken from the original, official, manifest. This not proof of anything. What could possibly be the reason for them not releasing the original document other than the fact that almost surely would contradict the information that has already been released.

    2. @Rick The airlines released the names of the passengers but purposely did not include the names of those suspected of carrying out the hijacking, since they wanted to make a distinction between the victims and those suspected of being the perpetrators.

      1. But the names of the “perpetrators” were released too. Since we supposedly know every name on the list, why not show us the original list? This idea that it was out of sensitivity to the families or not wanting to glorify the suspects is nonsense. What are we all children? We can’t handle seeing the original list of who boarded the planes? What right does the government have to keep those secret?

        1. @Craig McKee The airlines released the names of the victims. They considered it insensitive to include, on the same list ,the names of the those suspected of killing those victims, as if they were victims too, rather than perpetrators. The names of those suspects were, as you say, released seperately. Are you saying that the airlines, American and United Airlines had manifests showing that none of the 19 hijackers were on the planes, and that the only people on their planes were the victims whose names they released? That would mean AA and UA know for a fact that their planes were not hijacked.

          1. “That would mean AA and UA know for a fact that their planes were not hijacked.”~Wright

            Yup indeed Agent Wright, now that you hit the jackpot, why don’t you follow through with admitting that 9/11 was a PSYOP of the national security state?
            You know it’s true, you are just playing footsie here for shits & giggles.
            \\][//

            1. @hybridrogue1 Ok, now I know American Airlines and United Airlines know that their planes were not hijacked on 911.

  6. Thank you for this definitive article Craig. It can be said that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that there were no hijackers aboard any planes on 9/11.
    That alone shoots down the official narrative.

    And then there is all the other evidence proving the official narrative is utter hogwash.

    The major problem remains; the Public Relations Regime, which steadfastly insists on promoting scurrilous propaganda rather than real information.
    Those who accept the official story have nothing but an appeal to authority.
    \\][//

    1. That’s right. When I discussed Building 7 with Jonathan Kay (author of Among the Truthers) he relied entirely on the professional qualifications of the NIST scientists and how unlikely it would be that they would willingly be part of a fraud. But actual physical evidence trumps “unlikely” every time.

  7. Is it at all possible that the government is not providing the information sought because the only people seeking it are conspiracy fanatics and the Feds feel no obligation to provide additional info to a group of people who have shown time and again that they are unwilling to accept anything that does not support their fanatical views?

    1. Ah “Sane Human”,

      So glad you could make it to the party. You say:

      “the Feds feel no obligation to provide additional info to a group of people who have shown time and again that they are unwilling to accept anything that does not support their fanatical views?”
      . . .
      Is that a question or an insinuation that researchers here are simply insane and fanatical?

      If you would like to address the actual substance of the article here, perhaps you can make a real point, other than this presumption that “conspiracy theorist” are just nuts.

      Good luck bucko!!
      \\][//

      1. I didn’t say insane but I did say fanatical. To be honest with you, I think this hijackers are alive business debunks itself thanks to common sense.

        Of all the complex things the bad guy government had to do to pull off this false flag, getting the identities and back story of each of their fake hijackers right is probably the simplest by far.

        They decide on the number 19, identify who they want the patsies to be and since they aren’t actually going to hijack planes they obviously have to kill the patsies… How else could they assure themselves there would be no leaks? Pretty cut and dry part of the “operation.” According to this “research” they failed to do that on 10 out of 19 guys? It makes it sound like they just picked 19 random names out of a hat and did nothing at all to ensure they wouldn’t pop up later and say “hey that’s me and I’m still alive.”

        This article posits the notion that the evil overlord government is completely retarded…

        and yet you still believe them capable of conducting the worlds largest and most complex building demolition in history in complete secrecy using materials never before used in demolition and leaving no trace of it behind… So odd

        1. Debunks itself? Ha! That’s a good one! If that’s true, then you should be able to provide proof that they boarded the planes. Seems reasonable to me.

          The only odd thing is that someone can read evidence like this and appear not to grasp its significance. You assume that because it seems like they should have conducted the operation more efficiently that this means they didn’t do it. If you have nothing more specific to say about the “research” I presented, then you are wasting our time.

        2. Now Sane,

          You are trying the same inane tactics you use on the YouTube threads. You are going to have to deliver an argument of substance here, not the twaddle you are used to spewing on the juvenile forums you are so used to.

          Didn’t you claim you were oh-so intelligent? Let us see you put that beautiful mind of yours in gear. One for the Gipper as it were!!

          \\][//

          1. So you guys both really think it’s reasonable that the bad guys just overlooked the incredibly important, totally controllable detail of the identities of their hijacker patsies?

            Is it more reasonable than considering the possibility that the hijackers were simply misidentified in the immediate aftermath of the attacks when the media was just shotgun reporting any piece of information they got with little or no fact checking?

            Can someone tell me how many times the hijackers names have changed in the last 13 years since they were finally and definitively identified by the FBI?

            1. The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The others were from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon. The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker with three or four “muscle hijackers” who were trained to help subdue the pilots, passengers, and crew. They were identified by the FBI.

              So this is the official story, not just the media, but the government sanctioned narrative.
              The official list of hijackers has never been officially changed, despite resounding proof that seven of these “hijackers” are still alive.

              So your middle paragraph conflicts with your initial proposition as stated in your first sentence.

              You should know the answer to your third sentence if you are claiming to be knowledgeable about the case.

              Now this issue does not stand alone, it is not hovering in a vacuum on it’s own, there are the whole list of issues in the article above that set the context we are to examine here.

              You claimed to have read my exposition on deductive reasoning and deducing the “ultimate fact” from the deduced elements thereof. This is in the Abstract of in my paper on the ‘Demise of WTC’, on my site, HR1blog.
              \\][//

              1. I’m sorry, I must have missed the part of the article where “resounding proof that seven of the hijackers are still alive” was provided.

                I don’t believe such proof exists… Although if true that proof should and would be very easy to find.

                Is isn’t like Sandy Hook truther videos is it, where somebody spends thousands of hours combing the Internet looking for a picture of someone who vaguely resembles a victim’s parent and then says “See! This person is a fake and an actor! PROOF!”

                Tell me the proof isn’t just a claim by some truther who found seven people with the same name as one of the hijackers? That’s it isn’t it?

              1. Exactly as I thought… It is the same as Sandy Hook fake actor truthing…

                The article from September 23, 2001… Before the FBI released the final list of hijacker names… And it was later verified that these were simply a case of mistaken identity…

                Is this really your resounding proof Willy? Oh man… Sad…

                1. “Exactly as I thought… It is the same as Sandy Hook fake actor truthing…”~Sane

                  It has nothing what so ever to do with “fake actors” ala Sandy Hook.

                  The FBI claims it has the identities of 19 hijackers – then there are noises that there is a retraction by the FBI in the works but in fact this never happened:

                  “And the investigation Mueller mentioned didn’t last long. President George W. Bush called it off one month after it began with the excuse that the manpower was needed to investigate the anthrax attacks.” — from the article by Craig above.

                  Have you even read the article above? The one under discussion here?
                  If not that is really “sad”.
                  \\][//

                  1. Yes I read it, but then you gave me a link to the BBC article that they long ago explained was a case of mistaken identity… The first guy didn’t even have the same name and the second guy was like five years difference in age from the hijacker… That’s why I referenced Sandy hook… Because it’s hard to believe people still attempt to use such weak and long ago debunked claims… Which are what this article is wrought with…

                    1. So we are left with the original list of alleged hijackers. Exactly where we began. The circle is drawn. Now it is up to you to make a substantial argument against the fact that there are no proofs that these Arabs ever boarded those planes.

                      Take your pick, any proposition in Craig’s article and take it on, without running us on another carousel ride.
                      \\][//

  8. Re the Portland time odd stamp you write, “Had this happened, the entire operation could have been compromised.”

    Any of a thousand things could have compromised that Rube Goldberg terrorist operation like what it it had been cloudy that day? If Atta had just shot or blew up that Walmart, well, that my friend is a terrorist operation. But no. Okay, here’s the plan, you fly that plane, you fly that one, and I’ll fly the other, uh, if that is okay with you Mr Bin Ladin. … It’s all so ridiculous.

  9. re:top photo ATTA, [fresh from cocaine run thru Florida/Sarasota] ; surveillance video with words written right through body of vision surely roots the purpose – Do ‘airport security’ videos have date stamp eroding half the image? Maybe in ITCS la la. But reminiscent of PENTBOM video with doctored frame #33 =missile missing imbed with wrong date. oops. 9.12.01..So many rips in OCT fabric, now, the empire has no clothes.
    Apparently the march thru history can be naked.

    This is well worth the read:
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2015LooneyVol40Mar.pdf
    “The Cause of the Destruction Of The World Trade Center Buildings on September 11, 2001 and the Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under the Standards Developed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.” (Stevan Douglas Looney, J.D.)

    Its a constant fkn wonder to me the Investigative/Judicial/intellectual systems trumpeted toot-toot the world over by exceptionalist superstate – are so obviously ensuring non-contest in courts of law, the creatioNIST agnotology and evidence of 911 conspiracy.

  10. Although this isn’t actually “news”, I thought I would bring it up in relation to the current discussions here, as it seems most of the population seem blissfully ignorant of the situation as presented below. Many seem to think that since we have “freedom of speech” this means we have influence via vox populi. The proverbial “they” don’t need to shut us up, all they have to do is ignore us, and pretend and assure that they represent the popular will of the people.

    Why this study came out when it did is not hard to determine. The ‘Masters’ want us to know that they are in charge and there ain’t shit the common people can do about it. That’s called “hubris”.

    ________________________________

    “A recent scientific study by Princeton and Northwestern universities, which has gone somewhat under reported in the mainstream media, concludes that the US is now a fully fledged oligarchy.

    The paper, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups and Average Citizens, notes that America is no longer even a Democracy, which begs the question, how far removed is the country from being the Republic envisioned and painstakingly established by Benjamin Franklin and the founding fathers.
    “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” the study notes.

    The study points toward the conclusion that the US is nothing more than an illusion of democracy.

    The authors of the study, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page concur that the will or opinion of the majority in the US has no effect on the way government is run.
    “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

    \\][//

    1. Willy I agree, we are back to where we began.. You ask me to provide proof that the named 19 hijackers boarded the planes.

      I feel no obligation to…because I have no reason to doubt whether they did… I know you will call it appeal to authority but that’s pretty much why I commented in the first place… Because I, like most people simply find no reason to doubt it and this article did nothing to change that…

      The article’s main point was that the government “should” be able to provide the proof, and that because they are not answering “demands” for it from the truthing community, those of us outside of truthing should view that as an admission of guilt like you folks do…

      My point was that we don’t… And unless you provide proof that they DID NOT board the planes that isn’t going to change… And the demands you place on the government will continue to fall on deaf ears… As they should

      1. Sane you are a perfect example of the indoctrinated regimented mind that lives in denial.
        And you call yourself “sane” …. hilarious!
        \\][//

      2. Dear Mr. or Ms. “Thesane” (as if the rest of us aren’t),

        On the one hand, you have a point: If many hijackers are proven to be alive after 9-11, then, yes, it seem to be a good topic to try to explain why the perpetrators allowed this to happen. Frankly, I haven’t thought about this before.

        On the other hand, you claim that every single one of the alleged hijackers who were alleged to be alive after 9-11 in fact weren’t alive thereafter. Yet you fail to confront Kolar’s 2008 update in the same volume Craig cites. It addressed those attempting to debunk those stories in mainstream press about some being being alive. You need to take them all on, each and every one. If ten being alive is reduced some, you still have a problem. Have you read Kolar’s update?

        Yes, I repeat, that I can agree you have a point about WHY their being alive could be allowed to occur if the operation of the perpetrators is claimed to be well-planned in all respects. But, with you, we haven’t gotten the “being alive” issue answered at all satisfactorily (in my opinion).

        Craig,

        I welcome your clearly putting Davidson and Kolar into the discussion about 9-11. I maintain my anger and could imagine myself as an attorney in defense of the alleged. The Commission Report does not even ATTEMPT to prove its claim; it assumes its conclusion.

        1. Thank you, Paul. Your opinion about this issue and about this article is very important to me. Your book, The Hidden History of 9-11 is one of the first 9/11 truth books I bought, and it remains one of the very best.

          1. And I thank you, Craig!

            Many years ago, I was drawn in a more personal way to the Jarrah allegation. He was from Lebanon and in the U.S. in 2001. While a Muslim by faith, he was educated in a Catholic school and not known to be a devotee. Anyway, that itself doesn’t say much until I listened to an interview of his uncle in Lebanon. His family was of course totally shocked by the claim that he would do such a thing and they discussed it among themselves over and over and over. The only thing they could come up with is that he MIGHT have been on the plane for some personal reason such as to visit a friend on the West Coast. But nothing else had any correspondence to their knowledge of him.

            I felt for the family. And I felt for Jarrah … and for the right of the accused to be defended.

            As you point out in summarizing Kolar, the family backed their opinion up by offering DNA evidence to investigators. Declined.

            1. Hi Paul, respect and thanks for the concession of my point. To be honest, I haven’t looked in depth at each and every individual claimed to be alive personally. I suppose I could but again, I believe the effort to be counterintuitive to my thought that it would be overly, ridiculously incompetent of the perpetrators not to “have this base covered” so to speak.

              Out of respect for the fair and healthy debate I will take the time anyway. I’m traveling this weekend so I’ll let you know when I conclude anything definitive… Though it appears others here may already be taking care of that… Still I will look into it

            2. @Paul Zarembka There is a video of Ziad Jarrah with Mohammed Atta which does connect the two of them.
              You say you are concerned for the right of accused people to be defended which is only right ,but given the numbers of people who are being accused of complicity in the mass murder on 911 , such as ‘the first known accomplice?’ Lloyde England , or Jayne Standley for example , do you think they have a right to be defended?

              1. Of course. That is what a trial by jury includes. Yet, it is not so simple because money and power have too much influence on some cases, but not all, e.g., not the 1999 conspiracy trial involving King’s murder initiated by his family.

                1. @Paul Zarembka What about trial by internet? Or trial by inuedo? combined with distorted presentations of the facts? Do you think it’s right that they be defended in the public forum in which they are being accused? What happens in a trial by jury? There is a prosecution case and then there is a defense case. You don’t have a prosecution case- called ‘The Truth’- with the jury then told to reach their verdict and not to listen to the defense case since it is just the ‘official story’. Even the fact that they present a defense case demonstrates that they are guilty since they are trying to deflect the jury from ‘The Truth’.

                  1. Are you not A. Wright, given the opportunity here to present your defense for the government and others accused by ‘The Truth Movement”, as inane and ineffectual as your arguments are?

                    I, we are still waiting for you to make a lucid and rational defense of the official narrative. But you seem to mostly involve yourself in spurious whining and complaining, rather than presenting anything of real substance.
                    \\][//

        2. Paul & Sane,

          Isn’t the main point here that there is no proof the alleged hijackers boarded the planes?

          Although some of them being alive after the supposed suicide crashes is a point of proof that none were aboard the planes – it is not the only proof.

          The real root of this matter is that the government has never made a single proof in this case.
          The onus is on the government to prove their case, it is not on us to disprove it. We can show rather conclusively that the government has not proved its case however.

          As far as Wright’s complaints about “innocent until proven guilty” – no one I know in this movement to discover the truth about this event has ever disclaimed that standard. We have no prosecutorial powers as individuals, therefore our expressing opinions as to who we feel the guilty parties are does not have the weight of authority behind it that such charges have when made by the government.
          That such points even need to be spelled out to the government apologists is a good indication of their lack of critical facilities.

          Now on the matter of imperfection in planning and carrying out the operation; the anomalies of “living hijackers after the fact” are far from the only OBVIOUS points of absurdity in the official narrative. Frankly there is more absurdity in the government’s tale than anything that resembles the sensible or reasonable. That is in fact what this site T&S is and has been all about – pointing out the absurdities of the official narrative. They are described throughout these pages in great detail.
          \\][//

          1. Yes, of course, hijackers being alive or not is not nearly the only issue, and Davidson’s book spells this out. BUT the Commission didn’t address this evidence in any manner whatsoever, even though widely reported in various press.

            I am not sure I understand your point about the implication of hijackers being alive causing wonder how the perpetrators could be so sloppy. Such could be an answer but it seems to me that the operation overall was not so sloppy (I mean the operation itself, not news coverage, Commission Report, etc.). If I am correct on this point, then I’d like to take other options into consideration.

            1. “I am not sure I understand your point about the implication of hijackers being alive causing wonder how the perpetrators could be so sloppy. “~Paul Zarembka

              Sorry for the confusion Paul, I was addressing both you and Sane in the same comment. The remarks you mention above are meant to this comment by Sane:

              ” I believe the effort to be counterintuitive to my thought that it would be overly, ridiculously incompetent of the perpetrators not to “have this base covered” so to speak.”~Thesane

              \\][//

  11. Thesane,

    The BBC’s response to Waleed Alshehri being alive is classic spin.

    All they did was add the words “A man called…” to the existing caption “Waleed Al Shehri says he left the US a year ago.”

    They did this in 2006 after the 9/11 Truth Movement noticed the anomaly and brought it to the BBC’s attention.

    They said in their response to the truth movement: “The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

    Simple case of mistaken identity??? Then why, pray tell, is the same name with the same face on the FBI’s website to this day?

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/9-11-investigation/american-airlines-11

    Same name, same face.


    Since there can’t be 2 people in the world with both the same name and the same face, would you, or the FBI or BBC, care to try again?

    1. @Adam Syed The man who said he left the US two years before was not the man in the photo. He was a Saudi pilot named Waleed Al Shehri interviewed by an arab newspaper which showed his photo and it is not the same man. The reason he was interviewed is that CNN put up a TV report with the photo of this Saudi pilot , under the caption ‘Wail Al Shehri’ and also included the photo of Waleed Al Shehri above. The newsreader even gave his name as ‘Waleed’ although it was caption ‘Wail’ in the graphic they put up.

      1. Now A.Wright, walk us through the airports under the surveillance cameras, from the desks to the tarmac and onto the planes. Then get us into the air and get those planes to their targets, explaining why US air defenses never reacted until the Pentagon was finally “hit”.

        And after doing that, explain to us how the World Trade Towers exploded like volcanoes an hour after the planes struck them.

        We all know that what you will say is a regurgitation of the ‘9/11 Omissions Report’. Now don’t we agent Wright?
        \\][//

        1. @hybridrogue1
          What did I say in my post there?

          “Now A.Wright, walk us through the airports under the surveillance cameras, from the desks to the tarmac and onto the planes.”
          Can you present that evidence for any person who has got on a passenger plane in the last 50 years- including ,I am going to assume, yourself.

          1. Are you serious? That is your answer A.Wright?

            I certainly could if I was Air Port Authority, FBI, or any other agency with subpoena power. It could be done in any official investigation done within the time-frame of a particular event or crime.
            \\][//

            1. @hybridrogueq1 What could be done? Produce videos of passengers as they went from the boarding gate to the tarmac and on to the planes, that they do not record? Videos that even if they were produced you would dismiss on the basis that 1: they don’t record videos of passengers getting on to planes and they are therefore fake and 2: since these videos were produced by the government, that they were therefore meaningless?

              1. Wright,
                Again you make preposterous statements here. They do indeed have video surveillance in airports and have for decades. It is part of the discussion in Craig’s article above that addresses he problems with the surveillance videos of the alleged hijackers.

                Read the article above, don’t play the ditz here again.
                \\][//

    2. Hi Adam,

      The hijacker story is full of bullcrap for sure… But, the two photos above are one of the same.

      The pink one is a very sloppy photoshop job of replacing the background… For one, the pink background eats in to the shadows around the ears and creates a grey halo around the hair… In any case, I can assure you that people, in no country in the world, take passport photos with a pink background. They also seem to have cropped it tight to avoid more tells, but the corner of the shirt collar is still visible in bottom left.

      Alshehri’s FBI photo was already in circulation on September 23rd, and it is obvious that someone seems to have made an effort to render the image “different” to use for that news piece.. I can think of a few possibilities (poisoning well, fueling CTheory etc) but I will leave it up to you to decide why the same BBC that was (and still is) so gung ho about the official 19 hijacker narrative, would run a bogus story like that with a photoshopped photo. I am simply writing to say the photos are identical. Which, at the very least, puts a dent in the “same face” argument.

  12. TheSane.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2015LooneyVol40Mar.pdf

    will explain to you WHY you have had ‘no reason to doubt’ .

    Because you haven’t ‘been given’ one.
    Because; or in-case of because, there has been no open Court of Criminal Law contesting government ‘experts’ constructing the narrative you presume as ‘proof’ of OCT 911.

    You can be assured; the laws of Science and Justice, properly adjudicated, would supply your [very]’simple ‘non-reason to doubt’ ; with doubt aplenty . The percentages of ‘most people’ not even knowing’ what WTC7 was; let alone what it means for an 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high rise to suddenly drop straight down @ free fall for over 100 feet at 5:20pm on 911 – ALL precedent building behavior before and after 911 being ONLY controlled demolition – : precludes them having any opinion on 911 at all.

    Of course ‘the Government’ ‘SHOULD’ be able to ‘provide the proof’! But ‘the Government’ has NEVER provided proof of 911 OCT in a Court of Criminal LAW open to ALL evidence, under contest – cross-examination and PEER review. You are simply underscoring the fact that you have either done no independent research into the counter/Govt./facts of 911, or enjoy rarking up the forum with non-sense.

    1. Hi fremo, you brought up numerous topics in your comment to me. I only commented on the topic of the article and the claim that the government won’t supply proof of the hijackers getting on the planes to the small fringe groups of fanatics who are demanding it…

      I think A wright illustrates my point clearly above… Even if the government provided it for you or contested it in a court of law, your kind would declare all evidence falsified and any court that did not side with the fanatical point of view a kangaroo court… Round and round we go….

      1. Sorry, but this is a bullshit argument that we’ve all heard a thousand times. When there is a lack of evidence to support some aspect of the official story, just say that even if evidence existed, we’d all claim it’s fake.

        1. @Craig McKee
          Quote “If the best you have is simply believing what the government tells you, then you haven’t got anything.”

          1. “If the best you have is simply believing what the government tells you, then you haven’t got anything.”

            That quote is something that is so self evident, that it should be recognized as an axiom.
            \\][//

  13. thesane.
    “Proof’ is not ‘supplied.’
    EVIDENCE is.
    Then argued subject to rules of Law.
    ‘Proof’ is arrived at through due diligence and proper contest of EVIDENCE.
    NO Criminal contest has been made of Government presentations IS the POINT.
    Not whether or not you or I agree to the information presented.
    Nor who or what you accuse me of being by arguing for it.

    Substantive Evidence of hi-jackers identity and movements has not been PROVED by the very standard you appear to hold Government ‘proof’ in. Criminal or International War-crime Court.
    If you read the Senate Intelligence Report on CIA Black sites – the ‘proof’ you argue your government has satisfied you with regarding the conspiracy of 911, was in the first instance drawn under torture, and by its own measure; methods in violation of Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” regarding Human Experimentation’ – testimony found to be Flawed and in many cases FABRICATED’.
    You are arguing flawed and fabricated untested theory AS FACT.

    1. I think I stated this before… I don’t require further EVIDENCE… The largest investigation in the history of the FBI determined the terrorist attacks were carried out by 19 bad dudes… I choose to accept that the hundreds of agents who participated in that investigation did their job properly and are not lying mass murderers.

      The NIST report was an extremely extensive technical analysis of the factors that led to the collapses of the buildings… I Choose to accept the hundreds of scientists and researchers who participated in that did their job properly and are not lying mass murderers…

      Because I know the truthing community to be generally fanatical, to seek only information which supports their religious like predetermined conclusions and I also know the truthing community to be very fond of omitting truths and outright lying, I am just not very impressed by 14 year old demands for more proof that clearly would not satisfy you no matter how conclusive it is….

      1. Sane, your first two sentences prove exactly what I have asserted about your position all along, you have nothing but an appeal to authority. Therefore you cannot argue specific points because you really don’t know what those authorities actually say in their bullshit reports based on deception and pseudoscience.

        I laid this all out in clear terms on my article on the demise of WTC, which you merely glanced at and judged with no foundation whatsoever that it was just “conspiracy theory”.

        You can put on the front that you are thinking for yourself here, but you are transparent and as weightless as pure air.
        \\][//

        1. hi Willy, you keep talking about your blog as though it contains something profound and unique and isn’t just another regurgitation of all of the same things truthers have been clamoring about for years… Its all been debunked and very thoroughly.

          The primary reason I don’t go through and counter each point and try and educate you how and why you are wrong is because its already been done and it has no effect on you… The best and the brightest of debunkers have all but retired from debating this topic for two reasons that I can tell:

          1) because the truth movement has died down considerably, absolutely nothing new has been brought to the table since about 2008 and they succeeded in their efforts to make sure rational people had the proper information to make an informed decision about it.

          2) they realized the futility of trying to convince those who believe in the grand conspiracy to give up their religious faith about 9/11… Every point they counter, every argument they crushed was always met with statements like “you just appeal to authority” and basically what amounts to “we lack evidence and cannot prove the 9/11 conspiracy because the boogeyman will not allow it to be proven…” Its just a circular, never ending argument so they moved on to more important things.

          1. “hi Willy, you keep talking about your blog as though it contains something profound and unique…”~Sane

            You keep talking about my blog as if you have actually read it.
            \\][//

          2. “always met with statements like “you just appeal to authority” and basically what amounts to “we lack evidence and cannot prove the 9/11 conspiracy because the boogeyman will not allow…”~Sane

            This is a perfect example of a handwave, as you have absolutely no substance or content at all, and never have in a single remark you have made. You cannot even describe the official account of what caused the destruction of the towers.

            So what the fuck are you doing here talking about it? What is your game? Your ignorance on the subject is sublime, so you simply waste our time.
            \\][//

      2. “Because I know the truthing community to be generally fanatical, to seek only information which supports their religious like predetermined conclusions and I also know the truthing community to be very fond of omitting truths and outright lying,”

        If you really believe this, you know next to nothing about the truth movement. Many of us believed the official story at first.

        And your statement would be accurate if you replaced the word “truthing” with “debunking”.

  14. You ever look and see the road trip these terrorists were on? Motel after gas station after bar after flying school paid by credit cards. Geez, if I were on some top secret super complicated mission I’d have kept a much lower profile. But these guys were screaming for attention. And then this?

    Anyone catch Jon Gold’s interview with Senator Bob Graham? All he knows is what he knows and that ain’t much at all. What a weasel. Maybe there is some dirt on Saudi Arabia but it isn’t for doing or contributing to 911. A tangled web is what they wove. 911 was a heist and all of this is an alibi.

  15. finishing observation regarding thnsane : “choosing to accept” is an interesting buy-in.
    But overall, a total illustration/example of “the individual handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous – he cannot believe it exists” [Hoover]

    1. “Unless this fraud is finally exposed, the word believe will be forgotten by future generations and John F. Kennedy will have unquestionably become the victim of a conspiracy. Belief will have become unchallenged fact, and the faith of the American people in their institutions further eroded. If that is allowed to happen, Lee Harvey Oswald, a man who hated his country and everything for which it stands, will have triumphed even beyond his intent on that fateful day in November.”~Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p.1011.

      “The mantra of the era was `peace, love and sharing. Prior to (the Manson case), people just didn’t identify hippies with violence. Then the Manson family comes along, looking like hippies, but being mass murderers. And that shocked America: How could this be?
      The Manson murders sounded the death knell for hippies and all they symbolically represented… They closed an era. The 60s, the decade of love, ended on that night, on 9 August 1969.”~Vincent Bugliosi
      http://www.conspiracytruths.co.uk/humanbehaviouralmodification.html
      \\][//

    1. Wow, that’s incredible. Great job in holding his feet to the fire, Paul. Especially when you said, “But you haven’t proven your version.”

      But what was truly amazing was what Zelikow had to say about why they didn’t deal with the hijackers in the 9/11 Commission Report:

      “It would have taken us hundreds of pages in the report, and it’s already a long report…”

      “We didn’t do that because we couldn’t have sustained the narrative and the kind of report we wanted to provide.”

      Is it me or did he just let some truth slip into that last comment? If they investigated and the results didn’t suit the narrative they were selling, then they could not have provided the predetermined outcome that they wanted for the report.

      1. “We didn’t do that because we couldn’t have sustained the narrative and the kind of report we wanted to provide”~Zelikow

        Yes that is it right there… He says it didn’t fit the story they wanted to sell, so they didn’t mention it – like a great penumbra of points that didn’t fit the bogus story they were trying to sell…

        Mr Zarembka, your last question about building 7 that caused Zelikow to turn pale and literally pick up his back and run away, has got to be one of the classics of the 9/11 citizen’s investigation! An absolute gem.

        Congratulations!

        Willy – \\][//

      2. Yes, he had a story to be told. Anything else would be a “parallel universe”.

        The reason that he was caught off guard, I think, is that the Chautaugua Institute in Western NY, about 75 minutes from my home, is a bourgeois institute for lectures, reading, music, and relaxation of the rich, often retired, and none expected us to be there. It was a small radio interview show before Zelikow’s talk at the Institute. It was supposed to be safe. However, one elderly woman helped us out in getting him to pay attention to us.

        The couple doing the video are of snowshoe films – http://www.snowshoefilms.com – who do a lot of excellent work on a variety of topics. The WTC 7 question was asked by the husband, not myself, while both were videotaping.

        1. @Paul Zarembka Do you think the hijackers are still alive? i.e the 19 people named by the FBI along with their photographs, are currently still alive, or were alive after 9/11?

              1. I am not among those who believe in parallel universes. You probably already know that, Mr. Wright. In any case, I am not here to debate who has the most clever answers in a debate, nor even to be the clever one.

                If the Zelikow response about hijackers with his invention of the idea of a parallel universe doesn’t cause any reflective moment in your day, so be it. I am pretty busy.

                1. @Paul Zarembka I just asked you whether you think the hijackers are still alive, that’s all. That would seem to be your contention and the reason you asked Mr. Zelikow those questions.
                  It’s pretty obvious to me that the people who were on the planes are not still alive and if people were still alive afterwards then they were not hijackers. They were innocent people who had nothing to do with the event and were incorrectly identified by having their photos included in media reports. I don’t know why the difficulties caused to them by their mistaken involvement should have been added to by having their identities brought up again in the 911 Commission Report.

              2. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
                ~Karl Rove – 2004
                \\][//

          1. This “parallel universe” is a state of mind Mr Wright, it is a state of mind induced by perception manipulation. Perception manipulation is Zelikow’s forté, he has written books on the subject. He was chosen for his position on the 9/11 Commission because of his expertise in public myth making.

            He was a major architect of the paradigm you received, accepted and dwell in. It is in fact a parallel universe from reality.

            Brave New Worlds are designed Mr Wright, they do not come about through happenstance.
            \\][//

  16. You know it has been a long time since I learned something new about 9/11 since I do so much reading and researching about it and have for so many years. But I am listening to a radio interview now which is literally knocking my socks off! I mean this interview is a MUST LISTEN for anyone who thinks they know a lot about 9/11. I am blown away by this and it directly relates to this article by Craig McKee as well because a big part of the discussion centers around the supposed hijackers. If you do not take the time to listen to this you are doing yourself a HUGE disservice and you are missing one of the keys to solving 9/11 that you are almost 100% likely not to know about. If I didn’t make my point clear enough: THIS IS BIG!

    http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2015/03/RIR-150318.php

    1. My God this interview is RIVETING I want to meet this lady and interview her and help her promote this book and information.

  17. Great article Craig, enjoyed reading it. Just another smoking gun in a long lost of smoking guns – there is no evidence hijackers even boarded the planes.
    Keep up the good work and I look forward to reading more soon!

  18. Enjoyed the article, Craig. Also, I just ordered Hijacking America’s Mind.

    I’ve long believed there were no hijackers involved . . . But what I sometimes wonder about, and I suppose others do, as well, are where to position things about ‘foreknowledge’ and ‘able danger’ and those such items. The most recent example (that I can think of) would be Senator Graham’s deal with the 28 missing pages.

    What are others’ take(s) on this problem. I mean, if it were somehow shown that Saudi Arabia played a part in financing something or the other, what are we to do with this info? What did they finance? It certainly wasn’t hijackers . . . This example interests me because it seems it’s relevant . . . But ‘foreknowledge’ interests me more . . . Because foreknowledge is talked about far and wide by almost everyone; I was recently watching ‘September 11: The New Pearl Harbor,’ and it’s talked about there, as well. And it’s supposedly a good thing to know, I guess: countries were apparently warning the U.S. that we would be attacked. What do we make of this? Was it on purpose to support a lower-level conspiracy that would nevertheless deflect from the more important one: complicity? Or was it that the plan was leaked in the “U.S. will be attacked” sense . . . but other countries simply weren’t aware that the attack would be done by our government? Thoughts, anyone?

    There are probably more examples of these seemingly contradictory conspiracy theories that will come to mind later . . .

    1. I’m not sure it required much financing. The bigger problem must have been coordinating. There has never been a shortage of money when you look at power this totalistic. When you look at who the real bogey men were. And of course, the stock market rewarded massively certain stocks (like defense) and therefore the pockets of those people who involved in defense (Bush and the Carlye group) to offer a massive simplification. But the link is that clear. One stock goes down…..the other goes up. 911 saw betting both ways!

      The question of foreknowledge became obvious to me years and years ago, looking at the trading of short positions on airlines. This is uncontrovertibly evidence of foreknowledge. The stock market cannot lie. Trading volumes were up massively and suspiciously on stocks of companies who stood to suffer from the events. Long positions were taken I believe also on defense stocks, but this is much further from incontrovertible evidence. This is just ‘fishy’ and ‘suspicious’.

      Millions were made on those short positions, yet………the ‘winnings’ were never claimed. Presumably because it would have been too easy to follow the money. Saying that…the money trail was partly traceable and it led back (darkly as always) to the close ties between security agencies and finance and the Bush family. These short positions and the money made were small beans though to the other financial crimes that were narrated to have taken place on or resulting from 911. Of course….very scant records exist because they were destroyed in the buildings.

    1. Rebecca,

      You should have noticed the banner at the site you offer:

      Skeptic Project
      Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

      In your catastrophic ignorance you missed the subtextual context of the site! It is, as it says, your source for “cognitive infiltration”. The site is COINTELPRO, you dummy!!!

      Hahahahaha!!!!
      \\][//

    1. I think a lie detector would be more acceptable. Could be applied to a great number of people. The results would be fascinating.

  19. If anyone is interested, I flew from Tampa, FL to San Francisco, CA with a plane change in Atlanta on the way out and a plane change in Phoenix on the way back. When I went to clean out my purse, my stomach hit the floor. All those security check points I flew on September 11, 2002 did not find my box cutter that was in my purse. I was a deli manager for Publix and I had to take some inventory before my flight. I emptied my apron into my purse without thinking. So I went through 4 security checkpoints on my trip and no one detected that box cutter in my purse. I do believe the planes hit where they hit but I don’t believe they were hijacked by Muslim jihadists. For those that think you can’t get a box cutter on a plane, you are wrong. Great article btw.

  20. It happened that is all we need to know the towers are gone and we are left with the destruction it cause get over it you conspiracy theorists and burn like your “fake” Muslim radicalism who caused the crashes of 9/11

  21. How about the evidence of the stupid fucks talking on the transponders to the air traffic controllers. Y’all have got to be the dumbest most pathetic people I’ve ever fucking met! Y’all should have been on the planes with them

    1. Your style betrays your education and your occupation: middle school bully or something similar. You must be your playground’s terrorist-in-chief. Out of respect for your intellectual abilities, don’t try to tackle 9/11 with the overly complex subject of Osama bin Laden’s airplanes. Instead, start by denying any resemblance between the motion of Building 7’s destruction and of a controlled demolition.

      Love,

  22. Hello guys,

    First let me say that I really appreciate your blog Mr. McKee, and all of the articles that you post and of course it goes without saying that the comments are fantastic and I do learn a lot, even if there are disagreements here or there which of course is normal – although it’s not like one wants to see a lot of discord and whatnot, but as humans this unfortunately is part of our nature it seems🙂 I posted about 2 or 3 times before but it’s been at least 2 years or so.

    I hope it’s okay if I post what I’m going to post, as it is 9/11 related, although it’s pretty OT in terms of the essay, but I do totally feel that what I’m going to bring up is EXTREMELY important and crucial in terms of being able to answer and debunk many of the “official” US govt. “conspiracy theory” defenders and apologists, AND convert others that are unaware or even maybe on the fence about one of the biggest events in the last 100 years, if not longer. I feel while this subject has been addressed, not enough has been done IMO, although there is probably research maybe that I’ve missed.

    Okay, to get to the point, what I believe needs to be more clear, answered and debunked, is Bin Laden’s alleged “confessions,” and more proof that his various videos and audios (and purported interviews) – where he is alleged to have confessed – have been faked, tampered with, or a combination of these two. And also if it’s possible, some evidence that other alleged “AQ” leaders have maybe shown to be agents, patsies, and/or unknowing dupes.

    But let me first give you a background and what I’m been dealing with: I come from a Sunni Muslim background (I guess I said all of this last time), and I’ll be very honest in saying that it seems that with most Muslims, the “concept” of false flags and psyops is almost something that is not even considered or talked about! (Yeah, according to many Neocons/Ziocons, Muslims supposedly believe in a lot of so-called “conspiracy theories.” No, that’s not true unfortunately, lol – I wish it was!) It’s really frustrating and extremely demoralizing. And the overwhelming vast majority of Sunni Muslims (all of these various alleged acts are blamed on “Sunnis,” and I’m not saying they’re all false flags or staged of course) do not at all agree with these things done the “in name of Islam” in the least bit. They know that these various acts are totally, 100% against the Quran, and the Sunnah (and Shariah). And yes, there are so MANY Sahih/Authentic Hadeeths (and it’s binding on Sunni Muslims to believe these as much as the belief that the Quran is from God, just to give you an idea) that say it’s totally, 100% haraam/forbidden, unIslamic and evil, PERIOD, no ifs, ands, or buts to intentionally target non-combatants (civilians) in terms of warfare or fighting. However, the vast majority of Muslims act as if they just fell off of the proverbial “turnip truck” and are very naive, and frankly imbecilic, sorry to say, when it comes to possible crimes and skullduggery perpetrated by the Deep State. The Muslims I know in real life (not online) are a bit better and have better “critical thinking” skills, but the average Muslim online clearly does not, nor in general do the Muslim scholars, imams or duaat (Muslim callers that give dawah to non-Muslims, similar to what missionaries might do). I’ve literally written dozens of posts on various Sunni forums and blogs, and I get basically zero feedback! Or of course I get called a “conspiracy loon” or whatever!

    I’ve tried everything. I’ve tried to appeal to their alleged “anti-Zionist” feelings, including invoking the suffering of the Palestinians. I’ve talked about the PNAC documents (sometimes I refer to this as the PJAC documents), and how they were calling for a new Pearl Harbor. I talk about the Oded Yinon Plan. I talk about the Clean Break papers written earlier by many of the same PNACers. I’ve talked about the Neocons (what I call Ziocons), and their whole Trotskyite beginnings and how they basically took over the conservative movement, and the fact that many are of course dual citizens that put Israel First (and 2nd and 3rd). I’ve talked about the people that for the most part are behind, promoting, and funding, etc., the whole anti-Muslim/Islamophobia and “clash of civilizations” movement (yeah, not the Irish Catholics!) I’ve talked several times about Rita Katz and SITE, of course pointing out that not only is she a Hasbara shill, but that she’s also most likely an Israeli intelligence agent/asset. I talk of course about all of “Cui Bono” types of questions. I say look, how can you “blindly” believe the Zionist dominated western media/MSM? Not that everything the media says is a lie, but again how can anyone blindly believe the MSM?

    I lay out I think in a very clear and concise way, although maybe it sounds crude (I’m trying to at least appeal to their religious identities and sympathies, lol), cutting to the chase how IMO, the bottom line is that 9/11 was mainly a false flag psyop carried out so that the Zionists could get their western stooges and puppets to wage endless wars and Crusades against Islam/Muslims – for the sake of Greater Israel, to go after the alleged enemies of Zion, to help bring in Orwellian police states that only benefit the elite, etc.

    Of course when I answer the main Cui Bono question regarding 9/11, I say the Zionists. The military industrial security and “terrorism” (i.e. Islam) complex that more and more seems to be dominated by Zionists. I try to explain how it’s in the interest and benefit of certain Elites in the West (mostly Zionists, but it’s not just them of course) to make the average westerner REALLY hate and despise Islam and Muslims. Of course I say that 9/11 has been bad for humanity and the whole world, regardless of one’s religion or lack of religion. Yes, I mostly hear “crickets” with my posts! (and I’ve made a WHOLE lot of posts and I’ll explain some of this later).

    However, the one time maybe I’ll get a little feedback is when they will say, “well, OBL admitted to it.” And yes, I’ll bring proof linking some of the various newspaper articles (from right after 9/11) about him “denying” that he did it. I’ll bring newspaper articles written that talk about his alleged death (of course most so-called “debunkers” say that this was an honest mistake). I’ll say that videos and audios can indeed be faked or doctored. I’ll say well, some mainstream experts did not necessarily even think that the “fat” OBL video was really him or at least some of them may have had doubts. Also, it seems that he’s maybe a bit vague in terms of claiming responsibility (I’m not a native Arab speaker, but a few Arab speakers have at times opined this saying that the translation was not totally accurate), but others (Arab speakers), and this is the majority, have said that he definitely does of course claim responsibility, saying the translation is correct (I’m still talking about the “fat” OBL). That said, a couple of years ago I heard a podcast by James Corbet (of course he doesn’t at all believe the “official” conspiracy theory), and he said that the “fat” OBL video looked a bit jacked up and off because of the format (i.e. the North American way, is different than the European/Asian way these Camcorders are formatted; sorry forget the names of the format types). Also, what about the infamous Al-Jazeera interview (there was only the transcript that I’m aware of) of OBL with Taysir Allouni where he claims responsibility for the attacks using “bogus” evidence to support it? (FYI, OBL totally misquotes, very badly I might add, some of the famous medieval Islamic Scholars of Tafsir – Quran exegesis/explanation, not that this is relevant). At the end of the day, many Muslims will say, yeah, but what about the OBL “confessions?” Again, I’ve tried to debunk all of this. And it’s possible that OBL really thought that “AQ” operatives really did carry it out (even though they didn’t of course). Or there’s the possibility that OBL was a knowing asset of US/Western intelligence.

    In closing, can someone please help me in terms of possibly providing me with some more resources in which to debunk and counter the alleged OBL (and other “AQ”) “confessions?” Sorry for my long post, but thanks for reading it! I hope it’s okay that I post this here (the latest 9/11 entry probably has too many comments).

    Thanks!

    1. Great article, Craig — I have shared it. I felt a comment coming on after reading the impressive comments above. After reading Zogistani’s account of his efforts to reach others with the truth, using all the facts and logic he can muster to show the official 911 story is total nonsense, I feel he has upstaged what I was about to say, but anyway I’ll just say it.

      I suspect there is a ‘conspiracy gene’ – of course I’m kidding, but how to explain why it is that, by the evening of September 11 2001, I phoned a friend long distance to tell him the attacks were a hoax, carried out by the very people who were now fully in charge of the country and our TV screens. I didnt yet have an inkling of how they had pulled it off, but I knew what they were claiming could not be true by any stretch. I knew those televised images of crumbling buildings were intended to terrorize us and turn us into zombies. A week later, I heard myself using the phrase “inside job” in chatting with a colleague, and I saw the look of shock and denial cross his face, telling me I had gone too far and should retract. I didnt retract, but I changed the subject.

      I spent much of that winter in on-line chats arguing with Americans over the invasion of Afghanistan, and soon built up a reputation as a terrorist-sympathizer and lunatic. In the fall of 2002, I was given 6 months of unemployment and all the internet time I needed to read the information that had already appeared debunking the official story. Not many people were handed that perfect opportunity. What occurred in those six months of nearly constant reading and research, was the dismantling and rebuilding of my Reality –looking back, I would call it almost a Dimension Shift. I stepped out of one world and into another. Obviously I was ready, primed by events in my past that I was barely conscious of, back then, but which began surfacing over that winter of 2002-2003.

      Like Zogistani, but probably in a less whole-hog kind of a way, I have tried to inform people about 911, and my success rate over the years has hovered near zero. In the past I did bring up the subject occasionally. The reaction never really changes. Eyes glaze over, or a look comes into them that can resemble fatigue and pity, or irritation. Sometimes I even imagine I see hate and contempt. Lately I feel their impatience, that I still cling to my insane beliefs and obsessions — also, maybe, resentment that I have not had my comeuppance, or suffered some natural punishment for failing to crawl back to “reality” as they define it. I would say I lost most friends I had had in the previous milennium, and entered the 21st century as a different person. As if I had collapsed into my own footprint.

      Over the past 15 years, I have undergone some major rewiring, and that would include my emotional reaction to stubborn rejection of what to me is just so obvious and true. Now I smile. That really throws people. I expend no effort whatsoever on persuasion. The problem, as others have said, is that most people are deeply invested in the world as they have learned to know it. Undermine their understanding of 911, and everything begins to shake and crumble like the WTC and Building 7.No one wants that. Nevertheless, there is no stopping it.

      If they want to go on living in a molten, dustified paradigm, then let them. By choosing to postpone awakening, they will encounter nothing but obstacles, shocks and disappointments as the world around them continues to disintegrate.

      Meanwhile, we can move with freedom into the new one, which is way more satisfying and exciting.

      1. Ann,

        Thanks for the kind words about my comment! I’m sure I didn’t upstage you in any way and in fact I’m certain both of us articulating some of our common experiences complimented each other very well.

        And I really do appreciate you sharing some of the various things you’ve gone through in regards to trying to “wake up” various people these past 15 years (I’m very sorry to hear that you’ve even lost friends!). I’m
        definitely sure that all of the posters can relate to what you have articulated. Yeah, I definitely know the whole eyes glazing over look and the various “OMG, she’s taking about this again!” expressions and body language even if they don’t always verbalize it. Indeed, all of this can really be frustrating and aggravating in terms of having to put up with such mind numbing and borderline moronic reactions when only asking basic questions or stating mere facts (i.e. building 7 falling and crumbling in its own footprint without getting hit by any plane, the fact that many of the alleged “hijackers” turned up alive and well, mentioning the PNAC documents, etc.). I’m very sorry it hasn’t been a lot more successful and productive for you and all of us, although I’m sure by speaking 9/11 Truth you have indeed created a catalyst and enabled some of these zombified, seemingly non-critical thinking people to maybe wake-up, even if it wasn’t right away, and this includes people that you never really spoke to again, such as acquaintances that never had a chance to personally follow up with you.

        Unfortunately as you already know all too well, these kinds of ridiculous reactions seem to be par for the course in terms of trying to wake up the average Jane/Joe who seems to almost be “wired” with non-critical thinking genes (unlike you, as you jokingly said, have conspiracy genes) to blindly and uncritically “believe” in the official narratives (no matter how freaking ridiculous, nonsensical or irrational!) that the govt. or media put out.

        And wow, you amazingly got 9/11 right away! (You probably do have actual conspiracy genes! lol) It actually took me several years until like 2007 or so.

        I’ve actually learned a lot more in the past 10 years about many other so-called “conspiracy theories” that I was very unaware of even a few years ago, including other false flags and psyops. To be honest, I can’t really take “alternative” news sites seriously if they are still pushing the official 9/11 govt. “conspiracy theory” (an example would be antiwar dot com, and I used to read that site religiously years ago, and admittedly it is still a pretty good “aggregator” site for conflict and war related events happening in various parts of the world, and they do have some pretty talented writers, but the fact that they are so allergic to 9/11 Truth is really a travesty IMO).

        Again Ann, thanks again for sharing your experiences with us, and I’m really sorry you had to experience so much BS, and outrageous treatment. I’m sure much of this was indeed very difficult. But you and others of course helped to pave the way for relative newbies such as myself🙂

        And in my next post, maybe I can expound a bit more on some of the posts I made on these Muslim forums that again earned me nothing but crickets, lol (although I’m still pretty peeved that these guys at least online – even after 15 years no less! – are so allergic to 9/11 Truth and even the concept of “false flags”). And I talked about a long list of “proven” false flags that nobody could question, not that this tactic even helped – although I really thought it would.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s