MIHOP theorists: How are suicide bombers accounted for?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

I don't question the "benefits" derived for those in power from 9/11 and its ruthless exploitation.

But how can the role of suicide bombers be explained? Unless that is all a "fiction" and the planes were actually brought down by missiles etc.

A hallmark of shrubco people is lack of moral courage and conviction, the last thing any of them or their team would do is sacrifice their life on the altar of their "belief". So how is the role of suicide bombers whether in 9/11 or in London etc. accounted for?

[Puzzler]

1. Re the London bombings...

... I think the latest info is that the bombs were set by timers and not suicide bombers. Although, I understand that so far, there is some evidence that the 4th bus bomb may have been accidentally set off... killing the bomber.

Anyway, if this is true, then the London bombings were not suicide attacks. So does this make the bombers any different than the 911 hijackers? I don't know.


-P

[bryant69]

2. I suspect the legend

involves loyal but misguided CIA or black ops agents so dedicated to their warped view of America they are easy prey for the manipulations of a Cheney.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TahitiNut]

3. Cannon fodder

The sponsors of imperialism, conquest, oppression, or exploitation never risk their own butts ... they practice the politics of division, fear, coercion, greed, and blame.

While I personally subscribe to LIHOP, I don't discount the manipulative acts of these global oiligarchs in driving acts of violence to suit their own purposes.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. How could they get the hijackers to kill themselves though?

Doesn't make much sense to me...

[TahitiNut]

7. How do they get Marines to sacrifice their lives?

How did the Japanese get young men to be Kamikaze pilots? :shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. Yes, but the Marines are not signing up for CERTAIN DEATH. Even

with a low odds of dying, the military is having a poor time recruiting. If the recruiting was under the condition of doing a suicide mission they'd get almost no one, at least for this war.

[philb]

10. Some appear to have been duped. But we don't have solid info

on who was involved and what their intentions were. There is obviously a lot of disinformation, and at least 6 of those on the list apparently weren't involved in any way. Its too bad we can't get reliable info from the Gov't and there has been a huge disinformation and evidence suppression campaign.

[demodewd]

13. were unaware?

The hijackers if there were any or if their numbers were less than the purported 19 might have been on a conventional hijacking mission with the idead of just landing the planes and making demands.

They may have not have been aware that they were going to be taken over by an intercept of the plane's flight program.

[randr]

4. Terrorist organization are said to hold family members

captive and threaten to kill them if a son or daughter does not carry out a mission.
This has been reported to be a method used by the PLO over the years.
Whether it is true or not I could not say but it could be an effective method, especially for groups that are willing to employ kidnapping, intimidation, and torture as part of their enemy interrogation.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. But then there are so many variables involved it would not seem feasible

that such a plan could avoid discovery. At least to me.

[Karmakaze]

9. Simple - straight forward "false flag" operation.

Al Qaeda is FAKE. There never was such an organisation. Here is a pocket history:

After Vietnam, the US government decided that the Soviet Union needed a bloody nose of their own. So support was given to Afghan rebels to create a civil war, knowing that the Soviets would respond to a call for help from the Afghan government. To create the conditions for this civil war, the CIA began funding, you could even say they created, Muslim religious extremists. Osama Bin Laden, a member of a clan with deep ties to the US, was brought in to help with this scheme.

At that time, Bin Laden was directly funded by the CIA, and provided with weapons with which to fight a "Holy War" against the Soviet "infidels". Remember "godless commies" has long been a US epithet.

Now let's fast forward in time a little - the Soviets have left, and there is basically nothing left for the jihadists to do. So what does the CIA do? well, they unleash the Osama Bin Laden Organisation, as it was known, on other countires where the US has an interest.

For example Yugoslavia. Did you know that Osama Bin Laden was assisting the KLA at the same time as the US was?

Basically, every time the US has some geostrategic goal, along comes "Al Qaeda" to create an excuse for US intervention.

Now, this does not mean that ALL members of the "Al Qaeda" network are CIA agents, in fact I would say it doesn't go much beyond Bin Laden and his immediate associates. The rest of them are genuine terrorists - terrorists who get their orders from Bin Laden and think he speaks with the authority of god.

Have you ever wondered why the "number 3 man" in Al Qaeda keeps getting caught, but no higher? It's because to catch Bin Laden would mean that the CIA would no longer have control over the beast they have created.

They need to catch high ups for two purposes, to get the public to think "progress" is being made in the "war on terror" and to convince the Arab world and the rest of the world that "Al Qaeda" is genuine.

So on Sept 11, the men who boarded those plane really were Arab terrorists - who believed that God was helping them to carry out their mission - little did they know that God was spelled C - I - A.

For example, one of the men who sent money to the Sept 11 terrorists was the head of the Pakistani ISI, the intelligence organisation that had been used by the CIA to interface with the Afghan "freedom fighters" during the Soviet occupation. On Sept 11 he was in Washington meeting his US counterparts.

Just like Pvt Joe Schmoe had no idea he was being asked to invade Iraq for control of the oil, the men who killed themselves and thousands of others on Sept 11 had no idea they were being sent to their deaths for the same reason - by the same people.

[dbeach]

12. "False flag over London"

Welcome Karmakaze.

I seen that lil dude on your icon..a few times..
maybe the repukes will run him for pres after bush gets done pillorizing the economy..



http://www.onlinejournal.com/

False flag over London



"July 8, 2005—Yesterday we saw a classic false flag attack in London, organized by western secret services to distract attention from the deepening political troubles of Bush and Blair, and perhaps even to create the pretext for war on Iran. Of course, Bush and his poll ratings have been sinking under scandals and rumblings of impeachment. Blair too has been badly hurt by the Downing Street memo.

We are working to bring out a new book that gives depth of historical background to this picture: The Nazi Hydra in America, currently online. It shows how the 1933 Reichstag fire, that most infamous false flag operation which catapulted the Bush-Harriman protégé, little Adolf Hitler, to power, was followed in 1934 by an attempted military putsch against FDR, launched by the Morgan interests—an episode that has been expunged from all schoolbooks. Yet if it had succeeded, with America and Germany both under Nazi control, the New World Fascist Order would have come into being 70 years ago.

They do not give up. They have time, money, and no project more captivating. They've been preparing the final putsch for at least a century, if not more.

Nor were they defeated in 1945. The postwar CIA and NSA are a Phoenix created from the ashes of Nazi assets. The enemy is within the gates."

[StrafingMoose]

11. According...

to the Madrid bombing tapes, you can hear the mastermind "brainwashing" his minions if I remember correctly. Now, are handlers from intelligence services able to locate those on campus, mosques, etc and see their behavior? I say yes, that's what they're (field officers) paid for. Having relationships with unsavory people.

From CIA's own website:


Aren't there restrictions on CIA's recruitment of criminals and other unsavory characters?

The CIA has not been constrained from recruiting individuals with unsavory backgrounds.


I'm not saying those were recruited directly by the CIA, could have been, but not necesarily. Now once they've located such people what happens? I mean you've got a whole organisation asking the question:

"Hmmm, how could we manipulate this little lost suicidal puppy into a bullet we can shoot where/when we want. We _know_ he's going down moraly speaking, and we WILL accelerate his fall via his handler".

Hell, they might even present him classified information the general public never ever saw that might trouble him and make him go down the path they want.

But, really, that's IF Atta et al were islamic freak...

[pox americana]

14. They probably existed

Remember that Egyptian pilot that suicided a whole plane load of Americans into the Atlantic? There are plenty of pissed-off people willing to do this kind of thing. What BushCo had to do was a) make damn sure it happened and b) make sure they got what they wanted (complete demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7 for instance, which even Osama said was surprising).

[JackRiddler]

15. there are real suicide bombers in the world

I really like how karmakaze describes it, above.

I'd add that certain terms should be viewed flexibly. The CIA no longer exists in its old form (as the hierarchical international covert policy and mayhem arm of the Presidency). Its official covert operations units, for example, long ago became fronts for privatized networks. We are dealing with a permanent, nameless, octopoidal covert state with multiple heads. It consists of self-appointed operators who consider themselves to be the true government, whether or not they are in government. At any rate, they consider themselves above and beyond the law, and grew up in a culture in which this was acceptable due to the "communist threat." (Today they probably need to believe in the new enemy of Islamism as badly as the duped population does.) They command vast resources in the form of secret budgets, profitable companies they actually own, front orgs, and contacts or "moles" with official titles at the "real" intel agencies. They have corporate and hyper-rich sponsors who consider themselves the ruling class either by birthright or by right of having accumulated vast wealth. The operators are not simple "rogue elements" but an entire society of rogue elements within a culture and system that empowers rogues.

Meanwhile...

There are real reasons men (especially) might get sufficiently enraged and fanatic to hurl their own bodies as weapons against an empire. It's irrational to simply kill civilians and think this will make anything better, but it has a certain satisfaction. There are plenty of real suicide bombers in the world.

The official story of 9/11 is curious because it doesn't involve a lone bomber or a military commando on a fast surprise attack, but a large conspiracy who live undercover among their victims for months and years in essentially technocratic roles.

The existence of real suicide bombers helps make the official 9/11 story more believable, but it doesn't mean it was true. How do we know who the 9/11 soldiers were? Hint: only because the FBI told us so, and there are obvious problems with their identities. (Reports of living men saying they had been falsely identitified as among the hijackers; admission by officials and 9/11 Commission that documents had been doctored.)

It's possible there were no hijackers. I don't believe that. I expect the majority of "patsies" are more accurately described as dupes. Meaning, they did intend to kill lots of Americans, or at any rate to hijack planes, but they didn't know they were part of a larger plot that actually subverts their nominal politics.

I think there is a very strong case for the use of remote control in steering the 9/11 planes.

Nevertheless, I believe the most robust way of pulling off 9/11 would be to take a "real" extremist plot and engineer it to fruition. This means your dupes actually intend to commit the crime and are leaving a real trail for multiple law enforcement agencies internationally to confirm their existence afterwards. The sympathizers in the Arab world can celebrate honestly, a real boost to the "war of civilizations"

These operations are compartmentalized. Imagine a whole bunch of boxes in which different elements do their own thing. They tend not to know what's going on in the other boxes. Some of these are truly covert and operate independently. Most do take orders from higher-ups who have the clearance to look into the boxes from above. The boxes are not connected only by official structures but also by networks established among their personnel.

One apparatus with law enforcement or intel functions watches the nasty characters (potential "terrorists"). Gives them enough space to develop, ostensibly so as to catch them doing something really bad. Infiltrates among them. Finds informants. Follows their plans.

Can selectively protect them from discovery by other law enforcement agencies. Can arrest them or let them do their thing, depending on orders from above.

Another unit, meanwhile, can plan how to make sure that a desired attack actually succeeds. I expect this one's ensconced in the military more than intel.

A third unit might be preparing additional elements of the attack, like a demolition.

Other units are working on the propaganda preparation: there's a big threat out there. The masses are asleep, but Bogeyman Laden is coming soon.

All this is what I mean when I say "they made it happen," by the way.

[RedSock]

17. Playing devil's advocate

Playing devil's advocate:

Isn't it possible that there exists groups of terrorists who hate the US and are planning bombing and such without any connection to the CIA? (That is what my wife always asks me whenever I make some snarky comment about another act of terrorism being CIA-related.)

Basically that the CIA does not control everything, not everything is necessarily all shadowy govt. ... Maybe these bombings are by a small group of terrorists who hate the US and UK and want to do harm. Simple as that. And they are not taking their orders from anyone who could be linked up the ladder to the CIA.

Isn't it possible that covert CIA moles have not infilitrated every single terrorist cell on the planet?

[Henny Penny]

18. To answer your question...

Isn't it possible that there exists groups of terrorists who hate the US and are planning bombing and such without any connection to the CIA?

It is not only possible, but probable. In fact US foreign Policy increases the likelihood daily.

But such groups are unlikely to possess the expertise, personnel etc to conduct as many "successful" attacks as Al Qaeda are supposed to have done. Building up such organisations would take a very long time. Building an ad hoc group, and adding expertise from an external source, would be much easier.

[StrafingMoose]

20. I really..

...have difficulty figuring myself those 'cells' without any support from a state, whichever it be.

You know, with money (alledgedly OBL has some) but without all those tools and levers intelligence services can have at their disposal isn't it difficult to stay alive and not get caught within 10 years?

Front companies, diplomatic covers, fake 'past' backgrounds, etc.

And seriously, if they're really about bringing down the West in a global Jihad, could they _sometimes_ attack corporate and governemental entities which actually have the power when they strike in homelands?

I know, you have the foreign embassies and the Pentagon, but the death toll ratio (civies/govt-corp) is kinda ridiculous if you ask me.

And if they think that by attacking the civilians, they eventually themselves will rise up and overthrow their govt, I also doubt that. Everyone knows since Pearl Harbour that when the USA gets attacked real bad, they will rally around their president which will play the good guy and rack up a nice popularity score.

PNAC called for it!

[JackRiddler]

21. response

"Isn't it possible that there exists groups of terrorists who hate the US and are planning bombing and such without any connection to the CIA?"

OF COURSE! MOST ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN ARE THE WORK OF "REAL" GROUPS.

"Basically that the CIA does not control everything..."

IN MY VIEW, THE CIA NO LONGER EVEN EXISTS AS A COHERENT ENTITY. THE ACTION IS IN THE NETWORKS.

"Isn't it possible that covert CIA moles have not infilitrated every single terrorist cell on the planet?"

OF COURSE THEY HAVEN'T!

THIS IS USELESS IN EXPLAINING 9/11, HOWEVER.

IT COULD BE THE CASE THAT LONDON WAS THE PRODUCT OF RETAIL TERRORISTS. BUT GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT 9/11, OUR DEFAULT POSITION WITH REGARD TO ANY MULTI-PRONGED ATTACK SHOULD BE TO ASSUME A PSY-OP.

SERIOUSLY. Best, NL

[Karmakaze]

23. The problem is, terrorists can do only so much...

for example, ensuring that air defenses on Sept 11 were as confused and hamstrung as possible could NOT have been pulled off by terrorists.

Sure it is possible that they just got very lucky, but the sheer number of "just got lucky" incidents surrounding Sept 11 make it almost impossible to believe that anyone could be so lucky.

For example, what if the FBI head office had paid attention to all those warnings regarding suspicious flight students? What if Moussoui's computer had been searched when the agents WANTED to search it?

Time after time, incidents happened that could ONLY have been caused by people in power in the US, that protected and furthered the goals of the hijackers.

The London bombings feel different. They feel more like Madrid. I personally believe both of those attacks had nothing to do with "Al Qaeda" but were carried out by terrorists who have self identified themselves with "Al Qaeda" purely for publicity purposes.

Is it possible that the Spanish government originally blamed ETA for Madrid, purely because they knew the real "Al Qaeda" would not have done such a thing? Could it be they were surprised by a copycat organisation that had nothing whatsoever to do with the real "Al Qaeda"?

The point is, not all attacks are actually "Al Qaeda", and not all "Al Qaeda" terrorists are CIA (or whatever) moles. However, they are part of the pool of people that the CIA/Bush Cabal/whoever uses to carry out these blacker than black operations.

[StrafingMoose]

30. Or...

"Time after time, incidents happened that could ONLY have been caused by people in power in the US, that protected and furthered the goals of the hijackers"

OR, American agencies before 9/11 were like swiss cheese (*willingly or not*) and got penetrated awfully by :Insert country here:'s agents. Remember, the Russians alledgedly succeeded this back in the 40s. To successfuly pull a trick in spying terms sometimes mean to lead someone to commit treason, not necesarily putting one of your agents in the president's chair :P

But even if that turns out to be true, it hasn't been explained much to us in the 9/11 Ommission report.

I'm just putting up a wild guess here...

[Henny Penny]

16. A lot of them may not be suicide bombers.

They might just be underlings told to deliver a package to someone... and the package is a bomb timed to detonate it as they are carrying it.

Or they may be co-erced into doing something. In N. Ireland workmen's families were sometimes kidnapped and held at gun point. The father was then told to drive a car bomb etc to the army base he worked in... or else.

As to pilots.... the US seems to have several umanned aircraft, perhaps the mechainism could be adapted and placed on an ordinary plane, and the hijackers are coerced into taking part, or lied to about the true aim of the plot.

[Woody Box]

19. No suicide bombers

The planes starting in Boston and Newark were not the same that hit the WTC towers. The original planes landed at different airports under conspirative circumstances (these airports have been evacuated short before, hastily, under strange circumstances). No passenger plane hit the WTC, neither the Pentagon.

This doesn't mean that none of these 19 guys, the alleged suiciders, was involved. Some of them might have had an important role, for instance: playing the pilot of the attacking plane in a wargame that simulates an air attack against Washington. No suicide bombers, however.

[JackRiddler]

22. okay, fine,

Hey woody b:

How the hell do you know this stuff for sure?

I think these planeswapping is possible, and I've read and sourced your articles, Frank Levi's and others. They still amount to speculation. I prefer single-flight remote control, which is also speculation, but simpler.

Where's your 100-percent or even 90-percent proof?

The BTS database stuff will not satisfy me; these are compiled after flights, and one could have easily left out the 9/11 flights for trivial reasons.

Also, what do activists gain by advocating this construct in the public/political forum? Is it solid enough, or should we lead with other evidence in demanding disclosure & criminal investigation (whether by U.S. prosecutors or the ICC or a tribunal)?

Thanks.

[Karmakaze]

24. You're right - the no plane scenario smacks of over-complication...

It is far easier to con some deluded, possibly drugged, religious fanatics into crashing real airliners, than it is to create totally fake airliners with disappearing passengers.

If the passengers were real they would have to be killed anyway, so why not leave them on the plane? If they were not real then there would be a high risk of exposure through investigations into their lives - they would have to have rock solid "legends" that could not be cracked by even the nosiest reporter.

No, a simple false flag operation is far more likely, and rather heavily documented as well, especially in regards to "Al Qaeda" links to US and Pakistani intelligence.

The next obvious question then is how were pilots who were described as being so bad capable of carrying out this mission? A simple question in return: who says the pilots who carried out the mission were the same people who attended the flight schools?

Is the US the only country in the world with flight schools? Of course not - so why did they do their training in the US, risking exposure many times over? Because that was exactly what they wanted - they wanted to be found out - but AFTER the event.

I believe it is likely that the men who carried out the mission were NOT the men who spent all that time in the US, but that the men who spent time in the US were sent there to create the legend that needed to be discovered after the event. Look at Moussaoui. He was one whacked out guy, and yet he is described as the 20th hijacker who was captured before the event. Is it possible he was one of the men sent to create the legend, but who got caught?

A man who really had NO IDEA the attacks were about to take place, and was never really involved, but who was sent to make it APPEAR he was?

[Woody Box]

26. I'm asking you for a little bit patience

as I'm preparing an article that will make a good case for planeswap.

But apart from that, there is FAR more evidence for a planeswap then the scenario which you propose, i.e. that the planes were electronically hijacked from outside. Have you any, any empirical evidence supporting this, like my stuff supporting a planeswap? I'm happy with a little piece.

Look at http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html

This guy claims to present "circumstantial evidence" that the original planes were steered into the WTC by remote control. So I expected some eyewitnesses, maybe hints from one of the phone calls, i.e. actual, empirical evidence - but there is none. The whole article deals with the pure POSSIBILITY to control passenger planes by electronic means. And this scenario is, by the way, much more science fiction than the various planeswap scenarios.

The BTS database is just a jigsaw piece, and I don't accept Holmgren's claim either. Tragically, when detecting the database he overlooked the first hard planeswap evidence: that flight 175 took off at 8:23 (and not at 8:14, as claimed by the official story), and that flight 93 took off at 8:28 (and not at 8:42). These data are submitted automatically by mechanical triggers inside the landing gear: when the plane looses contact to the ground, the trigger sends the time automatically to the central computer. So which plane took off in Boston at 8:23, please?

And I can see no disadvantage in pursuing the truth. The more we understand the attacks, the more we can persuade other people. A lot
of people, for instance, wonder why there is no plane wreckage in front of the Pentagon. But then they remember the dozens of eyewitnesses who saw an airliner approaching the Pentagon. A credible explanation for this contradiction would help our case very much.

[Woody Box]

27. Another advantage of pursuing the truth

I'm sure a lot of Clevelanders have read my article and remember that there were strange things going on at the airport. This is the ground where revolutions can flower.

[JackRiddler]

28. That part I can agree with

If I believed strongly as you do, I'd be looking to either go to Cleveland and other hot spots, or to get a contact there to start snooping around this issue. Are there any 9/11 activists there? They'd be the ones to check it out.

At any rate, I'll wait for your article. Just some thoughts:

Karmakaze calls yours the "no planes" thesis. Of course this is untrue, it's plane-swapping, i.e., original planes were exchanged in mid-flight for drones.

Now don't misunderstand, I'm not saying don't publish. But I wonder what it serves as more than a thought-experiment.

While I said I believe in remote control, I don't think it can be proven unless there is an investigation that can subpoena and question aggressively. It just seems likelier to me than four successful hijackings and three successful suicide pilots (fresh out of flight school or a failure, in Hanjour's case). Also, it leaves nothing to the patsy, it's safer.

Nevertheless, I never mention remote control in public as anything other than speculation, because that is what it is. I don't "lead" with it.

I do think it's much simpler to do than plane swapping. First of all: not by "capturing" from a remote location, but by installing strap-on units or a back door control in the software. (Imagine, even 20 years ago, that a group of Pentagon scientists from different companies were given the task of coming up with different ways of doing it. Of course they would have developed methods.)

The context is the "wargames" providing the cover, confusion, alibi and reason for everyone to stay silent even if they were only dupes to the crime. This is a good context for plane-swapping, too, but unlike plane-swapping, simple remote control doesn't present the complicated and messy problem of what to do with real passengers (or how to construct fake ones).

Again, the question: in the absence of undeniable proof, how does either theory (remote control or plane-swapping) shake belief in the official story? How is it useful in "movement" terms?

[Woody Box]

29. We don't need "undeniable proof"

good plausibility is sufficient and can be a big door-opener. We're not at court here. Even Ruppert, in the last chapter of his book, points to promising tracks which are not proven without doubt. And doing research doesn't prevent you from being an activist. Best example: Nico Haupt.

But everybody should do what he can do best. From my character and temper, I'm rather a researcher than an activist. But I'm already in contact with some people from Cleveland (not physically - 5000 miles or so away).

My biggest problem with the "home run" theories is, I say it again, that there is not a little bit of actual evidence. And I definitely would expect some phone calls from the crew and/or passengers ("Our plane behaves strangely").

[Henny Penny]

31. I don't understand why it would be necessary to

swap the planes. I'm with Jack on this one. Why not simply use the remote control technology already working on the drones and spy planes no doubt buzzing Iran as we speak??

I definitely would expect some phone calls from the crew and/or passengers ("Our plane behaves strangely").

You assume that
a) the phone calls were not faked.
and/or
b) the public record regarding the phone calls is complete.

Slightly off topic....

I think there were 8 black boxes recovered and 7 were too damaged to be of use. Does anyone know anything about the 8th one??

Good luck with your essay Woody. I think you will have to work pretty hard to make it convincing! :-)

[JackRiddler]

32. hmmm...

I'd care to dispute Nico Haupt's "achievements" as a researcher or an activist, but let's leave that for another time.

--

I'm not saying there is any contradiction. I wear a researcher hat and say whatever I like on a forum like this one. Then I go into the world with an activist hat and try to tailor message to audience (also to listen to their feedback). I've spoken and organized programs for audiences totalling thousands of people.

--

A successful "home run" attack would leave no evidence; another reason to prefer it if you're the plotter. But also a reason why I don't bother wondering about it too much. Especially when I wear my activist hat.

--

I know who Dov Zakheim is and find his pre-9/11 positioning enormously suspicious. He's a prime expert in remote control avionics. He is a primary author of the main PNAC "Pearl Harbor" document. He was the undersecretary and financial comptroller of the Pentagon on 9/11, and therefore oversaw one of the biggest (and least often mentioned) political red flags: the admission by Rumsfeld on 9/10/01 that an audit by the comptroller (done by an auditing arm of, ahem, Halliburton) had uncovered that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion in assets!

That might have turned into the mother of all financial plunder scandals, except for what happened on 9/11/01.

Anyway, on that circumstantial evidence it's hard not to think of Zakheim as one of the top ten 9/11 suspects.

--

That being said, I give highest priorities to provable items that can lead to the wonderful day when a real investigation can actually force Zakheim and many others to testify.

Proof is therefore very important. I can prove that the top four members of the U.S. chain of command disappeared from duty during the hours of the actual 9/11 attacks. It's common knowledge, they all confessed it in various ways. I can prove that the U.S. air defense did not follow its own standard operating procedures, was in the middle of certain wargames, and has since produced a series of mutually contradictory timelines (=people are lying about what happened).

--

Both of us can come with plausible remote control scenarios, plane-swapping or home run, but can't prove them in the absence of subpoena power. There's the difference.

And again: home run is simpler. That's why I prefer it. But this is an academic debate.

[Woody Box]

34. Evidence

A successful "home run" attack would leave no evidence.

I agree, and this is one of the main advantages of the plan swap scenario: it has to leave evidence, and it HAS left evidence. And I don't mean "physical evidence". I mean evidence each journalist would lick his fingers for:

A mysterious duplicated flight 11 in Boston:

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=629

A mysterious duplicated flight Delta 1989 in Cleveland, leaving 200 passengers unaccounted for:

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=385

The so-called "phantom" flight 11 which survived the North Tower Crash
- see this forum

A (duplicated?) flight 93 observed by controllers of Washington ARTCC despite the fact that it never crossed their domain, according to the official story:

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=858

All this stuff is well documented and can best be explained by an element of plane swap. And that's not all. A "home run" scenario is far, far away from achieving this amount of evidence.

And a plane swap works well with the wargames, too. I'll show that.

[Kevin Fenton]

33. Good pilots

"While I said I believe in remote control, I don't think it can be proven unless there is an investigation that can subpoena and question aggressively. It just seems likelier to me than four successful hijackings and three successful suicide pilots (fresh out of flight school or a failure, in Hanjour's case). Also, it leaves nothing to the patsy, it's safer."
The idea that the pilots were not very good comes from the FBI, who identified the four pilots, said they had minimum pilot training and claimed the others did not. On this point I do not beleive the FBI are right because:
(1) Al Qaeda is a reasonably well run organisation which actually operated its own airline. They would know pilots with the training the FBI claim Atta et al. had could not do the job. Al Qaeda has access to stacks of pilots able to fly those planes.
(2) Some of the hijackers had names the same or similar to alumni of military flying schools in the US. The DoD claim that they were probably different people was incredibly weak and seems to refer only to those hijackers whose names were similar, not the same.
(3) A man named Mansour Khaled was originally reported to be one of the hijackers on American 77, but his name was later removed from the manifest altogether. Atta lived with an Atif bin Mansour for a year in Hamburg, and seems to have linked up with him later as well. AbM was a flight lieutenant with the Pakistani Air Force. IMO it's the same person.
(4) Hopsicker thinks Atta was a better pilot than the FBI let on and refers to his girlfirend's testimony on this point.
(5) PT's timeline contains various references to suicide pilots training in Afghanistan for a mission in the west.
(6) The botched FBI investigation in Saudi looked into pilots there. If the actual pilots were only trained in the US, why was the FBI investigating pilots in Saudi?

I think the idea that the pilots were good, but the FBI is covering this up so as not to embarass Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is significantly more probable than remote control or plane-swapping. Obviously, good pilots do not exclude the possibility of remote control or plane-swapping, but they do make it kind of unnecessary.

[Old and In the Way]

35. I gotta assume that all people perished in your plane-swapping scenario..

right? Because you can't very well have anyone alive that were on any of those 4 flights that day.

That scenario is still a lot more complicating with some risk of exposure with unplanned landings and passenger transfers.

Electronically hijacking the planes could be done relatively easy with a relatively small group of people aware of the real plan.

What I want to know....were any/all of those 4 flights part of the Vigilant Guardian hijacking exercise?

* You had pilots involved that were involved in simulation planning (Burlingame).
* You had Raytheon program managers/engineers who were involved with RC systems (Global Hawk?).

Maybe RC flying was part of the exercise. Have a simulated terrorist event and test out the RC systems ability to take over and land flights with incapacitated pilots. That would explain the Raytheon employee's being on the flights (observer's and technical support). Maybe the C-130 was the control platform. You could even have recruited some or all of the "hi-jackers" to play "hi-jackers", to add realism. How about Levine....could he have been recruited to play air marshall? If there were simulated hi-jackings, wouldn't simulated calls be made from the planes?

The most important question I'd like answered is one that can be answered....were those 4 planes part of the exercise? Why wasn't that question asked during the 9/11 Commission hearings?

[stickdog]

25. You mean like Oswald was a "suicide" assassin?

Patsies are patsies.

Next.

[philb]

36. opinion of most independent experts/pilots is Arabs weren't flying planes

that they didn't have enough expertise and training to accomplish the missions,

that they couldn't have been successful in getting in 4 locked cockpits of pilots in contact with stewards without any of the pilots or co-pilots punching a hijack button,

the pilots had prior warnings of such events from FAA and had the ability to put the plane through so many Gs in such a short time the hijackers couldn't have stood up.

After the first 2 hijackings, Pilots and stewards were aware of this.
So there could have been no surprise on the 2nd 2 jets.

Col. de Grand-Pres large group of pilots(synosium on 9/11) and several other pilots are on record and all agree with this.

They all concluded that the planes that hit buildings were flown by remote control.

[leftofthedial]

37. 9-11 hijackers weren't suicide bombers

all that was necessary was to get them on board the planes

(or at least their passports and some DNA)