"If 9/11 Was An Inside Job, the Hijackers Would Have been IRAQI"

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/if-911-was-inside-job-hijackers-would.html

One of the arguments made by government apologists has to do with the nationality of the hijackers.

Specifically, they argue that if 9/11 had been an inside job, the perpetrators would have cast Iraqis as the hijackers, to provide an excuse to invade Iraq.

This argument fails for several reasons:

  • Bin Laden, living in Afghanistan, was cast as the mastermind. So that gave the U.S. an excuse to invade Afghanistan (which, as you'll recall, was the first battle in the "war on terror")
  • The overwhelming majority of 9/11 skeptics believe that real planes were in fact hijacked, but that the U.S. government knew exactly what they were planning and when they were planning to do it, and that the U.S. air force was intentionally stood down so that the attacks could succeed. In other words, we're not saying that the rogue elements within the U.S. government which aided and abetted the attacks necessarily chose what country the hijackers were from
  • Saudi Arabia has long been on the list of nations that the Neocons plan to attack (and see this). So - for the sake of argument - even if the rogue American military and political operatives who allowed 9/11 to happen had chosen the nationality of the hijackers (a theory which I am not promoting), it might have been to justify a subsequent war against Saudi Arabia

A similar argument made by the defenders of the official story is that - if the Neocons were such bad people - they would have just planted WMDs in Iraq. Well, according to leading investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna, they may have tried to do just that.

More importantly, the mainstream media was completely in the administration's pocket, as Scott McClellan has made clear. So it was not even necessary to find any WMDs.

The media simply whipped Americans into a state of fear and frenzy, and distracted the public with fake Bin Laden videos or celebrity gossip stories any time the Neocon's lies about Iraq started to be exposed.

This statement:

"The overwhelming majority of 9/11 skeptics believe that real planes were in fact hijacked, but that the U.S. government knew exactly what they were planning and when they were planning to do it, and that the U.S. air force was intentionally stood down so that the attacks could succeed. In other words, we're not saying that the rogue elements within the U.S. government which aided and abetted the attacks necessarily chose what country the hijackers were from"

This statement is *hightly* debatable and I don't think it is fair to say that an "overwhelming majority" believe this (I think you would have to do a legitimate poll to support such a claim). This is essentially a LIHOP scenario which is questionable for many reasons:

1. This assumes there is good evidence for hijackings, which there is certainly not.

2. This assumes that the alleged hijackers were qualified to fly those planes, where every indication is that they were not qualified.

3. This assumes that the maneuvers conducted on those aircraft were possible, even if done by qualified pilots, which is in serious doubt ( listen to this audio from pilots for 911 Truth: http://youtube.com/watch?v=bm58cPH8L78)

The best and simplest response to the notion that it would have been Iraqi's if the official story weren't true is point one; namely, it doesn't matter for the official story where Bin Laden got his recruits from. It's totally irrelevant. Bin Laden is the key to the official story primarily because he represents the "new Hitler" in the so-called War On Terror.

that poll would be interesting

... and I think it would show that the overwhelming majority of us believes the planes were controlled via remote. The planners of 9/11 would never have risked having real pilots (qualified or not) to fly the planes.

I totally agree

What happened with the planes is one of the bigger mysteries of 9/11. We don't know for certain if they were hijacked or what. cburn sums it up well.

On the larger point, Bin Laden/Al Quaeda is absolutely perfect for their needs. Al Quaeda is not linked to any particular regime (other than the Taliban), but remains a shadowy organization that could become "affiliated" via "proven links" to any Islamic nation that the United States wished to invade, if there were not sufficient pretexts for war already. While they have not chosen to do this so far with Iraq and Iran, perhaps because it would open them up to criticism regarding the military's apparent ineptness in Afghanistan, they always have that option.

The patsy pipeline

(Telephone transcript)

[bbbrring...bbbring]

Hello--Patsies Are Us!...Sorry, Donald; no Iraqis in the pipeline this month. Could we perhaps interest you in our Saudi-Pakistani special?

What's that? 'Nineteen's not enough'?...OK; I'll call French intelligence and see if we can't round up a twentieth.

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

But seriously, folks....

Saddam and the Baathists were useful when it came to ousting the nationalist Kassem in the '60s, but in terms of what scares the sh*t out of the American public, and what would focus that fear specifically on a religion spread throughout a wide region, rather than on particular regime, they just couldn't fit the bill the way bin Laden and his fellow ex-Mujahiddin could.

One more thing...

'Saddam and the Baathists were useful when it came to ousting the nationalist Kassem in the '60s'

Meant to add: Also when it came to waging war against Shiite Iran in the '80s.

cburn: I contest all three of your arguments....

I don't know whether the majority of 9/11 skeptics believe there were real hijackers, but they should. I would disagree with all three of cburn's reasons for doubting the existence of hijackers:

1. "This assumes there is good evidence for hijackings, which there is certainly not."

There is indeed good evidence of hijackings, notably the fact that some, if not all, of the planes were commandeered and flown into their targets. Real hijackers in the planes is the best scenario for explaining how this happened. Beyond that, we have the phone calls made from the planes by real passengers to their loved ones reporting hijackers commandeering the planes. We have already gotten beyond the "cell phone" disinformation designed to lead us away from this important evidence; most of the calls were made by airphones, and the few made by cell phones were made when the planes were at low altitudes, and cell calls were then possible. Such sweeping arguments, made by David R. Griffin and others, that the calls "could easily have been faked," simply don't pan out when held up to scrutiny, as I have argued. To put it simply, there's no way anyone could have faked so successfully calls to loved ones-- including calls such as Betty Ong's which were recorded and played publicly-- without any of those loved ones being suspicious. And the fact that a few calls are indeed suspicious-- those allegedly made by Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson-- in no way discredits the real ones.

2. "This assumes that the alleged hijackers were qualified to fly those planes, where every indication is that they were not qualified."

It assumes no such thing. There is no reason to believe that because the planes were hijacked by real people, that those people actually flew the planes to their destinations. The hijackers could have rigged the planes for remote control after the hijackings. I'll rephrase this very important concept in capitals:

HIJACKERS AND REMOTE CONTROL FLIGHT ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!

In fact, they are very compatible. The hijackers on the planes goes a long way toward explaining how the remote control apparatus was attached to the cockpit: it was done by the hijackers themselves after commandeering the planes and shooting the pilots. Any other scenario involving remote control has to involve penetrating airline security beforehand and installing the remote control secretly before the flights, then somehow disabling the crew rendering them completely unable to even send a distress signal. Any such scenario is far-fetched in comparison to the simplicity of human hijackers.

3. "This assumes that the maneuvers conducted on those aircraft were possible, even if done by qualified pilots, which is in serious doubt"

You're right, the planes were undoubtedly flown by remote control, which in no way precludes hijackers. See above.

----------------------------------------------------------

What we really should be debating is not whether the hijackers existed or not, and not whether they should have been Iraqi, Saudi or any other Arab nationality. We ought to be looking at the possibility that the hijackers were professional agents, some of whom were disguised as Arabs for the purpose of framing Arabs for the crime of the century.

Trying to save parts of the official story?

So you and George are implying that the perps made the whole elaborate 911 setup dependent on a bunch of lousy fliers? That could possibly pass in a script for a Leslie Nielsen movie.

According to the official story the hijackers flew the plane into the targets. That is the scenario we have to disprove. No use to make additions to the official story to save them.Let them explain how it was done.

So what hit the towers? Remote controlled drones. No hijackers. No passengers. They simply made two plane swaps in the radar shadow. That's the simplest explanation.

The final approaches

And would the alleged hijackers have had such technology that would have performed the demanding 270-degree approach into the Pentagon, for example?

Yes, and it would also mean

Yes, and it would also mean that it was pre determent that they would not hit the wing where the top brass sat. But hit the newly reinforced section where the accountants were trying to find out what happened to the missing 2,3 trillion $.

If one follow this logic the absurdities pile up.

Speculative argument

Andrew,

I agree that hijackers + remote control are not mutually exclusive, but your arguments are still speculative because we don't have any evidence for the hijackers other than the alleged calls, which are indeed complicated and difficult to process without real evidence.

"There is indeed good evidence of hijackings, notably the fact that some, if not all, of the planes were commandeered and flown into their targets."

We do not have evidence for the flights being commandeered. That is alleged, but not proven.

"Real hijackers in the planes is the best scenario for explaining how this happened."

It is one scenario, but without evidence it certainly can't be described as the best.

"Beyond that, we have the phone calls made from the planes by real passengers to their loved ones reporting hijackers commandeering the planes..."

Again, we need solid evidence. There are many many types of possibilities for what happened, and granted, I don't know, but I simply don't know what to make of the calls. One speculation is that the calls were real, but the planes were rigged prior with remote control and taken over, regardless of the presence or absence of hijackers. But again, in an event like this where we know there are lies and disinformation, it's not solid evidence to say that calls = hijackers. It simply doesn't.

"HIJACKERS AND REMOTE CONTROL FLIGHT ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!"

I agree, but again, where is the evidence? It's speculation to say that the hijackers were real and on those planes.

"In fact, they are very compatible. The hijackers on the planes goes a long way toward explaining how the remote control apparatus was attached to the cockpit: it was done by the hijackers themselves after commandeering the planes and shooting the pilots."

Again, your speculating on the technology, and I seriously doubt that you can simply attach hardware like that in flight and make it work in each case. That kind of tech is most likely built-in. Further, there is no evidence for pilots being shot. That is more speculation.

"Any other scenario involving remote control has to involve penetrating airline security beforehand and installing the remote control secretly before the flights"

Again, we have very little evidence that the planes that we saw in video were the actual flights that were claimed to be hijacked. We just don't know, so we must be careful about drawing conclusions from speculative argument.

a brief rebuttal...

Let me make a brief rebuttal, cburn. You originally said there was "no good evidence" that there were hijackers on the planes. My point is that indeed there is good evidence, including the phone calls. I am not saying that this evidence should not be scrutinized. Nor am I saying that the evidence is "proof" of hijackings. But it is good evidence, and the more it is examined, the more likely one is to conclude that the phone calls do demonstrate the existence of real hijackers on the planes.

Something I have a problem with

Terrified passengers being herded to the back of a plane by boxcutter (or gun?-) wielding terrorists, yet some of those same passengers feel free enough to reach for their credit card and an airphone, or into their pockets/purses for a cell phone, then dial up and talk, for long enough to state a number of details. What--did the hijackers who were guarding them--filling them with terror for their very lives--just simply not notice them going for the phones? Was there just too much going on among the passengers that the hijackers guarding them lost track of the movements of certain of them? I mean, it's not like they were guarding a space the size of an auditorium or anything.

Maybe I've seen to many Hollywood thrillers involving terrorists and hostages--but am I the only one who finds something a little odd in this alleged scenario?

And that father who was supposedly staring death in the face, but declined a chance to speak to his kids because he would 'talk to them later'--there's something else I have a hard time getting past.

Isn't everyone forgetting

Isn't everyone forgetting the HUGE ulterior motive they had for invading Afghanistan?The Caspian basin/Trans-Afghani pipeline!
Besides they got enough political capitol to do both.They hijackers weren't Afghani by they way..... they were Saudi! 911 could just as easily have been used to justify an invasion of Saudi Arabia.So,why didn't they?Are they in league with the Saudi's?

Nationality of hijackers?...a Pentagon boom...

I will add five points to this discussion:

1. Most of the HARD evidence about the nationality of the hijackers?, such as passports, and flight manuals, and rented cars, and bandanas, and passports, are deeply suspect if not completly ridiculous...

2. Most people do not understand that the infamous "radio transmissions" allegedly from the "arab" hijackers? aboard the hijacked? airliners could have come from ANY aircraft within the range of the FAA radio antennae...such as an airbourne command platform such as an E4B...one or more of which seem to have been airbourne in the vicinity of NYC-WDC during the exact critical time period when these critical radio transmissions occurred...aka...the airbourne control and command platforms may have been in place as part of the multiple War Game Scenarios...a book is coming...

3. Its simply an assumption that these "arabic" radio transmissions came from the specific airliners...a handy assumption indeed...especially if one wanted to "set-up" the Muslim world...

4. It stretches my credulity to imagine that the Arab "hijackers?" allegedly operating in the affected airliners EACH made...the EXACT...same MISTAKE...in SELECTING...the WRONG output for the microphone from the cockpit????

Each hijacker? had to erroniously switch the microphome output from INSIDE the airplane [like a PA system that we often hear the captain speaking to us on], to transmitting OUTSIDE the airplane using an FAA frequency so that it could be "heard" by the FAA's air traffic controllers.

Two identical "radio switching" mistakes...containing TWO arabic sounding transmissions...containing TWO rather "incriminating" or "leading" wording about hijackings spoken with arabiic accents???

Much too coincidental for me...

5. The U S Military industrial Complex had to replace the old "Evil Empire", the USSR, with a new "Evil Empire" somewhere, somehow, so that it could justify its 500 Billion "slush fund" that it receives every year to build its new killer toys and killer systems...

...and the BEST target available to fit this bill was the Muslim world...a perfect fit for the US Mitary and the IDF...

I mean really, have we forgotten what Ike warned us about"...
...or the film "Why We Fight"?...
...or all the other lessons about the Military Industrial, and Military Congressional Complex?

Duhhhh...

If there were Swedish accents on the FAA audio tapes, would we have attacked Sweden?

Robin Hordon

Interesting...

When you consider...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115702&page=1


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

Excellent points, Robin. As

Excellent points, Robin. As you know, it infrequently occurs that real pilots accidently broadcast over the frequency what they intend to say to the passengers in the cabin. But it is a little too convenient that it happened several times on both AAL11 and UAL93. Clearly, these broadcasts were meant to be broadcast over the frequency, as if to advertise "hey everybody, we're Arabs and we're hijacking these planes..."

You're right that the broadcasts could have come from any plane in frequency range of the FAA antenna. We should also be aware that the transmissions could have come from the real hijackers in the planes themselves, who were not Arabs but were trained to switch on the frequency and make the broadcasts in an Arabic accent and thus frame Arabs for the hijackings.

[Note: Arabic is a semitic language, and speakers of other semitic languages, like Hebrew, can easily speak in an Arabic accent. It is known to readers of Victor Ostrovsky's books about the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, that many of their agents are fluent Arabic speakers, giving them an immense advantage over their Arab enemies.]

I...

Was looking for this recently.


Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

one other thing

I have to add that the "why not make them Iraqi" is an overwhelmingly stupid argument. It overlooks Afghanistan, as if we didn't invade that Middle Eastern nation.

Were there Hijackers?

I find the exchange interesting and rather than clutter this comments section, have started a blog on the theory of conspiracy theory and questions around how to interpret evidence. In short I think we all need to watch jumping to conclusions, this is complex stuff. On the other hand, I have allowed myself to get speculative.

http://omniadeo.blogspot.com/2008/05/conspiracy-theory-101.html

Thanks!

- omniadeo

"The hijackers on the planes

"The hijackers on the planes goes a long way toward explaining how the remote control apparatus was attached to the cockpit: it was done by the hijackers themselves after commandeering the planes and shooting the pilots."

Shooting the pilots? What can you tell me about the hijackers using guns and shooting people on 9/11?

I can tell you a lot about evidence of guns on board....

The most compelling evidence we have that the hijackers were armed with guns comes from Deena Burnett, who said her husband had reported guns in one of his airphone calls from UAL93. When questioned about this, Deena said:

“He told me one of the hijackers had a gun. He wouldn’t have made it up. Tom grew up around guns. He was an avid hunter and we have guns in our home. If he said there was a gun on board, there was.”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=deena+bu...

In addition, there is evidence that Betty Ong reported a shooting onboard AAL11. A report was sent to FAA officials on the night of 9/11 that claimed, based on the conversation with Ong, a shooting and even detailed the number of shots fired. I have examined the issue of guns being reported on AAL11 by Ong in this essay I posted at the Loose Change forum:

"Did the AAL11 Hijackers Have Guns?"
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/46741/1/#new

Finally, there is circumstantial evidence that the hijackers used guns to dispatch the pilots. A knife fight, as per the official story, would have been messy, with no guarantee the hijackers would win against burly pilots and the possibility of interference from brave passengers. We know none of the pilots on the four planes were able to broadcast a distress signal of any kind from the cockpits. They were killed quickly and efficiently , most likely with guns smuggled on board by a sophisticated network with deep connections in airport security at the three airports involved.

evidence

The phone calls are many and varied, and I don't know exactly what to make of them either. I do dispute this statement, however:

"including calls such as Betty Ong's which were recorded and played publicly-- without any of those loved ones being suspicious."

Who's to say if loved ones are or are not "suspicious?" They have no power to do anything about any such suspicions, and would likely choose not to voice unsubstantiated suspicions. Next, the calls did not divulge any deeply hidden personal data, which would only be known by those speaking. There was nothing other than the immediate situation discussed. That makes it easier to fake. It also makes it hard to challenge.

"And the fact that a few calls are indeed suspicious-- those allegedly made by Todd Beamer and Barbara Olson-- in no way discredits the real ones."

I'd like to agree, but the truth is I don't know if any of those people were real or "carefully prepared aliases." I'm not saying they were real, and I'm not saying they weren't. I don't have the data. Perhaps someone can do a study of the calls which lists what was said, by whom, and what lends credence to it being authentic (pros and cons?). It's all a lot of work, and roadblocks may stop it from gettting anywhere.

Controversial claims like these tend to produce mediocre results. Maybe yes, maybe no doesn't get people on board. It's too easy to be apathetic.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

"Who's to say if loved ones

"Who's to say if loved ones are or are not "suspicious?" They have no power to do anything about any such suspicions, and would likely choose not to voice unsubstantiated suspicions."

Four and a half minutes of Betty Ong's call are available on the internet. Betty's brother Harry has been active in some of the investigations, including his request that the 9/11 Commission interview Mike Woodward about Ong's call. Betty presumably had numerous other friends, coworkers and relatives. Do we seriously believe this call was so masterfully faked that none of them are suspicious? Listen, I believe the media is controlled; but it's not that controlled!

"Perhaps someone can do a study of the calls which lists what was said, by whom, and what lends credence to it being authentic (pros and cons?). It's all a lot of work, and roadblocks may stop it from gettting anywhere."

Someone has done that-- me. Read through my blog entries here. It really isn't that much work. Get a copy of the Terror Timeline, and underline every entry that deals with phone calls. You will come to the same conclusion I have: Most of the calls are real and describe real hijackers commandeering the planes.

It's a hoax.

Let me spell it out for you Andy. It is a H O A X.

So you are saying that you believe that the WTC complex was demolished by controlled demolition, like the rest of us. But you still believe that pretty much the rest of the "evidence" supplied by the perps is correct?

I must say that this is a very peculiar position.

The evidence I am referring

The evidence I am referring to-- namely, the phone calls-- is not provided by the "perps." It is provided by numerous family and loved ones who received phone calls from the passengers.

For those who don't know...

Folks,

Andrew is a current air traffic controller who is speaking out in ways that he feels comfortable considering the Bush Crime Family and the history of how the FAA treats its ATCs..aka...PATCO...which is my history. This holds my deepest respect for Andrew even if we do not agree, or do come to agree on some stuff. I do not communicate with either the "pilots" 9/11 group anymore nor the JREF thing watever that nutcase gathering forum actually means. So, we have not communicated very much.

Andrew and I have never met, and he was not been able to get some "radar system" information for me that I needed to break out some good stuff regarding the aviation activity all around WDC when there should NOT have been such activity on 9/11...as well as some radar targets that SHOULD have been able to be seen, but were seen only by multiple eye witnesses. Who would have guessed that the HI PERPS eliminated some radar targets on 9/11? Anyway, fortunately, I was able to get some of this radar info elsewhere...another book about these interesting issues happening in the WDC airspace may be forthcoming soon.

The big one here...

I find it so interesting that from Andrew's independent and more modern day ATC perspective, and mine which is a bit outdated for sure, we both agree that the likelyhood of TWO "allegedly" hijacked airliners making the same radio transmission "mistakes" in that both radio transmissions talked about "hijackings" and "bombs", and that they each had arabic sounding voices...is highly unlikely.

Researchers, don't think too lightly about these corroborative perceptions.

Also...don't take it likely that Andrew and I came to similar positions regarding the possibility of HIGHLY trained pilots/hijackers who may have been presenting themselves as arabic types, or that we each undestand through our aviation/military readings and understandings that the Mossad has such dedicated double agents capable of such identity trickery and flying skills. I must say that I am quite surprised at these similar thoughts.

I will restate my position about who and or what was flying the three airliners, AA11, UA175 and UA93 on 9/11. The airliners WERE NOT being flown by the professional pilots assigned to take those three craft from the east coast to the west coast on 9/11/2001. That's all I need to know and all the other considerations are not neccissary, and are at the base of the most significant cointelpro activity that we have in the 9/11 Truth Movement. get past it...something or somebody else were flying those craft and ALL of it was most likely runthrough the flight directors or flight management systems. Really, there are bigger fish to fry than pods, on board misles, swaps, video fakery and airplanes bult from beer cans ful of Land-O-Lakes butter like disinfo agent #1 wants us to believe...

Now, as far as AA77, the fourth airlner is concerned, I simply cannot get out of my mind the following somewhat "connectable dots"...

...Chip Burlingame and his being involved in the "scenario studies" of hijacked airliners hitting the Pentagon just a few years before 9/11 while he was on military duty...

...the fact that his family insists that he would NEVER give up his aircraft to ANYBODY...and being a pilot myself, I can completely agree to this line of thinking...DUHHH!

...the building posiiblity that there was what I now can call a "9/11 Attack Scenario War Game" mixed in amongst all the other War Games [that BTW..are all securely compartmentalized also]...more to come...

...that there is building eyewitness and other strong evidence that indeed an overflight of the Pentagon may have happened on the north track...

...that there is also building evidence that the first explosion at the Pentagon happened at 09:30 some eight minutes BEFORE the "alledged" impact of AA77...this is a MAJOR story changer if its as true as it seems...

...the basic concept and design parameters of Operation Northwoods that could easily be updated for use in THIS century...

...that AA77 was the ONLY one of the four flights to be completely lost to positive radar contact and was NEVER positively re-radar identified by anyone at anytime...

...that this loss of radar contact happened over the ridges and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains in WV where there is no radar coverage below the ridge lines allowing for some good airbourne shenanigans to take place without detection...

...that the primary target that all of a sudden "popped up" on Danielle O'Brien's radar scope at Dulles Approach Control a few miles west of Dulles appeared a few minutes after the "conveniently timed" notice from her supervisor that she should be on the lookout for EXACTLY such a high speed primary target...Who told him to be on the lookout...and why did that happen right at that time?...

...that there is also building evidence about an airliner crash at Camp David...

So, maybe AA77 was actually NOT hijacked and maybe it was innocently flown by Burlingame as part of a familiar "War Game Scenario" that simply duplicated from what he had been working on some two years earlier? Just another idea here...

Without doubt, all the occupants of AA77 are now dead, including Burlingame. Not sure where all the body parts are though?

Anyways Truthers, there is a lot more to come regarding FAA-NORAD-aviation aspects of the attacks on 9/11. I'm still holding a few cards here and there, but the the HI PERPS' boat is clearly springing some big, big leaks.

Maybe, just maybe, when this country learns that the most important thing its citizens can do is to PROTECT and value whistleblowers instead of shrinking away from abusive authority instituted by the Bush Crime Family, we will begin to hear from the THOUSANDS of really, really good citizens working in the military and the FAA who are currently living in fear as they hold critical truths about the events of 9/11.

The way that I see it is that most of these military/FAA types were just doing their jobs on 9/11 and do not YET realize that the roles that they were innocently trained to play, actually were part of a clever compartmentalized "9/11 attack scheme" put in place by Cheney, Rummie and Meyers as soon as the Bush Crime Family took office....right when Cheney has stated that he WAS NOT holding any anti-terorism meetings. Perhaps they were PRO-terrorism meetings...really, really secretive ones. Ones that you and I would never hear about...you know, maybe the HI PERPS' "special treehouse meetings".

Slowly, as the insiders learn more and more about what each of us Truthers are learning every day, their own internal dots will connect and they will be able to see how their own "compartmentalized" actions were actually playing a specific role regarding the success of the attacks on this country on 9/11. This is something that they would not have seen without our dillegence and refusals to quit at our truth seeking.

Once these insiders discover that they have been used like this, and that they and their families are safe, we will soon have a great number of really good people and strong patriots who will be very, very angry at what the Pentagon, a few insiders in the FAA [military types], Dick Cheney, Rummie, Richard Meyers, the Bush Crime Family and its malevolent friends and associates have pulled off, perhaps they will speak out.

Thank you Andrew...its OUR country and not theirs...its just that the HI PERPS just disagree about this...for the moment anyway...

Robin Hordon

Agree with most of what you say...

"...that there is building eyewitness and other strong evidence that indeed an overflight of the Pentagon may have happened on the north track..."

This IMO is part of the disinformation floating out there. This "evidence" for a north path includes witnesses who
1. Claimed the plane hit the Pentagon
2. Claimed DIFFERENT light poles were knocked down
3. Got their locations WRONG on the CITGO gas station video (in response to this, the theorists claim the video was altered by the perps just to discount this "smoking gun" witness statement!)

The "debating" tactics (including calling everyone who disagrees with this "evidence" an agent), makes me believe that the people who promote this have a less than honest agenda.

Not to mention the fact that the so called "animation" showing the north flight path does NOT match the black box data. Did I forgot to mention there is not a single witness to observe a flyover in STAND-STILL traffic on ALL SIDES of the Pentagon. This north flight path stuff is a diversion based on "evidence" that doesn't pass any smell test, let alone common sense.

"Apart from showing no plane flying over the Pentagon, the Double Tree video and other video camera shots reveal why the flyover theory is absurd. A single video shot, camera, or witness would report the plane flying over the building. There is no direct evidence to support such a claim." http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/pentagon-flyover-theory-rip.html
_______________
Arabesque: 911 Truth

The Neocon agenda

doesn't want to point to a single state, but wanted to create the "War on Terror", a front to enter military conflicts anytime they want to. So it doesn't make much sense to use only one state of orign of the "hijackers" (not so a steadiest point for me, maybe they were only patsies).

Why not chose iraqi guys? Because there weren't much islamic fundamentalists as one had to chose them. Saddam (our real scoundrel) had an secular regime and took a clean sweap of all opponents against his regime.

On the other hand, Saudi-Arabia was pivotal for the creation of the Brzezinksi army of mudjahedeen in providing money and flight travel logistics. Al Qaeda was nothing else than the list of the arriving mudjahedeen in Bin Ladens guesthouse in Peshawar, Afghanistan. So there was a base for using some mentally braindead shills as patsies.

Less speculation

Obviously, we're working on truth at different levels. When making an argument to the public/media, we (should) refrain from speculation about who or what took control of the planes and flew them into the towers. Here, the speculation is fine and of course necessary, as long as we don't lose sight of the distinction.
That said, I don't think we need to explain things for which there is no reliable information. A speculative question like "Why no Iraqis?" can have speculative answers, because we don't have all the data. There might be dozens of operational reasons - very few if any Iraqis historically involved in that "Al Qaeda" thingy - , or reasons related to Saudi Arabia being part of the operation and making a blood "investment" to ante up and so forth.
The main point is that we have no direct evidence for the presence of Muslim "hijackers" on the planes, and the calls don't constitute reliable evidence, given that:
1. No authenticated passenger manifests have been released (we truthers usually say "no Arabs on lists" but the real point is "no lists at all!!") "Manifests" released at Massaoui trial not authenticated.
2. No witnesses or videos of them boarding the planes.
3. No remains of the alleged hijackers found at crash sites.
Phone calls that have no supporting evidence, no other documentation/witnesses are hard to take seriously, and we don't have access to all the calls anyway.
This is all set forth brilliantly by Elias Davidsson: http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/stories/911/noevidence.pdf

David Ray Griffin Quote

I just pulled this from the recent letter DRG wrote regarding the NYC Ballot initiative:

"Moreover, some central pillars of the official account have been demolished by the FBI. It has said it has no hard evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, that there were no cell phone calls from passengers to relatives from any of the planes, and that Barbara Olson's famous phone call from Flight 77 to her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, never happened."

Where is this information documented about all these cell phone calls? Andrew, what do you make of this information? I am curious since you have done a lot of work on this...

Thanks.

When Griffin states that the

When Griffin states that the FBI has said there were no cell phone calls from the passengers he is referring to the evidence exhibit released for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006. You can view the details of the exhibit here regarding the phone calls:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html

As you can see, to say there were no cell phone calls is not correct. There were a few cell phone calls made from both UAL93 (Cee Cee Lyles) and from AAL77 (Renee May). These cell phone calls were made when the planes were in the last stage of their flights, and the planes may very well have been flying "low and slow," thus making cell phone calls possible at those times.

The vast majority of the calls, however, are depicted as being made on airphones, which we all agree would have been possible. As far as I am concerned, the exhibit makes perfect sense in terms of the calls being made, and thus buttresses the argument that the calls were indeed real and were reflecting events that were indeed happening on the planes. I don't believe everything the FBI says, but there is a limit to what can be misrepresented. A lot of people within the communications industry would have been aware that these calls were indeed made on airphones, not cell phones. I believe the government's account as released in this exhibit is mostly correct.

From the beginning of the 9/11 Truth Movement, we have been burdened by the myth that all these calls were cell phone calls. We thus concluded that the calls must have been faked, since cell phone calls are impossible at higher altitudes, and we have proceeded from there. Who perpetrated the myth that the calls were cell phone calls, when it was far more plausible that they were from cell phones? It wasn't the FBI; I have seen no evidence that they nor any other official agency backed up the story of cell phone calls. My personal belief is that it was part of a disinformation campaign to get us to turn away from the best body of evidence that tells us what happened on the planes. If this was the strategy, it has worked magnificently. Instead of wondering who could smuggle guns onto planes, or considering the scenario of hijackers posing as Arabs to frame Arabs for the attacks, truthers have stuck their heads in the sand on the issue of phone calls by deciding that none of them happened. That's a tragedy.

As for Griffin, he has fallen for the cell phone myth hook, line and sinker. He has dug himself in so deeply that he is completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that the calls were real.

To sum up, then, consider this scenario: the conspirators conduct a real hijacking on the planes using guns to shoot the pilots, but within the hijacking they also stage a bogus "Arab" hijacking in which dark-skinned agents wearing headbands stab female flight attendants. The intent is to persuade passengers they are being hijacked by Arabs, so that these passengers convey this false impression in emotionally gripping detail in their airphone calls to their loved ones. Thus, the phone calls are PART OF THE PLAN; though they are "real," they convey a falsity, the farce that the hijackers are Arabs.

The plan works very well, but some of the passengers see things they aren't supposed to see, like guns in the hands of hijackers, and pass that on as well. The conspirators thus wage a disinfo campaign to label all calls as "cell phone calls," duping the 9/11 skeptics into rejecting all the calls, and throwing away the chance to figure out what really happened on the planes.