Bombs in the Pentagon on 9/11? Witness Accounts Raise Questions

Several accounts reveal that some witnesses who were at the Pentagon when it was attacked on 9/11, and located close to where the building was struck, initially were quite sure a bomb--or bombs--had gone off. These accounts are particularly notable since these individuals were members of the armed forces, and therefore familiar with what explosives sounded and felt like. While they may not tell us anything conclusive, these reports raise questions about what actually happened at the Pentagon that morning:

  • John Thurman, a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, was in a second floor office just above where the Pentagon was hit. He has described the attack: "To me it didn't seem like a plane." Although he was aware that aircraft had hit the World Trade Center, he has recalled: "[T]o me, it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion to me. ... [I]t seemed like that there was a percussion blast that blew me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as if a massive explosion went off at the same time." He described what happened next: "[I]t just felt like this rolling earthquake going on underneath me. And in reflection, I realize that it was the plane that was actually underneath me. But at the time, again, I had thought that perhaps the terrorists had surreptitiously gotten construction workers to come in and place explosives, and they had perhaps commanded--detonated them synchronous with what was going on in New York." [1]

  • Lieutenant Nancy McKeown ran a small meteorological unit in the Navy Command Center on the first floor of the Pentagon's D Ring--an area that was mostly destroyed when the building was hit. She described the attack: "[T]he building started to vibrate and things started to fall. And it initially felt like an earthquake. As the, as time progressed, the shaking of the building got violent. The noises got louder and louder." She added, "It sounded like a series of explosions going off." A colleague yelled out, and she "yelled back, bomb." When asked about the incident, "At that point you thought a bomb had gone off in the Pentagon?" McKeown replied: "That's correct. It sounded like a series of bombs exploding, similar to like firecrackers when you light them and you just get a series going off. But they got very loud, very extensive." [2]

  • Army Major Craig Collier and his colleagues were in their second floor office, about 200 feet from where the Pentagon was hit. Collier described the moment of the attack: "[T]he building jolted and we heard a muffled boom, then a rumble. ... All of my peers in the area are experienced combat arms officers, and we quickly agreed that it sounded and felt like a bomb." [3]

Considering these accounts, it is perhaps interesting to note the following description of the physical effects of the attack, which was given in the U.S. Department of Defense's book Pentagon 9/11: "The Jet A fuel atomized and quickly combusted, causing explosive bursts as the plane hurtled into the building. A detonation 150 feet inside the building resulted from a 'fuel-air' explosion after the Jet A tanks disintegrated on impact. Here, as elsewhere, there was no uniform pattern of death and destruction. The vagaries of the fuel-air explosions and freakish blast effects meant deaths occurred randomly inside the Pentagon, with the occupants of seemingly more secure interior offices sometimes suffering worse fates than those nearer the outside wall." [Emphasis added] [4]

While these accounts provide us with no clear answers, they do show, again, why we need a proper investigation of 9/11--one that will include a thorough and unrestrained examination of what happened at the Pentagon that day.

[1] United States of America v. Zacarias Moussaoui. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, April 11, 2006.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11. Washington, DC: Defense Department, Office of the Secretary, Historical Office, 2007, p. 26.
[4] Ibid. p. 37.

To me...

This is the most compelling statement, "All of my peers in the area are experienced combat arms officers, and we quickly agreed that it sounded and felt like a bomb." However, just because something may have sounded and felt like a bomb, doesn't mean it was a bomb. It's not like a 757 slamming into a building was a common occurrence for these people. They described it as sounding and feeling like a bomb because that's probably what springs to mind. If one of them had said, "We saw these strange people standing outside of the Pentagon with backpacks. 5 minutes later, they left, and they no longer had their backpacks. 10 minutes after that, the Pentagon was struck." If we had a witness account like that...

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Give it up already, Jon. No 757 hit the Pentagon. I've looked

those 5 frames from the parking lot camera a hundred times, and if they're legit, that's the tip of a missile or drone, not an airliner flying towards the Pentagon. Aside from that, these questions are still unanswerable:

How did “hijacked” AA-77 fly all around the Eastern U.S., 45 minutes after the WTC was struck by 2 other “hijacked” airliners, without it being intercepted, pursued, or even observed/photographed by NORAD/Air Force?

How did flunky Hani Hanjour fly all the way back from Ohio/Kentucky, and why/how did he make those incredible acrobatics to hit the tiny, renovated section of the Pentagon?

Why won’t the gov’t release any clear video evidence of what struck the Pentagon, more than 6 years later? For what purpose is this evidence still being withheld from us?

How did they obtain DNA (delicate organic material) for 63 or 64 passengers when the seats, luggage, and most all of the airplane were supposedly vaporized in a fireball @ 530 mph?

What happened to the airliners virtually indestructible 2 huge steel/titanium engines?

How did a B-757 with a 125’ wingspan make a 16’ foot initial impact hole?

What were Cheney & the “young man” demonstrating in front of Minetta? Why was the airliner’s location given as: “50 miles out”, “30 miles out”, “10 miles out”??? Out from what--did Cheney know the target??? Why didn’t Dick or the young man warn people in the Pentagon to get away from windows & take cover???

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

besides the dense engines on

besides the dense engines on the outer wings, how about the landing gear assemblies - which are much more durable and stronger than the rest of the plane to be handle hard landings as well as the full weight of the aircraft over multiple takeoffs and landings.

these were likely raised and not down, so they should have been found inside somewhere, if it really did strike the building.

However, when one of the suspects is able to clean up his own crime with absolutely no interference - and the cooperation of many law enforcement agencies, as well as the military, anything is likely.

I believe a number of military types in & around the Pentagon

reported smelling cordite, a propellant & explosive.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:

This is true

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD amongst others said that she smelled cordite, she was also in the building when explosions occurred, and tout on the lawn in minutes after they happened. She describes the scene here, I'll try to find her statement on cordite.

Give what up already?

Looking at things from all perspectives? I think you should give up stating things as fact like "No 757 hit the Pentagon" without knowing that for a fact.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

The most salient thing about the Pentagon case...

... may be that the Andrews Air Force Base was just 10 miles away from it.

What was the commission's explanation for the lack of scrambling from there?

I like the one...

Where Dick Cheney is giving orders sometime before the Pentagon was hit that couldn't possibly have been "shoot-down" orders because those weren't issued until 10:18. Whatever those orders were, a young man apparently questioned them when he asked, "do the orders still stand?"

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

These are "the orders."

Read them carefully.

Important points:

1) Cheney wasn't technically "giving orders." This is misrepresented and assumed all over the place. He was asked to confirm if already existing standing orders were still in effect. His response was, "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?"

2) This is a complex situation, whereby the air defenses were stalled due to a certain reading of the orders. The issue that they could not be ignored (Cheney's confirmation) is central to showing how Rumsfeld held up fighter interceptor response by simply not being available, and not giving any "approval."

Cheney and Rumsfeld worked together to insure that no fighters would be approved from the NMCC, and to my knowledge none were. Rumsfeld played his part by disappearing, and not showing up in a timely manner to give "approval," and Cheney played his part by insisting that the standing orders requiring "approval" remained in effect.

Some (including Griffin) have argued that 'they' could just have ignored these orders because of a life and death emergency clause, but that does not appear to be what happened. Mineta's testimony points to Cheney insisting that the "Air Piracy" orders be followed to the letter.

This is the reason Mineta was removed immediately when Fetzer mentioned this stuff on Fox news. This is highly incriminating.

Mineta believed he was hearing a conversation about the "shoot down order", but there was no shoot down order until it was no longer needed, as you have mentioned.

The lack of a "shoot down order" is also evidence that some in the White House wanted the "terrorist" air attacks to succeed, and that the military response was being ham-strung. This relates to Bush's behavior in the classroom wasting time and NOT giving any relevant orders.

I've written a paper on this for peer review at Journal of 9/11 Studies. I'm waiting to hear back. There is probably enough here for a second paper.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

He was asked to confirm...

If already existing "standing orders"... I would think, and you're right, this is probably an assumption, but I would think that the "young man" would go to the person that issued the "standing orders" to confirm that they "still stand". Then, when you think about Cheney's response... "Have you heard anything to the contrary?" To me, that sounds like something someone that issued the orders would say. Also, asking the question, "do the orders still stand?" without referencing what the orders actually were indicates that Cheney knows which orders the "young man" is referring to, which lends credibility to the idea that Cheney was either involved in issuing those orders, was present at the time they were given, or was in agreement with whoever issued them. Again, I think the young man would go to the individual that issued the orders to confirm if they "still stand".

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?


Confirming that the orders "still stand" is in itself, giving an order.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?


I think it's an assumption to think that the young man was automatically following something drafted by the Joint Chiefs concerning "Air Piracy" three months earlier. If the young man was following something in that document, I would imagine someone may have said something like, "Ok everyone... we're going to follow the document written in June 2001." Which would have been an "order". There's little doubt that Cheney was "in charge" that morning in the bunker. The question is, at what time did Cheney take charge in the bunker? Among 1000 other questions pertaining to that bunker. Sorry for the multiple responses...

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Using private detectives

Hmm... Cheney may have been the young man's closest superior, who relayed the (higher) orders from Rumsfeld.

I really like johndoraemi's scenario.

It's just absurd that Rumsfeld has not been questioned about his treasonous lack of action during that morning. Don't the MSM journalists have any compunctions about not posing any real questions?

Couldn't the movement hire a private detective to find out who the young man was?

Someone else has suggested using private detectives, and I've done that earlier. I think private eyes were used in the OKC bombing case.

Rumsfeld on 9/11

We do know what Rumsfeld was doing just before the Pentagon was hit. Rep. John Mica told us:

Andrews AF Base couldn't get fighter jets in the air

but they let a C130 take off at around 9:30 AM. This was when the FAA was trying to bring down every plane on the east coast and this C130 takes off from Andrews and doesn't have a clue.

What we ALL should do is

unite in an effort to get all 80 or so videos of the attack on the pentagon released. Only then can we be sure of exactly what happened. I think we can all agree that something DID hit the building. The five frames show this clearly, unless of course they were doctored, which is a whole new area someone else can explore.

The evidence for bombs is interesting though. Like the videos of the bright flame/explosion in the loose change 2nd edition and explosive reality films.

Don't Forget April Gallop

She and her son were buried in rubble after the explosion; as she was evacuated she saw NO airplane debris inside or outside the building. She said something to the effect that the possibility of an airplane crash into the building never occurred to her. She never considered the possibility until FBI agents in the hospital where she was recovering told her "what happened" and pressured her to repeat their account, and to suppress her own observations.

Military personnel actually do know how to distinguish between bombs and airplane crashes, on the basis of sound and sights. Their ability to do so is the result of training and experience. There is no reason to doubt these accounts, since they accord with evidence and lack of evidence from all other sources.

What Caused This Pentagon Explosion?

An uncooperative file prevented a normal presentation.

One can clearly hear a major explosion during this broadcast. Note the distance between the Pentagon and the broadcaster.

I've occasionally wondered if the C Ring 'exit hole' was created by an explosive wall breach device.

I simply don't know what happened at the Pentagon. There is so much conflicting information.

Brilliant question, nice examination....

Wow, very impressive question, how does an aircraft that supposedly disintegrated upon impact create a well-defined exit hole hundreds of feet deep into the Pentagon?

The second clip is persuasive. Thanks for the videos.

...don't believe them!

The Pentagon Attack Papers

Everyone stop and read the above "pentagon attack papers"

this article was was also published as the appendix to Jim Marrs' "the Terror Conspiracy, Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty".

In this you will learn that the explosion took place at aprox 9:31am. The official story says the explosion took place on 9:37am. I just watched Loose Change Final Cut and during the Pentagon segment there was a brief shot of a damaged wall clock that stopped at 9:31am.

there was also the strong smell of cordite and not jet fuel.

please read the "pentagon attack papers" at the above link.

Question for Per Stig Moller

Quote from Marrs-Honegger paper:

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

How did he get out of the United States when all airplanes were grounded?

What Didn't Hit the Pentagon

Don't forget April Gallop's Guns N' Butter interview, last year. She questioned much that went on at the Pentagon.

It was odd to her that they cleared her baby which was clearly against regulation? She didn't see any plane debris or evidence of jet fuel? She objected to her debriefing interviews where the military told her what to think and what had happened. She was asked not to report even what happened to her child.

Gallop reported there were no alerts and no alarms in a building that practiced such things to the point of irritation. She simply remembers turning on her computer and then an explosion which knocked her unconscious.

April Gallop is convincing in her sincerity and honesty!

What Didn't Hit the Pentagon

If you can only produce small scrap, one small rotor of a jet engine that doesn't belong to a 757 and only release five frames of video after collecting it all from the surrounding area. I'm sorry but I can't believe you!

More evidence of titanium Rolls Royce jet engine should've been clearly present. I'm sorry! Toss in all the attempts at media suppression there's overwhelming suspicion.

April Gallop
...don't believe them!

Some GREAT lines of thought-good thread

Being convinced that the AA77 saga is the HI PERP's "achilles heel" of what I now call "The 9/11 War Games Attack Scenario", this blog entry and the inquisitive responses are doing great service towards looking at AA77 as the TRUE "False-Flag-Fight" of 9/11/2001...aka...this millenium's updated and modified "Opertation Northwoods" sacrificial aircraft. I have a few points that may be worth considering.

1. Some folks say "Remember the USS Maine"...I say: "Remember Chip Burlingame."...

2. AA77 was the ONLY flight lost io positive radar identification and NOBODY ANYWHWRE AT ANY TIME IN ANY FACILITY has ever posiively re-radar identified ANY TARGET as being AA77...and this includes the infamous primary target that conveniently "popped up" into "radars eyes" west of Dulles just east of the long valleys and ridges of the Appalaichians...

3. Regading the Cheney-Mineta-young fellow's converstations about the "stand-down" order, I ask the following questions:

...Who issued the original "stand down" order?
...When was the "stand down" order issued?
...Why did Cheney know so much about the "stand-down" order?...
...When did Cheney get briefed about the "stand down" order ?...
...How long did THAT interesting briefing take to accomplish?...
...Who briefed Cheney about EXISTANCE of the "stand down" order when he arrived at the PEOC?...
...How was THAT person involved in the "stand down" order and defending WDC?...
...What role was Cheney playing in "The 9/11 War Game Scenario" in that it was HE and nobody else who was asked to approve the continuance or discontinuance of the existing "status" of the stand-down order?...
...Since the "stand down" order HAD to be inplace BEFORE the inbound target was 50 miles out, how much "sooner" was the "stand down" order put into place?...100 miles out?...200 miles out?
...Which military radar facility KNEW about this incoming primary target?...
...When did THEY start to "see" this primary target?...
...Was the "stand-down" odrder issued SPECIFICALLY for that inbound target?...
...Or, was it a general "stand down" order for ALL tragets inbound to WDC?

4. The 09:31 or 0:32 time of internal explosions in the Pentagon and the rather OBVIOUS round hole in the C-ring are very, very supportive of "An Inside Job" at the Pentagon...

5. Slowly, as 9/11 Truthers are beginning to understand more and more that all four airliners were actually "in flight emergencies" BEFORE they were considerd "hijacked airliners", and that the scramble protocols for the two different aircraft situations call for radically different scramble "priorities" of handling,...IE: emergency-IMMEDIATE SCRAMBLE WITH THE HIGHEST PRIORITY...hijacking-PENTAGON APPROVAL NEEDED BEFORE LAUNCH WITH LOW PRIORITY [they had to wait their turn to take off and fly]...and that Collin Scoggins had DIRECTLY asked NEADS for some military assets...and that NEADS DID NOT COMPLY with his request...WELL...the Truthers will see that the subtly of the June "change" in the Joint Chief's roles regarding the authority chain of command of launch approval of the interceptors was a very clever, well thought out, and perfectly disguised change that set the stage for the entire slower, Penatgon approved HIJACKING SCRAMBLE PROTOCOL to be used in lieu of the HOT IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY SCRAMBLE called for by Scoggins.

A HOT SCRAMBLE PROTOCOL that had been used some 1500 times in the previous 10 years...

6. I am strongly postulating that "The 9/11 Attack War Game Scenario" had within it, specific activities that made both the FAA air traffic control system AND the frontline NORAD personnel to LOOK PAST the facts that there were FOUR "in flight emergencies" going on, and instead, to look at the unfolding events as being "hijacked airiners"...which hadn't happened in many years. THIS is how the vast array of War Games affected the NORAD-FAA response...NEADS was thinking "hijack"...andacted that way.

Anyway, I offer two points that have never set well with my analysis about the radio transmissions that are THE PRIMARY reasons that the world thinks that Arabs hijacked the airliners:

A. I have always found it incredibly "coincidental" that in the planes that "allegedly" transmitted the "arabic sounding voices" that were intimating that there were "hijackings going on", that the EXACT SAME ERROR in microphone-transnission selection occurred in SEVERAL cockpits thus making it sound like the "alleged arabic hijackers" transmitted over ATC frequencies the communications and instructions that they had intended to give only to the passengers. And BTW...WHY would they even need or want to tell the passengers anything anyway?

B. The elephant in the room...

...there is absolutely NO WAY that the FAA audio tapes and ATC transmitter-receiver radio systems can opositively identify WHICH AIRCRAFT or transmitter the "arab sounding hijacking" communications came from. Again, I postulate that "The 9/11 Attack War Game Scenario" needed to get "the systems" [ATC-NORAD] to think HIJACK and not IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY...

...and these radio transmissions in question could have come from an airbourne command center operating within 200-300 miles of the FAA's radio recievers on the ground...

C. So, just like almost everyone is PRESUMING that the primary target seen by Daniele O'Brien west of Dulles actually IS AA77, almost everyone is PRESUMING that the "arab sounding hijacker radio transmissions" came from the airliners in question...and NOBODY can prove either of those PRESUMPTIONS to be fact.

7. And finally...if the world had not been so thoroughly "psy-opted" into thinking that something "airbourne" had hit the Pentagon, and investigators had looked at evidence WITHOUT this prejudice, they would look at the streak in the Pentagon grass matching the penetration angle and routing of the airvehicle?, the absolute closeness to the ground of the object in the FAB FIVE FRAMES, the steam-rocket fuel-and NON JET EXHAUST coming out of the silvery object, the suspiciousness of the bent over...or even possiby "torched" light poles that should have been SHEARED like a blades of grass by wings going at 500mph, and the possibility that there was an "airvehicle over flight" of the Penatgon...

...and perhaps would have begun to consider that there may have been some sort of "groundbourne" vehicle accelerated across the lawn and into the side of the Pentagon to create the right impression and explosionon the outside of the Pentagon...and that some explosive devices had been placed INSIDE the Pentagon to create the hole in the C ring...

Seems pretty far out there aye?...but maybe not!

Lets see here...first explosions at 09:31/32-ish...air vehicle arrives at 09:36/38-ish...HMMMM?

GREAT THREAD...good questions...good research...good thinking...they are lying...

Robin air traffic controller adding his two cents...

Thanks everyone!

Just one thing I think needs to be pointed out in response to a couple of the comments above.

A number of people have pointed to the new protocol for dealing with hijackings that was issued in June 2001, CJCSI 3610.01A, and how this stated: "The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

However, it appears this requirement was not new. The predecessor to this instruction, CJCSI 3610.01, dated July 31, 1997, also said pretty much the same thing. It stated: "The
NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

But thanks to everyone who has commented on my posting. I was hoping that it would prompt a good discussion, and have enjoyed reading all your thoughtful comments.


Here's Rummie's version

for the procedure that was in place on 9/11 for issuing a shoot down order:

Q: To authorize shooting down a passenger plane, that had to be done at the highest level?

Secretary Rumsfeld: No. I think the way to think of it is that first a set of facts had to be determined, and then we had to determine what our capabilities were and what we ought to think about doing. So we developed a connection with NORAD, the Air Defense System, and began talking to them. We were being fed information from them as to aircraft, after they grounded aircraft of course. There were a number of incidents where, in one case there was an aircraft, I believe, that had its hijacking signal on. In another case there was just no communication. In several cases the planes were tracked. What we had to do was determine what the procedure ought to be.

It was a totally different circumstance for our country. The thought of having to shoot down one of our own civilian aircraft because it was about ready to crash into something like the White House or the Capitol or the Pentagon again. It was totally different than anyone had ever conceived. As a result we developed a rule of engagement that we decided was appropriate and then we decided the appropriate levels going up. Obviously the chain of command goes from the President of the United States to the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commander. What we did was develop a rule and a process whereby I would be notified by -- First of all the combatant commander would be notified in the event there was a circumstance that was abnormal and potentially dangerous, and he then would notify me and I then would notify the President in each case assuming there was time for that process.

Q: Had the Shanksville plane already gone into the ground at that point?

Secretary Rumsfeld: No.

Q: So you were still deliberating this early on in that process and there was that plane in particular that was the major --

Secretary Rumsfeld: You mean the one in Pennsylvania?

Q: The Pennsylvania plane.

Secretary Rumsfeld: I'd have to look at, some of the people who were with me, they have notes. I don't. I was pretty busy.

Regarding the Joint Chiefs and the June change...

Having worked in the FAA in develping ATC and cooperative procedures with the US MIlitary in my years as an air traffic controller at ZBW [Boston Center], I will state my position even though I have presented a full "talk" on this subject at last Year's Vancouver, BC 9/11 Truth Conference. Its on DVD and can be had through 911TV. The name of the presentation is:

ITS THE CIVILIANS STUPID: An Air Traffic Controller's View of the "Institutional Stand Down" of NORAD on September 11, 2001.

Its boring but informative, and I'll try to offer my stated positions here.

First, I have scrambled military assets myself to aid "in flight emergencies", as Bowman says, "I know the drill...", but from an air traffic controller side...

Second, I actually designed and worked all the airpace that AA11, UA175 and the Otis fighters used on 9/11 [although some smaller aspects of the airspace and sector design has been redisigned since as ZBW now abuts the New York Tracon...] , so I am familiar with the airspace and military procedures.

Third, when working in FAA procedures, I was in on the discussion loop about what changes might be made regarding the FAA's role in the then "new" wave of hijackings that ramped up in the 70s. What stands out in my memory is that one of the first changes considered was to strengthen the cockpit doors. Indeed, I beieve that the Israeli airline, El Al, had already done this at that time. But such a simple "200lb and 5000 dollar" solution was scrapped because the doors were "too heavy" and thusly, it would reduce payloads by ONE passenger on the aircraft that were full? Never made sense to me...until 9/11/2001. Just think, a few years after the hijackings started there was a HUGE financial investment made in developing remote control "take-over" systems in some of the newer fleet of airliners? Obviously that financial investment in remote control technology built into airliners and any control systems on the ground or in airbourne control platforms, were FAR more expensive than the beefed up doors. So, what's up with that?

Fourth, any "procedural" , or in this case, "ORGANIZATIONAL" changes that occur between the FAA and the public, or between the FAA and the US Military, are initiated many months, if not YEARS, before they actually become "part of the system". This waiting period is designed to collect input, ideas and potential problems from all the parties involved. So, the June change did not start in May. My best guess is that it began right when the FAA was coerced to get General Mike Canavan involved with "Airline Security". In other words, just as soon as the Bush Crime Family was awarded the Whte January 2001. The reason that I say "coerced" is because the "reorganization" of the Pentagon's Joint Chief's would NOT have happened had a civilian been selected to such a critical position within the FAA. This is because a solid and experienced FAA civilian type would NEVER allow anything to inhibit the historically successful [50 years +/- ] high speed scrambles established to help out aircraft suffering "in flight emergencies" for which the FAA is responsible. The net result of the June change is that this is EXACTLY what happened...Pentagon approval was now thought to be needed for ALL scrambles and not just for the "hijacking" scrambles which had only been in place since the 70s.

Proof you ask...67 HIGH SPEED scrambles executed in the year or so BEFORE June, 2001, and NO SCRAMBLES of any kind AFTER the June Joint Chief's change...until of course, the scrambles that happened on 9/11. You know...the ones that were too late because the "system" had been made to "think" that the engaged parties, the FAA and NORAD/NEADS, had to have Pentagon approval for all scrambles BEFORE they could depart.

...a quick aside here...

Some folks think that Cheney was NOT meeting with his "terror group" until just before 9/11, but that is because most people do not understand that when Cheney speaks, "psy-ops" and/or "lies" routinely come out of his mouth. Maybe he WAS meeting all the way along, and the final meeting was on 9/6? or 9/8? 2001, and maybe he was checking out the status of the "9/11 War Games Scenario" that was part of an overall "War Games" plan for North America in early September 2001? Maybe Cheney was checking out how well the June changes to "scramble ops" had been working since being implemented?

And ta possible report to Cheney from the War game planners: "Its working very well sir, we have not had one scramble between June and August...and that is even during the busiest aviation season in North America, SIR! We are ready SIR!" Or of course if you needed plausible deniability, the converstaion between Cheney and Rummie would be: "Dick, on that thing we were talikng about...its all good."

So, not only did they make very subtle and undetectable plans to make some changes in the scramble protocols, they even had a period of time to check out if their "Institutional Stand Down" would actually work. Interesting aye?

One thing that we ALL DO KNOW during that time period is that Cheney was meeting with the oil company gods...and that we couldn't find out who was there...and what they said...and that there would be a Supreme Court battle over this. Once again, get folks distracted one way, and then rob the store when everybody is looking that other way. Classic 'psy-ops" or "disinfo".

...back on track...

Third, in knowing full well that there were no "real" wording changes in the June change, it came clear to me that it was a Pentagon organizational or housekeeping type of change, or, from my view, an "Institutional Change" to the FAA-NORDAD lightning quick "first response" scrambling capabilities.

I do remember Rummie noting that he was going to save some defense money and "trim down" the US Military as he took office...maybe this was his "cover" for the changes or save some fighter fuel and other expenses?

So, how then did the actual "operational changes" take place even though the "wording" had not changed?

Well, here is what I eventually remembered because I had done many of these myself...BRIEFINGS. Eventually, after the changes have been discussed, adjusted and finally approved by the "upper echelons" of both the FAA and the Defense Department, folks down the ladder of both agencies have to be told about these changes and what the changes actually "mean" to their opertational behaviors. This is usually done by a series of "step-down briefings" to the various levels of FAA-NORAD operational structures starting from the top as applicable. There is evidence of these "hijacking briefings" exposed in Nasypany's own words in the Vanity Fair article where Bronner makes it perfectly, and very deliberately clear that "hijackings" were on everybody's minds on 9/11. This was a big "hint" to me that such "briefings" had indeed occurred at higher levels of NORAD.

BTW, the commission was sure to ask about any such "briefings". Perhaps just so that the Penatgon could say: "Nope, don't remember any briefings on that sir...", or something along those lines.

Now, the reality is that when these briefings "go down the ladder", [and this change needed only to make it down to FAA-NORAD supervisory personnel], certain aspects of the "new changes" can be emphasized, or de-emphasized. So I will give you what I think this "briefing" was like when the FAA's "crew chief" addresses his/her subordinate supervisors:

"Hey folks, some small organizational and housekeeping stuff is going on at the Pentagon and its about scrambles...if you have a neeed for interceptors or something, just let me know and the watch desk will help get some stuff started..."

That's it...a ten second briefing...and the 9/11 attacks were on...

Its just as simple and just as unnoticeable as that...and it worked because the front line ATCs did not know that things had changed until they tried to do what hey always did. This is why Zalewski was so loud and frustrated...because he could not get the help that ATCs were customarily used to getting in emergency situations.

Now, my position is that everyone, including Griffin are EXACTLY CORRECT in that there are specific words that remain in place covering the "emergency nature" of scrambles, and that these words and instructions still do overide the slower "Pentagon approval" aspects of hijacking scrambles. Therfore, there are no changes to the letter of the law. But, just take a look at these instructions that we are speaking of [best shown in Griffin's New Pearl Harbor], and you will see that the "emergency" wording is effectively "in the small print" buried in the middle of a big paragraph. The "smallness of print" is especially true if that particular part of the instructions are NOT emphasized, or reemphasized during any briefings on such military ops.

The REAL change in the June Order was that it now made reference to the FAA's "Special Military Procedures" WITHIN, or now under, the Joint Chief's of Staff Order. And, in establishing this reference in the Joiny Chief's Order, a reference that had NOT been needed for the 30+/- years that the "hijacking scramble protocols" had been in place, the June Change had the effect of making the FAA's scramble activities subordinate to the Pentagon's position and authority...but without changing nary a word...and without it being written in "legallesse"...and without it being true.

Metaphorically speaking, grabbing the FAA's "Special Military Operations" orders and guidelines that were historically a "stand-alone" set of procedures, and now referencing it under the Joint Chiefs of Staff jurisdiction, brought the FAA's scramble procedures under the "Pentagon's Umbrella of Authority"...even though the FAA never really lost its responsiblity as first responders to emergencies, nor did it loose its authority and DUTY to scramble fighters when neccessary.

I liken the June change to the FAA-NORAD scramble protocol operational activities to the War Games that were scheduled in the week of 9/11. They were BOTH established to effectivey HIDE and obfuscate the REAL WORLD activities happening in the skies over America on 9/11.

This is why I feel that the June changes were clever, discrete, barely noticeable, and rather brilliant in their implemetation. And BTW, most of the "briefings" may have had no need of a paper trail...because it may have been sold as nothing more than a "Pentagon housekeping" deal...

My presentation in Vancouver gives more history about scrambles and more evidence to support what I have said here, but as Bowman says about the military [something like]: "...if they hadn't changed anything, the attacks would not have happened...", and both he and I are correct on this.

So they made a change that legally changed nothing, organizationally changed little, but operationally changed everything...

...that's like Springsteen making millions by singing about how poor he was...its quite brilliant!

And all the HI PERPS needed was an "reasonably explainable" delay of about 30 minutes in normal FAA-NORAD emergency scramble response time, and they would be home free. This June Change established one part of that 30 minute delay.

And of all ironies that perhaps only air traffic controllers can really

...that the HI PERP's best laid plans for this simultaneous attack were screwed up because UA175, AA77 and UA93 all suffered simple DEPARTURE DELAYS causing:

...all the precisely planned "crash timing" to be thrown out of whack...
...the Pentagon to change its timeline and story three times..
...the intelligence agencies to keep quarrantined all the evidence that they could possibly hold onto...

...and its all because the military planners do not operate in the real world of aviation...a world in which because of the Federal Government underfunding the FAA's budget, the nation's airline industry just doesn't work like it is designed to work...

...essentially, the military NEVER has departure delays because there is too much traffic scheduled to depart and arrive all at the same time at their military airports, so, the military planners did not even imagine that their "9/11 War Game Scenario" would have such a "departure delay" glitch...

So, I sit here shaking my head back and fourth because...

...after going out on strike in 1981...
...and ending up being fired trying to get the nation's aviation system made better...
...and now, my brother and sister ATCs are parrotting our words from last century...
...and knowing that the FAA budget was hacked in preference for the military budget...

To see that this very financial bias against good governance...aka...a functional FAA civil aviation system...ended up being the VERY ELEMENT of the NOT SO WELL PLANNED "9/11 War Game Scenario" that will end up exposing their high crimes against this just so damned ironic...

These criminals will be caught because the world that they live in has no departure delays...and the War Game planners didn't take this into account!

So, to ANYONE in the FAA, you were all set up from the outset to be the "patsies" on 9/11...with Scoggins being set up as THE PRIMARY "individual patsie". And, through no fault of your own, the US Military Industrial Congressional Complex simply never gave you what was, and still is, needed for a truly competent civil air traffic system.

Departure delays bring down Rummie's and Cheney's mega plans...who would have guessed?

My brother and sister air traffic controllers of today, and of the past...that's who...because they deal with them in the REAL WORLD each and every day!

Its a big DUHHHH to you our War Games Scenario Planners...DUHHH...departure delays, in THIS country, who has ever heard of those?

Robin Hordon

The Departure Delays really messed them up

but it wasn't because they didn't plan for them.

Using commercial jets was probably the riskiest part of the operation and they did try to minimize their risk, by using early morning flights. Those are the ones that have the highest on time rates. Its has the day progresses that take off times start to go downhill.

Flight 93 had the longest delay and was the one that caused the most problems. If you look at the timing, Flight 77 makes it's first course change (sightseeing around WV?) just when Flight 93 finally takes off. Flight 93 gets hijacked between 9:16 and 9:27 AM. At 9:29 AM, Flight 77 is back on course toward the Pentagon (At least, according to the official myth). It seems Flight 77 had to wait for Flight 93 to get hijacked before the attack on the Pentagon could start?

The result of this delay is a lot of people got stuck with their heads up their butts for a half hour.

If the operation had gone off on time, Bush would have leaped out of his limo has he pulled up to Booker Elementary at 9:00 AM, gave a brief heroic statement and then take off for AF1. Instead, he ends up stuck in a 2nd Grade Classroom looking like an idiot. (I know, he always looks like one.)

Rummie would have just been rapping up his little seance session, predicting that we were due to get hit and would have scrambled jets immediately, but instead he had to fart around for 30 minutes pretending that two passenger jets hitting the Twin Towers wasn't a big enough deal to stop whatever you were already doing.

General Myers gets stuck shooting the breeze in Max Cleland's office until the Pentagon was hit.

Cheney was still waiting for the Secret Service to carry him off his feet to his bunker...

BTW: Cheney's secret energy meeting had to be their cover for their planning meetings. I'd love to see the sign in logs for January to Sept 2001.

Interesting analysis, but...

"It seems Flight 77 had to wait for Flight 93 to get hijacked before the attack on the Pentagon could start?"

Why would it have had to wait? The longer the delay between the tower hits and the Pentagon hit, the more suspicious the whole thing...

In some versions of Flight 77's flight path

the plane takes a detour over West Virginia. This is odd behavior during a 'hijacking'. (Or it may be that the flight path is fictional and they stuck the blip in to make up for the timing problem.)

But let's assume this is the correct flight path. At first the plane is heading west. Then it makes a sharp turn to the north. This is when Flight 93 finally takes off. Flight 77 continues N until about the time Flight 93 gets hijacked. Then it turns back south. By the time Flight 77 is back to the original course, Flight 93 is under hijacker control. If Flight 77 did stall for Flight 93 to catch up, this would indicate that the two planes had some way of communicating with each other, or were being directed by someone on the ground, who was in contact with both planes.

Why were the two flights dependent upon each other, I'm still not sure? But when Flight 93 got stuck on the ground for almost 45 minutes, it seems everyone from Bush to Rummie to even Flight 77 had to stall.

Apparently, Flight 11 and 175 were part of the first attack. If something went wrong and the 2nd phase got canceled, just the WTC probably would have been enough to justify their War on Terra, but if both attacks went off, then it made it a lot easier. Hitting a military target would demand a military response.


How was it possible for Rumsfeld to just continue his regular meeting after the second tower was hit, as if nothing had happened?

Why has the movement spent so little attention on that? Bush sitting in the classroom has been a popular topic, but not Rummy's inaction.

Why has he not been put on trial for his inactivity?

Bush, Cheney and Rummie

should have all been charged with dereliction of duty.

It seems all of the top Bush Administration officials went AWOL while the attacks were in progress.

What I don't get is at the Pentagon especially, even after the Twin Towers were hit and the FAA was shutting down air traffic in the US, no one at the Pentagon sounded an alert. Even some of the survivors at the Pentagon talk about watching the events at the WTC on TV but no one thought to lift a finger to do anything? I heard the news at about 9:05 that the WTC had been hit by a 2nd plane and I immediately knew it was a terrorist attack, but the high paid geniuses at the WH and the Pentagon went around like it wasn't that big a deal? I had a geographic fix on all of my immediate family in the NYC area by 9:10 AM, while the Three Muskateers picked their asses. Give me a break.

Anyway, here's a few clips from interviews that Rumsfeld gave after the attacks:


KING: You were right here when the Pentagon...


KING: And someone told me that you had spoken to a congressional delegation...

RUMSFELD: Right here in this room.

KING: ... in this room about terrorism that morning. RUMSFELD: I had said at -- I had an 8 o'clock
breakfast -- that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, 10, 12 months, there would be an event that
would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people, again, how important
it is to have a strong, healthy Defense Department that contributes -- that underpins peace and stability in our
world. And that is what underpins peace and stability. It's the fact -- we can't have healthy economies and
active lives unless we live in a peaceful, stabile world. And I said that to these people.

And someone walked in and handed a note that said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center. And
we adjourned the meeting. And I went in to get my CIA briefing right next door here, and the whole building
shook within 15 minutes. And it was a jarring thing.

KING: And you ran toward the smoke?


KING: Because?

RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness, who knows? I wanted to see what had happened. I wanted to see if people
needed help. And went downstairs and helped for a bit with some people on stretchers. And then I came
back up here and started to realize I had to get back up here and get at it.

KING: I know we're out of the allotted time, but Gary Hart has said that he expects -- his commission
previously said this would happen. You were pretty prophetic that morning. But it's going to happen again.

RUMSFELD: Well, we have to recognize that it's a dangerous and untidy world. There's a lot of very powerful,
lethal weapons that exist and ways that people can impose enormous damage. And we have to be vigilant.
We have to be willing to invest to see that we have the kinds of capabilities that we can deter and defend
and, where necessary, preempt.

KING: But it's an every-minute job.

RUMSFELD: It is. It is.

KING: Thank you, as always.

RUMSFELD: Thank you. Appreciate it.

KING: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.


In his Pentagon office, Rumsfeld felt the huge building shudder. He looked out his window, then rushed out toward the smoke, running down the steps and outside where he could see pieces of metal strewn on the ground. Rumsfeld began helping with the rescue efforts until a security agent urged him to get out of the area. "I'm going inside," he said, and took up his post in the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon war room.


Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, was in his office on the eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox, the defence policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives. Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."

Moments later, the plane hit. Mr Rumsfeld ran to the point of impact and helped load the wounded on to stretchers before retreating to the secure National Military Command Centre, beneath the building. There, he refused entreaties to evacuate even as the Centre filled with smoke.


Secretary Rumsfeld: Well, we were in this room and having breakfast with a group of members of the House of Representatives from both political parties.

In the course of it we were talking about the defense budget and the importance of passing it, and they were concerned to some extent about the Social Security lockbox which was very much discussed during that period. They were worried that the defense budget increase would impinge on that to some extent. I said, of course the other worry is that sometime between now and the next month, six, eight, ten, twelve, fifteen months there would be an event in the world, I didn't know what it would be, but it would serve as a counterweight to their concern about the Social Security lockbox.
Someone came in and passed note saying a plane had gone into the World Trade Center in New York, and the meeting broke up.

I went in and was getting my intelligence briefing and someone came in and said that another plane had hit a different tower of the World Trade Center. As we were completing the briefing, the plane hit the Pentagon. So it was an amazing day.

Q: So you did not alter, after the second building had been hit in New York, you did not alter your routine. You continued with your intelligence briefing?

Secretary Rumsfeld: I asked some people to see if they could determine what was going on. It clearly looked like it was no longer an accident of an airplane hitting a building. I asked people to determine what they could find out and was in the process of just winding up the intelligence briefing which I think was supposed to go from 9:00 to 9:30 or something.

Q: Who told you that a plane had hit the Pentagon?

Secretary Rumsfeld: I don't recall. It might have been Ed Giamastiani, Admiral Giamastiani, but I'm not sure.

Q: What did you do?

Secretary Rumsfeld: Oh, wait. No one told me. I didn't need it. The whole building jumped. No one told me that a plane had hit the Pentagon. I thought you were talking about the World Trade Center.

No, with respect to the Pentagon we were sitting there getting briefed and the table shook and the building shook and it felt like a bomb had hit the building. We ended our meeting and I got up and went down the hall towards where it clearly had come from. When the smoke got too bad I went downstairs and went outside and around the corner, and of course there it was. There was metal all over the grass and there were people coming out of the building hurt and people were assisting them.

Q: And you were being chased by your own security people, and what were they advising you to do?

Secretary Rumsfeld: I don't recall that they were chasing me or advising me. I was going, which seemed to me perfectly logically, towards the scene of the accident to see what could be done and what had happened. I was told by someone there that they had seen an airplane hit the building?

Q: What did you do?

Secretary Rumsfeld: Oh, I was there for a relatively short period of time and tried to help some folks in the stretchers. Decided I'd best get back into the Command Center, which I then did.


Admiral Giamastiani?

How about Admiral Giambiastiani? Well, Well that is interesting.

It happens that I have a copy of a speech given by the Admiral in which he is presenting his plans for full integration of multinational forces, defense corporations and the military. Full-blown fascism on a global level. I considered this evidence of an incredible breech of U.S. national security and treason from within.

The subject of his discussion was integrated command and control systems.

It's highly significant (to me anyway) that he was there with Rumsfeld on the morning of 9/11 and that Rumsfeld was preparing the members of Congress to "expect the unexpected".

The article was on the defenselink website as late as a few months ago but it has now been taken down.

Flight 93 Anomoly

Flight 93 is the anomoly. It was the only event that day to produce 'hard evidence' of the highjacking of a passenger plane for mass media consumption - tapes of phone calls, the American hero - "Let's Roll", the recording the airline hostess - what was her name? Betty Ong? Something like that. All the stuff, right out of Hollywood. The problem of course was that there was no airplane debris and only a very small hole in the ground relatively speaking - plus eyewitness testimony that contradicts - yet again, the official account.

I think Flight 93 was for media Show and Tell.

67 scrambles

Perhaps you could clarify something here, Robin. You mention: "67 HIGH SPEED scrambles executed in the year or so BEFORE June, 2001, and NO SCRAMBLES of any kind AFTER the June Joint Chief's change." What is your source for this information?

I have seen the Associated Press article that mentioned, "From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001." However, this statistic was only regarding the period of Sept 2000-June 2001. It tells us nothing about how many scrambles occurred between June 2001 and September 2001. There could have been 10, 20, 100. Is there another article which specifically stated that no scrambles occurred over that period?


30 Minute Window

Brilliant analysis Robin. You are so right... for some purposes radical changes aren't needed - nor are they desirable. Just an internal change to gum up the works providing a 30 minute or so - window of opportunity was all that was needed.

67 scrambles...AM departure delays...

I will do some research to reaffirm, but I believe that the 67 scrambles before June 2001 were referenced by Griffin in The New Pearl Harbor, and I have also seen it elswhere. Additionally, in the same report-footnote-research, it was noted that the military reported NO scrambles after June 2001. So, I have used these established references.

However, if the HI PERPS indeed DO give up some contradictatory facts stating that there WERE the same numbers and patterns of scrambles after the June Change, then they woud have become very "practiced at doing it all the new way". Thusly, they STILL should have been far more responsive. I think that this is why we do not yet see our imbedded "disinfo types" taking steps to inject some contrary information about the numbers of scrambles...because the HI PERPS loose big time either way. They just want the NORAD lack of response issue to go away...just like they want the entire AA77 saga to go away.

Regarding departure delays usually "developing later in the day".

This is not the case for early departures from major airports on the east coast and this is because so many flights are scheduled to depart at almost the exact same time in order to get to the west coast cities, to other western and central cities, as well as to get businesses up and running up and down the eastern time zone. Airlines all schedule their departures to fit the schedules of their major passenger flows. So, the major east coast airports routinely have early AM departure delays even during good weather conditions. In fact, the 7-3 shift is often a very tough one on the east coast. Usually there is so much activity going on already so, when you plug in, you usually have to be running at full speed.

Conversely, many west coast airports get unusually busy later at night as they prepare to launch all the "red-eyes" back to the east cost. Its these "redeyes" that provide the aircraft at the east coast airports will fuel-up, load up, and head back west. The same "overload" scenario exists for arrivals from the west coast landing at the east coast around the 5-7PM eastern time period...right inthe middle fo the end of the east coast business day. Airports more in the middle such as Chicago, Atlanta, and Denver catch a healthy combination of all traffic from all locations and thusly, usually have more of a continuous buzz of activity. Obviously, these are broad brush statements and not so obvious is my interesting perspectives about the aviation activities involved in 9/11.

And from that "aviation" perspective, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to be loud enough when I state that the TIMING is everything with the 9/11 War Game Scenario. Infact, this is why I chose to "come out" when I did...I saw the HI PERPS using the movie UA93, Bronner and the Vanity Fair article as "psy-ops" to keep pushing the "timline" of importance farther and farther back [later] in the events of the day. This is because the later one can accept the involvement of the Military in becoming engaged, the easier it is to let them off the hook. The HI PERPS know this, and have worked diligently to shape the information and messaging to look downstream. I was able to convince David Ray Griffin that this was the OPPOSITE way to be looking at things and that the REAL STORY on 9/11 begins with the events surrounding AA11 and the failure to intercept. So, the story begins earlier and not later. In fact, if one reads my work carefully enough, I have presented some solid information that indeed Bush, who had promised to attack Iraq BEFORE he was elected in 2000, immediately put a team in place to "invent" a justification to attack somewhere in the middle east, and eventually to get into Iraq as he had stated that he would. The June Change was started much earlier than its June implementation...and this is good evidence of "prior knowledge".

When all the "prior knowledge" indices are added up, its clear that there was a very sophisticated, comprehensive, multi-pointed and muliti-agency PUSH to get the PNAC thinking and planning into play. This took place all across federal and military agencies and departments [sufficiently compartmentalized ofcourse] and someday some folks on the inside will start to spill the beans from their terrorized worlds.

In fact, we still have to keep pushing back even earlier. And, it would not surprise me at all if elements within the Clinton Regime had their hand in this "9/11 Attack War Game Scenario" also. Sandy Berger tried to steal some documents from the National Archives [maybe?], and Billy Boy was sure touchy when he was questioned about 9/11. His answer of: "How dare you?" is HIS dead give-away about some least as far as I am concerned. But this is because I am no fan of Billy Boy as he trashed this country with a nice smile on his face. I remember Iran-Contra and the Central American War run by Ollie North...Billy Boy's state troopers discovered that some of the CIA's "materials"...IE: drugs, guns and or money...was being shipped through a small airport in Arkansas...and Billy Boy never really spilled the beans on our gestapo. So, a payment in kind was due...and the Clintons are part of the problem. They all bath in the same hot-tub and the line between Bush-Clinton-Kerry-Obama-McClain is completely blurred...

Robin Hordon

How far does it go?

"it would not surprise me at all if elements within the Clinton Regime had their hand in this '9/11 Attack War Game Scenario' also"

I'd think that the planning of the 9/11 operation had to start well before the Bush presidency.

I think that specific planning for the 9/11 operation

began at least as early as 1979, if not earlier.

In 1979 Osama bin Laden began his adventure in Afghanistan and a group of key figures met in Israel for the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT). George H.W. Bush was among those attending the JCIT.

I think it is far more than coincidence that a son of bin Laden and a son of Bush play critical roles in the 9/11 cover story, don't you?

Some have argued that the Twin Towers were designed and constructed with the 9/11 operation in mind, but I have yet to see compelling evidence of that. David Rockefeller initiation of the project warrants much greater scrutiny, as does the entire history of the project.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Perhaps it started after 1993?

I wonder if specific planning for 9/11 started as early as you suggest. After all, in 1993 the FBI apparently tried to have at least one of the towers come down. What if 9/11 started to be planned after the failed '93 bombing?

1993 was a test run

I'm convinced that the same people who did 9/11, did the WTC 1993 Bombing.

The story about the terrorists trying to tip over one of the Towers is bs. They didn't even park under the Towers. They explosion was under the Vista (Millennium) Hotel. The perps were able to find out how much damage you could do, with x amount of explosives. They also conveniently parked over some of the major mechanical systems for the complex, knocking out the AC, electric and phone systems. This gave them the excuse to do massive renovations to the entire complex and for Rudy Giuliani to build his OEM Center in WTC 7.

How patient could they be?

That may be so. Still, I find it a bit difficult to believe that power-hungry individuals (many of them elderly) would have the patience to develop a plan for a particular strike for *decades*.

Yes, the 1993 WTC bombing was a test run

and part of a long-planned program of "terrorist" events targeting the U.S. to create a history for "Islamic" terrorists and more specifically al-Qaeda in preparation for the 9/11 operation. Just following the activities of Ali Abdelsuad Mohamed makes this quite clear.

There were also numerous other side benefits, such as the impetus for creating the NYC OEM command center in WTC 7, another needed component of the 9/11 operation, that you mention.

The 1993 WTC bombing was not intended to bring the building down, just test their ability to manipulate patsies, subvert the FBI and control the media. It was a resounding success. The 1995 OKC bombing was a further test along these lines in addition to raising the fear level among Americans, getting even more money for "anti-terrorism" programs and passing certain key pieces of legislation.

While some argue that the 9/11 operation was to have taken place during George H.W. Bush's second term and Mr. Clinton's victory postponed it for eight years, I think the timing had much more to do with far longer trend lines and physical realities. The people planning these operations are multi-generational and think in terms of decades, not years. One does not come to rule the world in a day, after all.

Deep politics involves long range planning and great patience.

Keep in mind that the Bushes and bin Ladens have a very long history together. G.H.W. Bush's son "the incompetent" was set up to "lose" to bin Laden's son "the terrorist" on 9/11/01. Osama bin Laden wrote a letter to his children telling them to NOT follow in his footsteps and to NOT become "terrorists", what does that mean to you?

I will be writing more on this in the future, as I get further along in my research and can better document this theory.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Elaborating a bit

"The people planning these operations are multi-generational"

You probably mean that they have a multi-generational orientation. If building an Orwellian fascist global society where everyone is microchipped etc. takes, say, 50 years, those doing the "pioneering" work are unlikely to reap the fruits (at least many of the fruits) of their labor. They are, therefore, building the fascist world for their successors to govern. But I'm used to thinking that greed and thirst for control are *personal* traits and demand short(ish)-term satisfaction. Are we talking about a self-perpetuating *system* that has divested itself of its original underpinnings in individuals' selfish motivations?

Funny, I thought

all witness statements had to be ignored . . .

Oh that's right, only witnesses that were skeptical that a plane hit are the witnesses that "count".

Find me a witness

that is not connected to the M$M or BCF and then let me know, how many of those witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon?

The 1993 Bombing

was only 8 years before 9/11.

Something as big as what Cheney and Rumsfeld pulled off, takes at least 10 years. These are patient men, who so far, have a very low mortality rate. Heck, David Rockerfeller must be ancient. I went to HS across the street from his house back in the 60's and he was ancient then. Don't these mfers ever die?