Seven Acts for the Quisling

An Executive Summary of the Attacks on the United States beginning 11 September, 2001

I see Water, I see Buildings, Oh my God, Something’s Wrong

Boston Logan International Airport


By the methods introduced herein, including the application of best-fit analysis and probability theory, I conclude with a confidence of 95% with a margin of +-5%, that the narrative that follows is an accurate narrative of the events leading to, and of, 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks. This investigation is the first to examine computer network traffic at the WTC complex during the attacks and is the first inquiry to seriously examine how the phone calls of 9/11 can be adequately explained. Because it conflicts in almost every manner with the orthodox understanding of these events, I proffer here to deliver extraordinary evidence for what may be intrepeted by some as extraorindary findings. In sum, 9/11 was an inside job. I shall explain in this study exactly what I mean by that phrase.

The keys to the Kingdom of Truth in the 9/11 saga lay in the movement and disposition of the aircraft of 9/11. But more specifically and importantly, the key to “solving” the 9/11 enigma lies in the identity, role and disposition of the passengers of those planes. This is because, if we assume any alternative narrative to the events of 9/11, then we must explain what became of those passengers, why we haven’t heard from them since (if they’re still alive), whether and how we know if they really existed, who are their families and what was their role, what was their role if not “just” passengers and why they have not exposed the truth themselves (if they’re still alive). Until an alternative narrative includes this explanation in a viable, verifiable and rational way it will always lie in the fringe world of dubious conspiracy theory.

I am going to make a remarkable claim here by which an alternative narrative follows. Therefore, I will point out that should the reader suspend judgement I will in this space provide remarkable evidence to support that claim. The claim is simple and need not imply anything by itself. Commercial aircraft belonging to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were surreptitiously substituted for Commercial aircraft belonging to two airlines, United and American Airlines, a few days before 9/11. Just prior to the attacks the original planes were substituted back into the fleet from which they came. I will now discuss and expose the remarkable evidence for that statement.

The events of 9/11 constituted a Grand Play divided into seven distinct Acts, each with its own parts. And we can recall them as clearly as if they happened yesterday: Flight 93, Flight 175, Flight 11, Flight 77, the Pentagon, WTC 1 and WTC 2. The Actors in this Play were truly talented students of Art. To explain what we mean I’ll start with the aircraft generally, then discuss each one and the role it and its occupants played.

Commercial aircraft use what are called transponders to provide basic information about the aircraft to anyone capable of receiving it by the appropriate electronic means, that almost always being Air Traffic Controllers (ATC). One particular type of transponder is called ACARS, a communication network which Airlines use to pass basic information to and from ATC and Airline employees to and from aircraft while on the ground and in the air. Each Airline controls the particular data structure of their messages and can, if they choose, encrypt them. United Airlines had a special feature of their ACARS system unique to United Airlines and that supposedly only the FBI knew about. It was a scheme designed to prevent precisely what happened on 9/11, plane substitution. Notice I did not say plane duplication, or just remotely piloted planes with no “normal” planes as presumptively existed on 9/11. I’m talking about genuine substitution. And the feature United Airlines used was strong, asymmetric encryption, something no other Airline at that time had implemented.

In the case of American Airlines planes were substituted in the days before September 11 and substituted again, in reverse, just before September 11. This served to introduce twin aircarft of a foreign origin for a period of a few days before 9/11 and thus reinsert the authentic aircraft back into the American Airlines fleet just before the morning of September 11. This served two purposes: 1) it allowed the authentic plane to be removed from its route so that it could be modified under the control of the perpetrators and 2) it allowed the route to continue as usual without anyone noticing the switch, including operating the FDR on the substitute to generate real FDR data for the authentic plane (whose installed FDR would suspiciously show no flying during its route period). In the case of United Airlines the same thing was done, however, the plane substitution continued into 9/11 with both the authentic and the substitute taking off together from BOS and EWR. The purpose of these extra aircraft was to insert a suitable means of transportation into the flight path of the authentic aircraft for passengers to be removed from public scrutiny. Debarking by landing would result in considerable risk of exposure. And simply sending up any aircraft would not suffice since any radar data sets showing their presence would constitute evidentiary material and would expose the mission. The only way to get the “get away car” to the passengers was to “shadow” them and masquerade as them on 9/11. Picking them up mid-air is the trick exposed in this article and the method by which the perpetrators turned passenger planes into weapons.

Another key difference between the airlines was that United Airlines added to their ACARS system an airline-specific code used in all outgoing messages to uniquely identify the airplane. Because it was strong encryption based, it could not be thwarted, or so they thought. No one considered the possibility that someone might physically swap the ACARS boxes themselves. This was a critical erroneous weak link in their system. The perpetrators were all over it.

As a result, United Airlines aircraft used in the 9/11 attacks left behind curious Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data that allowed me to reconstruct their movement. I am simply assuming based on this pattern that the same general plan was applied to American Airlines aircraft used on 9/11, even though they do not leave this curious BTS shadow of their true movements. We shall see, however, that they do leave behind other clues indicating that a similar pattern was followed with them as was used with United Airlines aircraft. I note that there appears to be no evidence that American Airlines planes were substituted on 9/11, but considerable evidence that substitution occurred in the days leading up to 9/11.

Let the authentic aircraft that would serve for flight 175 on September 11, 2001 and which was operated by United Airlines be denoted N612UAYYa whenever that plane was operating as expected and without attempting to impersonate (masquerade as) another aircraft.

N612UAYYa servicing United Airlines Flight 175 on September 11, 2001 taken on 28 April, 2001 at JFK (John Fitzgerald Kennedy International Airport).

Now, let that same aircraft be designated N612UAYYc whenever it impersonates – masquerades as – any other airplane.

Next, let there be a separate and distinct plane designated N612UAMXa which is purpose built and/or modified to cosmetically appear identical to N612UAYYa. Let this plane, N612UAMXa be a plane modified by the clandestine services of a nation-state. Modification or alteration of these aircraft would include but not be limited to: changes to allow a staged hijacking by utilizing a phone bridge (to be described), modifications for performance and modifications to allow in-flight personnel transfers (by a means that the clandestine services were known to be using in 2001) or modification allowing the planes to engage in aggressive maneuvering such as rapid descent and ascent as well as improved short takeoff and landing ability.

Let a highly compartmentalized, sensitive clandestine operation be planned whose program is to “attack” targets in New York City and Washington, D.C. by flying aircraft into them. In order to impute realism into this plan let the Planners decide that only the authentic aircraft, such as N612UAYYa, shall actually be used in the attack itself. This is so that investigators and first responders sifting the crime scene will positively associate wreckage with the unique plane; as opposed to some substitute previously inhered in the fleet by the real perpetrators. I point out that each plane has hundreds of components for which unique identifcation and association might be possible and the perpetrators might have no access to the wreckage afterward. This implies that at least two goals (1 and 2)must be met to ensure a high degree of realism:

  1. Any aircraft such as N612UAYYa will require modification to allow it to be flown into its target without requiring a suicidal pilot.
  2. In order to achieve “1”, any aircraft such as N612UAYYa must be surreptitiously rotated out of the Airliner’s fleet long enough to allow the aircraft to be modified for that purpose. It must be “boosted” (stolen) for a limited time since a “black bag” operation would be too elaborate and risky (because of their high value, aircraft such as these are almost always either in a shop or airborne, making access very difficult). And it must be boosted in such a manner that no one outside the operation notices that fact.
  3. In order to achieve “2” with realism, the normal, scheduled route of any plane such as N612UAYYa scheduled during the time it is boosted must be flown by some very similar aircraft to generate realistic FDR data to plant back into N612UAYYa just before it is crashed (recalling that ATC radar data could be compared to FDR data and there can be no discrepancy, however small. Otherwise, any discrepancy found between any radar data set and the FDR would be a smoking gun).
  4. The most obvious way to achieve this is to do a full plane substitution over the period of time FDR data is recorded; about 24 hours, or more if modifications take longer, allowing the perpetrators unfettered access to the boosted airplane, like N612UAYYa, and to allow real FDR data to compile.

The Boeing 757 Passenger Aircraft corresponding to N591UAYYa (Boeing 757–222 1996) and N5BPAAYYa (Boeing 757-223 1991)

Aircraft identities are thus “spoofed” (faked) in order to allow this substitution. In the case of N612UAYYa, it began on September 8, 2001, at Boston Logan International airport (BOS) when two planes, N612UAYYa and N612UAMXa both landed within about thirty minutes of each other (see BTS data set). When N612UAYYa arrived at BOS it landed and “pretended” to proceed to its designated passenger gate, which I’ll designate Gy. In reality, it taxied to Gx, a gate that had been assigned to the chartered plane, N612UAMXa. Fare-paying passengers debarked there with no knowledge of anything out of the ordinary, primarily because they were debarking and didn’t need gate information. During this same thirty minute time frame, N612UAMXa landed at BOS and pretended to proceed to its designated gate, Gx. Instead, it proceeded to Gy. This was possible in 2001 because BOS had a “blind spot” on the ground near the fork between passenger and cargo terminal taxi paths. That has since been closed using advanced ground radar systems (see the spreadsheet available on this website).

N612UAMXa took on passengers at Gy who were presumably boarding N612UAYYa. When N612UAMXa taxied out for takeoff its ACARS box was still squawking N612UAMXa since there was not enough time nor would it be practical to swap the ACARS boxes in that narrow time frame at a public airport. Thus, it departed faithfully as N612UAMXa. This is why BTS data shows that N612UAYYa never departed. It didn’t, strictly speaking (N612UAYYc did).

At gate Gx, N612UAYYa took on “stooge” passengers who were assets of the clandestine services and used to give the appearance of a normal charter plane boarding to any observers at the airport. N612UAYYa departed gate Gx by taxiing and identifying itself to ATC as N612UAMXa, thus becoming designated for our purposes as N612UAYYc. This it could do because it now could squawk with virtually any Airline identify other than United Airlines (the only airline using coded ACARS data). While tedious, one could disable the ACARS box at any of the four “automatic” reporting points, then using a spoofed ACARS box (but matching the airline to which N612UAMXa identified with when it arrived earlier) at all other times. This would be necessary in the initial substitution because the United Airlines box hasn’t yet been duplicated at that point. Even so, because it was now a charter aircraft, it didn’t’ have to report BTS data (by existing statute and regulations at that time). N612UAYYc then flew to an undisclosed location (possibly PEMCO, AL) where it was modified for flight using a system similar to what was called JPALS. The actual system employed was a system developed at DARPA this author worked on, a search-match-instantiate autonomous piloting system which, at that time, was not capable of taking off and landing at an airport but could fly a plane through the air (a plane of this kind). This was combined with JPALS technology to allow this system to fly an airplane into a solid, stationary ground object. Note that BTS data also shows that its planned destination, LAX, was never achieved. That is because that flight was serviced by UA612UAMXc. This is, strictly speaking, true. N612UAYYa never flew to LAX that day.

Though it has been often cited as a possibility on 9/11; the remote control of 757 and 767 class aircraft was a limited technology during the time of 9/11. After considerable research I conclude that the ability to provide the precision required to hit the 9/11 targets could have been achieved using early versions (or black prototypes) of Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) or its (almost identical) military analogue the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS). Neither of these systems enable remote control of an aircraft, or even autonomous landings, they merely provide the precision landing required for remote piloting into a relatively small target when a human who can do that is not present. Additionally, Autonomous Landing Systems (ALS) could have been developed with sufficient maturity to be used on 9/11 but would have received some of this development in black funding projects. There has been some confusion in the 9/11 folklore about this and one should not confuse these various capabilities. Precision landing is not autonomous or remote piloting, and vice versa. My own research has concluded that real-time updating of the existing auto-pilot systems of these aircraft could have been relatively easily developed with black funding and would not constitute a “technology barrier or limitation”. Simply “hot-wring” a processor into the existing autopilot computer system so that one can electronically update the auto-pilots information instead of having to do it manually with knobs and buttons is not a hurdle. This, in turn, could have been connected to radio equipment for uplinks of flight paths or provided from system non-volatile memory. Ergo, I concluded that if any novel flying occurred that day it would almost certainly have required a hybrid approach in which a human being flew the aircraft from tarmac to take-off to cruise altitude and then to a final altitude “regime” where the automatic autopilot updating would begin. From that point on the plane becomes an autonomous aircraft essentially flying itself. On a simple route and if collisions are of no concern (as in a hijacking where aircraft are kindly moved away from you) VFR type flying and asynchronous pilot inputs are not necessary, greatly simplifying the autonomous flight system and placing it within the technological limits of autonomous flight at the time of 9/11. In the terminal phase it would make its last dynamic auto-pilot change (a final turn and maneuver) then switch to a JPALS guided approach by obtaining a radio lock from transmitters on the ground. A salient observation here is that such a hybrid system would indeed require a crew and if not a suicidal mission, would necessarily imply that a considerable modification of the aircraft was performed. These changes would necessarily include modifications to allow the plane to:

1.)    Reduce altitude to between 1 and 4 thousand feet using avionics for low altitude flight in uneven topographies including a possible onboard radar system upgrade,

2.)    Slow to just above stall speed (and with potential modifications to reduce the safe stall speed) and

3.)    A rear exit and jumpmaster station to enable static line jumps.

4.)    Modifications to use an inflight personnel transfer vessel lowered and raised by winch and cable and patented at the U.S. Patent Office prior to 9/11. There are indications that this patent was used by the clandestine services in 2001.

As regards item 4, the text that follows assumes that is the method employed. I must leave open the distinct possibility that the three private airports we will be discussing in this summary could have serviced the aircraft that transferred passengers. In order to be serviced by such limited runways, these aircraft would, rather than being modified for inflight transfer, need to be modified for rapid descent and ascent, higher cruise speeds, short takeoff and landing capability, strengthened landing gear, precision approach and landing (like JPALS), arrestor compliance, etc. As we can see, some of these modifications would be consistent with the very behavior observed of the aircraft on 9/11.

The Boeing 767 Passenger aircraft corresponding to N612UAYYa (Boeing 767-222ER 1983) and N334AAYYa (Boeing 767-223ER 1987)

Note that as of 2007 the U.S. military was still claiming that JPALS was in early phase development despite the publicized test by Raytheon back in 2001. My suspicion is that another company was pursuing the same technology at that time and the program was classified, which would explain the statement as well as the leak by Raytheon.

After JPALS modifications that began on September 8th were complete, the original aircraft, N612UAYYa , had to be “returned” to United Airlines and reinserted into its fleet. This occurred, according to BTS data, on September 10, 2001, N612UAYYa, departing JFK and landing at SFO, both takeoff and landing being recorded by BTS as a takeoff and landing of N612UAYYa. The period of time between the flights of September 8 and September 10 was used to accrue FDR data directly from a scheduled set of flights for N612UAYYa using N612UAMXa instead. This is evident in the BTS data which shows no coded UA transponder wheels on or wheels off times for any flights in between. Thus, in the case of UAL flight 175 N612UAMXa was not able to faithfully spoof N612UAYYa fully because the perpetrators did not, for whatever reason, physically transfer the ACARS box from N612UAYYa to N612UAMXa. Having said that, before the flight of September 10 began, the FDR from N612UAMXa was removed and placed in N612UAYYa. The flight history of N612UAYYa was now given the appearance intended by the history of N612UAMXa . It has been reported that Steve Miller of US Airways claimed to be behind the second UA 175 when they departed BOS the morning of September 11, 2001. Because the first UA 175 has been officially identified as the correct one, this would constitute eyewitness testimony to the existence of two planes. Having said that, I have not had the opportunity to track down Steve Miller. I note the possibility that the 9/11 morning substitution could have been performed by some aircraft other than N612UAMXc. Whatever plane was employed, it was fully squawking Flight 175 on the morning of September 11 alongside N612UAYYc.

A similar pattern in the BTS data appears for UAL flight 93, with one significant difference. There were a total of 265 souls involved as air travelers on 9/11. Combining all the BTS and ACARS data, I will show that it is very likely that all passengers and crew involved in 9/11 whose security clearance placed them in the more secure group were transferred from any combination of aircraft N612UAYYc, N5BPAAYYc, N334AAYYc and N591UAYYc to N591UAMXc; their count being 65, while all passengers and crew involved in 9/11 whose security clearance placed them in the less secure group were transferred from any combination of aircraft N612UAYYc, N5BPAAYYc, N334AAYYc and N591UAYYc to N612UAMXc; their count being 200. It is further very likely that N591UAMXc landed at Nemacolin airfield while N612UAMXc landed at Cleveland, OH.

N591UAYYa servicing United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001 taken on 8 September, 2001 at EWR (Newark International Airport)

But the key difference between the American Airlines planes and N612UAYYa (UAL flight 175) and N591UAYYa (UAL flight 93) was that it appears that N591UAYYa was the only one of four “flights” not intended to be flown in any precise, remote or autonomous manner. This we conclude independently of what is now known about flight 93. The BTS data implies that, if substitution is the reason why we are seeing that BTS data, and it seems to be the only viable explanation for that data, then flight 93 arrived at EWR under a different identity with no substitute in its stead. Rather than showing both a non-departure and a non-arrival, as was the case with N612UAYYa, N591UAYYa shows only one non-arrival. While searching for any logical explanation to explain this data, the only conclusion appears to be that N591UAYYa landed at EWR (Newark International Airport) on September 10, 2001 with its ACARS disabled with no apparent plane substitution occurring before that.

The only way to do this without being an outlier (the BTS data shows no such similar activity for other aircraft) is if N591UAYYa masqueraded as a charter aircraft and did not actually divert, since a search for N591UAYYa at any U.S. airport proved fruitless. The reason for this would be to allow N591UAYYa to divert to a charter gate and thence rotate out of the fleet. This then would clear the way for a plane arriving at the next previous hop ORD (O’Hare International Airport) as a charter, N591UAMXa, to take off as such and substittute itself for N591UAYYa mid-air. Then N591UAMXa would become N591UAMXc and land at EWR without the coded ACARS which is at that very time flying on N591UAYYc. Therefore, it arrives squawking as the charter that it is, then masquerades on the ground as N591UAYYa. So the mid-air substitution is complete save for the ACARS data, which can’t be substituted at that point. And this is the only viable way BTS gets the non-arrival of N591UAYYa which then departs a few hours later from the same airport that BTS said the same plane never reached.

N591UAYYa was scheduled to land at EWR at 1:34 p.m. local time (and did so with its ACARS box disabled and masquerading as N591UAMXa, thus becoming N591UAYYc, a charter aircraft) and to depart for SFO at 2:30 p.m. that same day. The plane that departed was actually N591UAMXc. Thus, on September 11, 2001, N591UAYYa, which had been in in modification for over 24 hours, masqueraded as N591UAMXa, thus becoming N591UAYYc, and was taxied out to cross paths with a landing aircraft, N591UAMXc, that was servicing the route for N591UAYYa. Finally, in order to swap FDRs, both aircraft were likely gated at a charter gate. Therefore, the key to figuring out what was special about flight 93 lies in the realization that whatever “modification” occurred, it had more to do with sophisticated electronics and software and, possibly, performing minor modifications in a hangar. I believe this points to flight 93 as being the unique aircraft of the four in that it was being used as an electronic “warfare” platform. I will later identify this “platform” as a sophisticated phone bridging system. We will find further corroboration of this in the words of a former football star who was on a charter plane at EWR the morning of 9/11. He said that a stewardess later told him that the plane next to them at the gate was “Flight 93”. And he said they were loading from the tarmac, not a sky bridge (typical in chartered flights but not regular, scheduled flights). This makes sense if the charter gates were located together and they were seeing N591UAYYc. Also, one airline employee fueling “Flight 93” reported a crewmember in the co-pilot seat grossly inconsistent with the appearance of the “true” co-pilot of “Flight 93”. This may be because the “true” co-pilot was on another plane because the witness had boarded N591UAMXc, which was merely masquerading as N591UAYYa, that is, the “real Flight 93”.

N5BPAAYYa servicing Flight 77 from IAD (Dulles International Airport) on September 11, 2001 at BOS (Boston Logan International Airport) on 7 August, 2001.

There is no similar, compelling evidence of plane substitution with American Airlines aircraft on 9/11 itself, those being N334AAYYa and N5BPAAYYa as appeared to be the case for the United Airlines aircraft: in both of the United Airlines flights there appear to be pairs of aircraft departing for each aircraft known to be used on 9/11; all departing the morning of September 11, 2001 and each pair departing once again within about 30 minutes of each other.

It is important to stress that these dual takeoffs of both N612UAxxq and N591UAxxq combined with United’s encryption-based ACARS messages are the key that brought the 9/11 house down: BTS recorded the very same plane taking off twice within minutes of “each other” because the unique United Airlines ACARS system would only squawk, and would always squawk, its true identity, even if you were masquerading as another aircraft. And this, by definition, is substitution (even if imperfectly effected) if the purpose is to conceal the movement of one of the aircraft.

At this point we need to clarify something about ACARS that has caused a lot of confusion in other research. There are two classes of ACARS data and they are communicated to the ground two different ways. First, there is a data set that includes the “wheels on”, “wheels off”, “at the gate” and “leaving the gate”. The ACARS unit on the plane automatically sends this data to the ground based ACARS network when any of these key events occur, sending the time of the event as well as several other key data. Therefore, for this data set to be sent to the Airline does not require that the aircraft be “illuminated” by radar (or that it be “seen by radar”).

The other data set is the kind that gets sent to the ground ACARS network only when its antenna is illuminated by radar. This happens more or less asynchronously either in the air when illuminated by ATC radar or on the ground (especially since 9/11) when illuminated by ground radar. Therefore, one can “disable” an ACARS unit by preventing it from squawking, say, at a critical point of the first data set. But the crew will need to re-enable it right after if they have no other ACARS unit available because if they are painted by radar and do not respond, they will be treated as a suspect or even belligerent aircraft. This is what is meant when people say that United Airlines ACARS boxes must squawk and squawk authentically.

With American Airlines aircraft one could simply disable the existing ACARS and substitute your own pretty much immediately on gaining access to the aircraft and squawk using a completely fabricated plane id if you like. There was no encryption of the data sent back so that any ACARS box would do. But with United Airlines the data sets were encrypted using a key stored inside the box. That key had to obtained if you wanted a second aircraft to also be able to squawk as that flight. Of course, if you want to keep from squawking at the wrong time or place, you would have to disable, then re-enable the same or a different ACARS box. We see this occurring on N591UAYYc (Flight 93) near Stony Creek just before it crashed when the pilot “power cycles” the cockpit, meaning that he or she turned the power off then back on in order to switch from one ACARS box to another. This should be expected any time a formation of aircraft are entering or exiting a shadow maneuver. In the case of Flight 93, N591UAMXc was initially flying as (recalling that no sign of it being involved in the 9/11 attacks would come until 9:35) Flight 93. But N591UAYYc flying in formation with it needed to exit shadow and become Flight 93 in order to fulfill the final event (crash). Therefore, N591UAYYc power cycled and became N591UAYYa, Flight 93, and thus also allowing N591UAMXa to become N591UAMXc; that is, a charter plane. Though it would still squawk as N591UAYYa when painted, N591UAMXc flew as a charter and then landed at Nemacolin airfield.

In order to masquerade as NXXXUAYYa, NXXXUAMXc had to squawk using a duplicated ACARS box. Vice versa, in order for NXXXUAYYc to masquerade as NXXXUAMXa a duplicate ACARS box must be used. Because of this unique United Airlines encryption system there was no choice but to duplicate ACARS boxes for each plane masqueraded as another United Airlines plane. The “wheels off” and “wheels on” times are just two parameters recorded by ACARS to the airline (the airline holds the data typically for about a month, then by law must faithfully report that data to BTS. But they are not required to report all ACARS data). Therefore, I hypothesize that if we had access to the United Airlines data itself, we would find that United Airlines has two copies of data for both N612UAYYa and N591UAYYa, totaling four sets of data, data sets that include numerous pieces of valuable information, such as position, speed, altitude, etc. This information was almost certainly sealed up by USG right after 9/11. The “automatic data” wheels off times, wheels on, at gate and left gate given to BTS, as United Airlines was required to do by law, are the only bits of ACARS data that are still complete and available in the public domain.

In the case of American Airlines planes, this problem was vastly simpler. With these ACARS boxes one could masquerade as any American Airlines plane, including one that doesn’t even exist. Of course, this begs the question, why did the perpetrators not use American Airlines exclusively for the substitutions that actually occured on September 11, 2001 (American Airlines aircraft were only substituted prior to 9/11 in order to generate valid FDR data while the original plane was being modified with autonomous, JPALS type avionics)? I think the answer lies in the relationship between the airlines and the clandestine services involved: in all likelihood the clandestine services had better access and infiltration of the United Airlines organization than they did American Airlines. Most notably, I’m thinking of the pilots themselves. But they might not have had more than two pilots at United Airlines.The pilots flying N334AAYYa and N5BPAAYYa could have been fairly low-level assets who would only need to see a plane that looked exactly like what they were used to, save maybe for a static line modification. They could have been static line dropped over Delaware Gap National Wildlife Recreation Area after (or before if they dared use autopilot) the rest of their crew and passengers were inflight transferred to another aircraft. This greatly limited the knowledge of the mission they required to fulfill their role. The pilots flying N612UAYYa and N591UAYYa were charter pilots who need not work for United Airlines but could have been sourced from anywhere. But the pilots flying N612UAMXa and N591UAMXa needed to be United Airlines pilots and they would need to know quite a bit about the operation, including the fact that they would be masquerading as charter aircraft and flying in close formation with them. This would be impossible to conceal from them and they required substantial mission knowledge to fulfill their role. I suspect this entire arrangement of aircraft was dictated by the clandestine services relationship to the airlines.

All of these observations regarding the differences between United and American Airlines vis-a-vis ACARS leads us ineluctably to a conclusion that might not at first be evident: the very fact that we have this kind of BTS data (non-arrivals and non-departures) for United Airlines and not for the two American Airlines aircraft known to be involved, coupled with the fact that United Airlines ACARS messages are the only ones that will create that kind of BTS data, provides a compelling argument that the BTS data we are seeing represents genuine historical fact and is not an anomaly or error. And this is in addition to the thousands upon thousands of takeoffs and landings in the BTS database that do not display these kinds of anomalies. They appear unique to the 9/11 United Airlines aircraft. This is yet another damning nail in the coffin of the official account.

So, this strong coupling in time of the “same” airplane suggests that inflight shadowing was occurring and that planes, as we’ve already discussed, were masquerading as each other. The difference on 9/11, however, was that the masquerading was initiated not just on the ground but inflight as well. BTS data shows two different times for wheels off for each presumptive United Airlines flight that departed the morning of 9/11. This follows logically if planes were substituted: if we substitute one plane for the other, clearly one of them is the weapon and the other is the get-away car that accounts for all the claimed passengers (failure to pick up these passengers at the airports would immediately raise suspicion and bring down the whole operation). Indeed, the inflight shadowing was so intense we shall see that it amounted to aerial acrobatics taught by a pro who owned a private airfield near New Windsor called Kalko Field outside Honesdale, PA that was large enough to handle these aircraft types (Boeing 757 and Boeing 767). Having said that, I believe the purpose of these airports was to service large electronic warfare aircraft of an unknown type, not the actual 9/11 aircraft (except for the case of N591UAMXc landing at Nemacolin). There are only a handful of airports in the United States that meet these criteria. All of them on the Eastern side of the United States happened to be located at critical turning points in the flight paths of all 9/11 aircraft. Not only that, but airports used in this manner would need to be remote and away from large populations. Ideally they would have public lands, such as National Forests, adjacent to them to provide an approach for aircraft that would reduce the noise reaching the public. This is exactly what we see in all three airports. We shall engage this in more detail later. The owner of Kalko airfield, Charles Kalko, died at his home shortly after 9/11 and his widow was a research scientist specializing in how national medical institutions and resources can respond to outbreaks of deadly biological agents such as anthrax. She now owns the airfield.

The private airstrip known as Kalko Field near Honesdale, PA.

Curiously, and eerily, on 9/11 operators for United Airlines began getting properly coded ACARS messages from an airplane not far from Camp David flying at low altitude and moving very fast. But this was the ACARS box for UA11 which had hit the WTC some nine minutes before then. This is because of plane substitution. We shall see shortly why this plane was where it was.

There is a pattern of ACARS data for 9/11 aircraft being received in duplicate, showing that two airplanes masquerading as one were airborne at the same time. Flight 175 was tracked by ACARS all the way across PA and on to Canton, OH when it supposedly crashed much earlier into WTC 2 at 9:03 on September 11, 2001. Given that this was coded with strong encryption, this is clearly due to aircraft substitution by a sophisticated operator.

N591UAYYa weirdness; how to run an airborne phone bridge platform

United Airlines Flight 93 suffered a high speed, rapid decompression at approximately 10:02:45 a.m. EDT due to either structural fatigue or pre-placed charges.  A considerable mass of material was evacuated from the aircraft and dispersed over the ground below as it continued to fly for about another 3 minutes. That there were large amounts of the evacuated material having being blackened with heat damage is indicative of the aircraft having been “holed” with explosives. An examination of human remains also evacuated would have likely revealed signs of preservation. This plane was piloted under a combination of human and programmatic guidance. It is more likely than not that this aircraft served as an airborne phone bridging system for placing calls from Actors on other airborne aircraft or in some other location to friends and family. The callers on each aircraft were under the genuine impression that they were cooperating in a mock “hijacking”. They were not aware of any intent to crash the airplanes. All of the official 9/11 aircraft narratives exhibit overt indications of a time shift to the past of 2 to 3 minutes. This was due to the nature of the software used to compress or remove “dead space” in conversations that resulted in long, unnatural lags between callers. When N591UAYYc crashed it was being remotely flown, probably from a pilot station in another aircraft similar in type and role as the one used for Flight 7112 over the Appalachian Trail and down to Raven Rock. This aircraft was serviced out of Nemacolin airfield in the immediate vicinity of the crash site, a private airfield capable of handling commercial aircraft of that size, being one of only a handful of such airports in the United States, and owned by a billionaire who was a lifelong, close friend of Tom Ridge, the Governor of PA who became the first director of the Department of Homeland Security.  The amusement park located on the same property as Nemacolin airfield was closed that day for unknown reasons (before the attacks began). The nearest alternative airport, near Johnstown, PA, the Cambria County Airport, was not equipped with radar and the Cleveland Center had a look-down in that area not much less than 4000 feet.

Nemacolin airfield, part of a woodland amusement park – what is in reality a rich man’s luxury retreat – owned and operated by a billionaire who was childhood and close friend of Governor Tom Ridge of PA, the first Director of Homeland Security.

Speculation regarding whether or not presumptive Flight 93 was intercepted by armed aircraft has continued to the present. My own investigation concluded that there is no evidence of any such interception. As stated, the aircraft seen by witnesses at the impact site was most likely the aircraft serviced by Nemacolin airfield whose role was similar to that of Flight 7112, which is to provide EW assistance. I believe, based on the plurality of eyewitness accounts, that this aircraft was in fact in the area before the impact of 10:06:05. Another report suggesting that a sonic boom was recorded at 9:22 a.m. by a seismographic station in south-central PA (station SSPA at 40.6401N -77.8914W) also appears to be without merit. The initial analysis was found to be faulted and subsequent academic and expert opinion concluded that what was picked up was not a sonic boom. Mr. Magley, the person who initially discovered what he thought was a sonic boom, subsequently agreed with the findings of the others. The behavior of the aircraft in the last few minutes of flight can be expected if the right kind and amount of pre-placed explosive is placed properly. My own observation is that the amount of explosives used was far more than what was necessary to destroy the aircraft. In the same kind of overkill we see at the WTC buildings for “pre-events”, the same thing appears to have occured with presumptive Flight 93. The reason for this pattern is unknown.

The Great Phone Con

Most flight phone calls, and each aircraft’s callers as a whole, shared similar patterns of group-think, scripted and predetermined behavior.  By employing the techniques described at the end of this section, these callers give the appearance of being Actors under the direction of Controllers who likewise pre-texted the Actors in order to conceal from them their role in the events of 9/11.

A simplex phone con

Group Think

Passengers went out of their way to emphasize a small set of common themes not necessarily of any import or significance, while leaving out crucial details that would presumably appear obvious to at least one of them. Common themes that were over stressed were: the hijackers are Arab, they have an accent (are not from “here”), they have a particular, violent disgust for Jews, we were herded to the back of the plane, the hijackers wielded knives – a gruesome instrument, they’ve “slit people’s throats” – very gruesome indeed … and, as far as consistent information, nothing more than that. Yet there were some 25 callers from 4 planes all of whom spent a combined total of 4 or more hours on the phone. As an aside, we note that no firearms were on any of the aircraft. Yet multiple passengers, again, just a few, stated that there were firearms aboard. How could more than one witness make what seems like such an obviously incredulous mistake (most people know when a gun is present in a rumble). Answer: because they weren’t there and went off script. Like any over stressing of group-think, “guns aboard the plane” had the quality of being Histrionic, a key element of propaganda. The callers were selling something. Another of many examples is the ubiquitous conviction that there were exactly 3 hijackers (flight 93) when the official conspiracy narrative tells us there were 4. So, virtually all callers from flight 93 managed to all be consistently wrong. How can that be? Surely one of them, just one, got a glimpse of the invisible hijacker. But they all got it wrong because they weren’t there and the script they read said exactly three. In the real world this doesn’t happen. Someone, at least one person, invariably catches a glimpse in the confined spaces of an airplane of an “Arab” man sporting a red bandana and lunging toward the cockpit, his knife blade glistening in his hand. The mental gymnastics undertaken by the 9/11 Commission to explain this included suggesting that one of the hijackers was in the cockpit “jumpseat” since the flight began, which any pilot will tell you would never happen. Another one was that the hijacker slipped in unnoticed during the melee and confusion. But again, wouldn’t just one passenger or steward notice? How many “Arabs” can you fit in a cockpit anyway? Remember, even before 9/11 virtually every American “had already heard” about that “Ayatollah fucker” (those are not my words – pbuh). One caller even said “Iranian”! Perhaps the hijacker reminded her of Cyrus in a bad movie? Of course, them ee – ron – ees being Shia and all, would be of particular disrepute amongst Muslim haters generally – so the over stressing of group-think is again apparent. I don’t know about you, but I would have a particularly hard time definitively picking out a Persian full blood at the Mall of America by sight alone. Perhaps the witness spoke fluent Farsi? My point is to illustrate the key observation: The term “Iranian” was used for effect, not for accuracy. It is the group-think of a particularly ignorant individual.

Scripted behavior

Whenever a passenger parted from the themes common to all callers, contradictions in statements appeared with virtual ubiquity. This is not natural. Typically, when two or very few people add information to a story that several others have told, some fair proportion of this information will be consistent between the smaller group. This was not true for these callers. Some of the most compelling examples are given by phone conversations that indicated some confusion over what each other was saying. This kind of problem is inevitable in a simplex, hijacked phone call (for you geeks out there, it is kind of like a “man in the middle” attack in a network encryption context). If the loved one asks a question or makes a comment, a sensible response from the caller will require the Agent to repeat everything he or she hears quickly and faithfully. Phone delay times don’t last forever and if a loved one’s question or comment is particularly long or difficult to interpret, mistakes can be made. This occurred on AA11 when one of the stewards was unable to coherently respond to a question, even though she was supremely calm and her senses composed. She responded to all of the shorter questions superbly. Virtually every deviation from the script resulted in contradictions and blatant error. Yet there were no contradictions on script. This is a five engine alarm for anyone experienced in detecting this kind of fraud. Repeated references to “this” being flight 12, not AA11, are indicative of a scripted act that has been rehearsed over and over … for AA12, not AA11. This holds double value as it is a crucial hint that the 9/11 attacks may have originally been planned for another day – or set up as a rolling date. Of course, we all have brain farts and with so many flight numbers and all, one can see how an attendant might make this mistake once in an Earth precession. The problem, however, is that this mistake was made by more than one person on the same flight during the same “hijacking”. This was Pavlovian-like, scripted behavior. We won’t pile on here, but one of the silliest examples was where on UA 93 the myth called “Jarrah” sets his destination (VOR) to Reagan International just before crashing. This is obviously scripted. “Jarrah” wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass about requesting approval from ATC to fly somewhere. The intent was to obscure the real target; something only a clueless Mark would fall for. Oops, too late. The 9/11 commission actually believed (not really) the intent was to request permission to fly to Washington, the city “they” just dive bombed. But, to be fair, they are not alone. On 9/11 this was also how the situation appeared to Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States. Indeed, there was a disproportionately high number of individuals in those “woods that are dark and lovely and deep”, that is,  K Steet, Democrat and Republican mind you, who also fell for this … or did they? If I were President George Bush and I already knew what was going on I’d think that if I took my time before reacting, read a little story to some second graders like Mr. Rogers ‘n shit, and “played it cool” the American people might think, “damn, that man’s on top of this mother fucker. He’s got my vote” (not my words). But, clearly, I’m not the primary exponent of Machiavellian strategy.

Predetermined behavior

Rounding out the suspicious nature of the calls en masse is the salient feature seen in several calls of predetermined behavior. When a person “acts” they sometimes have Freudian slips and add information that someone actually physically on the plane could not know. Examples are above, but include the ominous call from Edward Felt who described physical surroundings that to an occupant of the plane would make absolutely no sense, but might be overlooked by someone who wasn’t there (looking out of a window and watching smoke pour from the plane while he is on his cell phone … locked in the lavatory). Those readers who have not flown often might not know, but on modern commercial jets like the Boeing 757 and 767 there are no lavatories with windows. Other examples include total inconsistency regarding who was on what phone and where they were in the plane. For someone actually present this would not only not be an issue, it would be bizarre to suggest that it might be. But this would indeed be a problem if you are actually not there. And seating arrangements – blatant and clear to anyone actually sitting on the plane – had the hijackers in virtually every seat on the plane. No wonder they succeeded in taking over the passengers – they were the passengers. But again, if one is not there, these kinds of contradictions are inevitable. Another telling exchange occurred when a passenger made a physically impossible claim that would have been obvious and would have required no intellect at all to see but which could readily be averred if you were making it up on the fly and were not actually experiencing the event yourself. This was the call in which a passenger is having a conversation with the authentic pilot after, as she previously informed us, he died. But the producers of this show are not simpletons. The “inside job” of 9/11 is probably the cleverest, most sophisticated and bold con job ever played, not just on an entire country, but the entire world. It is clear they were aware of what can happen if actors talk too much and go off script: the very group think problem they created was a consequence of their desire to limit predetermined and scripted behavior. Rather than focusing on recruiting people with secure backgrounds who can be passively vetted for deniability (ex-military) the perpetrators might have been better served if they had focused more on Hollywood.

The Phone Bridge

Notice that should the bridge, for whatever reason, be lost, two shadow, simplex phone lines can remain open. This is no different than what happens in a conference call when a person leaves the call but others remain. If a call is connected and immediately dropped by the phone switches, such as can happen during a phone system overload, the duration of the call will be 0 even though a full connection exists. This is what likely happened with the Barbara->Ted Olson calls and constitutes a smoking gun indicating that a con of this or a similar kind was employed. Releasing phone records that show a duration of 0 and Ted Olson releasing voice messages from those same zero duration calls was a crucial mistake of the perpetrators. Ted Olson is not a liar. He is what they in the tradecraft call a “useful idiot”; or sometimes an “asynchronous enigma”. Todd Beamer’s call also resulted in these “orphaned” conference call lines, one line remaining open until 10:49 a.m. EDT.

One part of the audio recordings of calls is particularly chilling. Once Ong firmly says “Flight 12” there is a long pregnant pause. The operator tries to regain her attention and says, “And what seat are you in? . . . Ma’am, are you there? . . . “, when Ong doesn’t answer for several seconds. After that last question she quickly snaps back, “yes”.  The male operator then asks again, “what seat are you in?”. Again, Ong drifts off into her own world (perhaps, the relay is not relaying back fast enough?). So, the female operator asks the same question, “what seat are you in?”. Ong, still apparently fixated on her “Flight 12” mistake next says,  “We’re …. just left Boston. We’re up in the air”. This is a classic expression of stage fright caused by messing up your lines.

Was she starting to say “We’re Flight 11”? I think so. This is a dead giveaway. She realized she had messed up and didn’t know what to do. Finally, she tries an indirect way of salvaging her act by stating that they just left Boston, which she knew would suggest that she was talking about Flight 11, not Flight 12, and that she had “really” meant to say Flight 11. Why? Because Flight 11 always departed Boston on its route. Flight 12 always departed LAX on its route. She is caught red-handed lying … or acting, take your pick. Of all the calls made, this one, and this short exchange is, by far, the most chilling as the listener walks away certain this woman is putting on an act. It’s obvious when you hear it. This will play a crucial role in how I understand these Actors, their role and their relationship to the Planners. They were very serious about playing their role, but ultimately believed it was an exercise. Listen to the audio and you will see this point very clearly. She was lying.  Don’t be a mark.

So, all this finally answers the burning question. If 265 people were involved in a ruse of this scale, surely one of them, or one of their family members, would have talked by now? Surely there would be a leak? This is manifestly correct … unless all of the 265 people and their loved ones had no idea that what they were doing had anything at all to do with complicity in 9/11, but rather firmly believed they were participating in a classified clandestine/military exercise that just happened to be occurring on that day, or that the family members truly received a call from their loved ones and their loved ones died (think payoff to start a new life – look at all the passengers and the personal problems they were having just before 9/11). Once we understand how a simplex phone bridge works we realize that the voices can be altered so that recordings of it sound like completely different people. I believe an exercise precisely duplicating what occurred on 9/11 transpired involving the 265 people in aircraft on 9/11 but that they were told that several teams were performing the very same exercise. I believe they were further told that some other team ended up being compromised and that the exercise was converted to a real event by those actors. But, they were told, these miscreants were other actors, operators in the employ of that ephemeral character Osama Bin Laden, not them. Given the classified nature of the exercise, this would be sufficient for the 265 assets to remain silent … unless they happen upon this website. We have a winner.

Then what of the “passengers and crew”?

As alluded above, I believe passengers who were in fact assets in the employ of the clandestine services boarded aircraft at their respective airports as the public narrative suggests. None of them were “Arab” or “Persian terrorists”.  But is there some other artifact that explains some of the weird, unnatural dialogue that seems to occur between callers, some of which cannot be explained by passengers being in a state of shock? Yes, there is. To explain we have to explain the point of simplex phone bridges. The purpose of this setup is to allow the Controllers to run an exercise in which they tell the passengers, the actors, that they will be speaking to other actors who are merely pretending to be, or acting as, their loved ones. In this way the Controllers are totally misinforming the actors in order to compartmentalize and secure the overall mission. If the actors don’t realize that they are talking to their actual loved ones, and if the telco record morphs voices before the sounds reach recorders, the actors will rightly believe that

they were part of an exercise on 9/11, that there were other teams doing the same thing, and that some other team turned bad and actually turned an exercise into a real attack.

Therefore, an agent sitting between the actor and the “loved one”, who is in fact live on the phone, has to repeat what is said by the loved one very quickly and on the fly because the actor cannot hear the loved one because the line is simplex. This must be done this way because simple voice morphing won’t work: if something is said by the loved one that might serve to give away the fact that they are the real loved one, it would jeopardize the mission. The agent must be quick and smart and know how to translate in a way that filters and sterilizes the actual wording on the other end. In the same way, the voices heard by the agent can be morphed so that the agent does not realize he was acting in an actual attack either. No matter how good and practiced the agent is, some errors are inevitable and some phone lag will be apparent. The phone lag is what creates the need for constriction of timelines. While speaking real-time a phone lag isn’t quite so suspicious and doesn’t lend itself to deeper investigation. But once recorded from telco systems by answering machines, 911 recorders, etc. it can be examined in detail. Therefore, the lag created by the agent trying to translate for the actor would be too great in a recording to avoid scrutiny. Thus, software operating directly within the telco system must dynamically “chop” dead space so that recorders on the other end get a more natural flowing conversation. And if the lag is “chopped” on one end of the conversation, it must be chopped on both for it to sound natural. While this can be done, it can’t chop all the dead space or deal with all errors created by long lags. When we understand the phone calls in this context suddenly everything we hear makes perfect sense. I implore the reader to go back and read the recording transcripts and analysis of each call again … it is stunningly clear.

I will digress for a moment to the flight telemetry data in order to get us up to speed, holding off to the next topic on the full explanation of how the phone bridge works. Now, if we follow the movement of the aircraft we see several events that further support plane substitution and ACARS Tom-Foolery. We begin with Flight United Airlines 11.

Flight Telemetry

On 9/11 two aircraft, N612UAYYa (presumptive Flight UA175) and N334AAYYa (presumptive Flight AA11) performed a remarkable aerobatic feat virtually impossible for “hijackers” of two aircraft to perform. Both aircraft departed BOS at different times and flew distinctly different paths. Several minutes later they almost collided in mid-air. In order to coordinate movement of this kind precision and/or communication between aircraft is required.

American Airlines Flight 11 on September 11, 2001 serviced by N334AAYYa taken 8 November, 1999 at BOS (Boston Logan International Airport).

The approximate probability that UA175 and AA11 would make a 2D intersection at the same mission time; given geometry of their flight paths, is about 4%.

The same feat occurs for other aircraft as well. We see the same feat occurring a few minutes later for N612UAYYa  (presumptive Flight United Airlines 93) and N612UAYYa (presumptive Flight UA175) over Sunrise Mountain in the Delaware Gap National Wildlife Recreation Area.

The approximate probability that UA175 and UA93 would make a 2D intersection at the mission same time; given geometry of their flight paths, is about 10%.

The approximate probability that N612UAYYa (presumptive Flight UA175) would experience both outcomes is about 0.4%. The official narrative becomes yet more problematic.

Therefore, it is 99.6% probable that this combined set of flight paths was not selected by chance alone; a damning conclusion.

If our estimates of the overlap of the flight paths over the NJ-PA line are considerably off, this probability reduces to about 98%.

The next question then, is if it was not by chance then is it an outcome that the “hijackers” could have devised? What would be the point?

The answer is, “no” and that “there would be no point”. In order to create this first outcome over New Windsor, New York, flight software would need to calculate the required path and speed of each plane based on precise telemetry data from the other plane. This would have required a real-time communications link between planes which, for the terrorist would be an unlikely capability and would also obviate any need to rendezvous for synchronization or validation of success purposes. The latter objection concerns the only conceivable purpose the terrorists would have for such aerial acrobatics. The only way such a maneuver becomes useful is if you are trying to coordinate the movements of an aircraft and a drone substituted for it. Someone was trying to substitute aircraft and coordinate their movement afterward. We can say this with an extremely high degree of confidence because of the aforementioned probabilities.

To further elucidate the issue of terrorist synchronization of aircraft movement, we first note that while the timing of each collision might be of value to the terrorists, the degree of precision afforded by the rendezvous at New Windsor greatly exceeds anything of practical use to them. If the collisions occur 2, 3 or 4 minutes off schedule it is hard to imagine how this would present a problem for terrorists planning such an attack. The only reason that precision down to ranges of 20 second margins over considerable distances would be required is if you are trying to deceive operators on the ground as to the identity of the aircraft or if you are trying to clandestinely transfer something between the aircraft mid-flight. Since the latter has no conceivable purpose here, only the former makes sense.

The reason why clandestine identity substitutions would require this kind of precision – apart from the obvious fact that they want to remain in shadow – is that operators on the ground are expecting any given flight to follow a specific path. If a flight deviates wildly from that path the ground operators will be suspicious. This means that if you want to substitute or swap identities in-flight the substitution object must meet or “catch-up” that which it intends to substitute wherever it happens to be at any given time. The substitution object is beholden to the schedule of the object it seeks to replace. And substitution requires close physical proximity to conceal the swap from radar and other electronic communications, such as radio propagations from either of the aircraft. Generally, this means the objects being swapped must be within 500 meters of each other. The substitution object must therefore locate itself within 500 meters of the object it seeks to substitute within an elapsed time interval no more than about 20 seconds. This requires considerable precision in movement. Adding to the complexity of such an operation is the fact that the substitution object must also present as a legitimate aircraft to ground operators before and after it rendezvous’ with another aircraft.

But there is a yet far more important reason why error margins of +- 20 seconds might be needed on a mission like this but utterly useless to a “terrorist”. As we shall soon see, the phone scripts employed in this operation placed a strong demand on the precision of the time of target contact; precisely because the Actors were not actually the terrorists they were pretending to be, hence the reason why they are called “Actors” and were using “scripts”.

So, where does the 20 second interval come from? Ground controllers consider two aircraft within 2 miles of each other to be in a collision avoidance scenario. At typical cruising speeds it takes about 15 seconds to cover 2 miles. Hold that thought. Under radar painting, the best geometric method for substituting aircraft would be when both aircraft are conducting a turn in the same direction such that their paths overlap. This is what we see in 3 different cases on 9/11. The precise margin allowable is therefore mathematically dependent on this geometry. As a practical matter, and for typical commercial airliners making a full flight path reversal, this geometry results in a circle with a fairly consistent radius. For a second aircraft making a turn with a larger radius the geometric merger of the two flight paths determines this allowable time interval margin. If we take object A to be performing a full turn one-eight-zero relative and object B to be approaching the tangent of this turn, then the angle between B’s flight path and the tangent, call it theta, allows us to calculate the time it will take B to traverse the collision avoidance range of A (and it is given by the product of B’s velocity and the sine of theta). A full intersection of flight paths will require a distance of 4 miles perpendicular to the flight path of A to fully traverse the region of collision avoidance (for simplicities sake, we are only considering the 2D case). By “full intersection” I am implying that the collision avoidance region is a limiting boundary. This is because only in this region can B deviate from its flight path and maneuver to transfer from its flight path to the flight path of A. This is because in this region special steps must be taken to avoid alerting ground operators to an impending collision, and those steps will allow this transfer without tipping off ground operators.

Telemetry map for N5BPAAYYa, presumptive Flight 77. In the arc from “C” to “D” the aircraft touched the KY Commonwealth line. At “E” N5BPAAYYa turned northeast to rendezvous for inflight transfer, then turned due south to Pentagon.

The special steps required to merge two flight paths without alerting ground operators

In order to merge two flight paths without alerting ground operators to an impending collision, the precise location of the radar painting the aircraft must be known. This can be achieved one of two ways: 1.) prior knowledge from inside sources (which has the disadvantage of not being real-time) or, 2.) use of sophisticated electronic warfare (EW) radio receivers which “triangulate” all radar stations painting its antenna. The use of the second method requires that the aircraft carrying the EW equipment be in a turn. And these are exactly the conditions needed for aircraft to meet mid-air in the scenario above. Once the radar station coordinates are known, the turn and the maneuver toward the plane being substituted is precisely controlled such that one plane falls in the radar shadow of the other. This kind of maneuvering is technologically sophisticated and requires considerable aerial acrobatic skill. If more than one radar is painting (such as the case in which airborne radar is propagating) this method will most likely fail. Therefore, we can finally answer the question, why 20 seconds? Assuming a simple approximation, we can set theta to pi by 4 which will result in a “traversal” time over the avoidance collision distance of 2 * sin pi / 4. Taking v to be the velocity of the aircraft (here we used 500 mph), we have: [2 * sin pi / 4] / v = about 20 seconds. It is my suspicion that these maneuvers, or at least some critical components of them, were not conducted by humans but were done under computer control. A likely scenario might be a computer program guiding the pilot’s inputs to maintain the radar shadow as the pilot maneuvers toward A. In any case, wherever a human being was piloting any of these planes he or she should be specially qualified for it. He or she should be a pilot with prior military experience as a fighter pilot. He or she would have clandestinely received extensive aerial acrobatic training (see Charles Kalko, acrobatic expert).

Conclusion and Primary Claim:

Given the considerations supra, it is now clear that we can assert with a confidence of 99.6% (+- 2) that on 9/11 an unknown person or persons attempted to insert unknown aircraft into the flight paths of the planes purportedly involved in the attacks of that day.

Conclusion and the Primary Claim’s necessary implication

In at least two cases these inserted aircraft were visually observed on national news video footage; thereby logically requiring that, at least in those two cases, both purported flights either did not exist or were diverted onto a different flight path.

Telemetry map for N334AAYYa, presumptive Flight 11

Due to the remarkable nature of that claim we wanted to clearly distinguish what we are claiming as a de facto “certainty” vs. all that follows from it as educated conjecture about what was very likely to have happened. Though the latter conjecture is highly likely to be an accurate description of what happened, the evidence used in that followup does not, by its nature, admit of calculating a mathematical confidence value as the evidence in the former case does.

UA93 flew from UA175 transponder off at 8:47 a.m. (NJ-PA state line) to OH-PA state line with average speed = 384 mph. This was a cruise altitude flight prior to hijacking. This is an unusually slow cruise, but is the perfect speed to allow UA175 to divert to Kalko Field more or less directly below the UA93 – UA175 merger location, pick up 201 people and slip in behind Delta 1989 and reach the intersection of the Delta 1989 and UA93 flight path at the exact same time UA93 did.

Cleveland to Shanksville about 175 miles

PA-OH state line to Newark Airport is about 300 miles (which suggests an oddly slow speed for UA93 of about 300 mph average

Distance from PA-OH line to PA-NJ line where UA175 toggled its transponder is about 275 miles. This is the point at which it caught up with the N591UAMXc formation . UA93 averaged 384 mph on this run, which was at cruise speed all the way and before the “hijacking.

Taking the same route as above along the Delta 1989 flight path is about 260 miles.

Telemetry map for N612UAYYa, presumptive Flight 175. Note that the New Windsor intercept occurs at “C”.

All of this, as well as the NTSB radar tracks we have of the aircraft, leads inexorably to the following account of aircraft movement. On the morning of 9/11 two aircraft departed BOS (BTS) purporting to be one flight (once airborne) under the moniker of United Airlines Flight 175 (one departed at 8:14 a.m. and the other departed at 8:23 a.m.). That same morning one aircraft departed BOS (BTS) purporting to be under the moniker of American Airlines Flight 11. The aircraft in the former case flew within 500 meters of each other and were flying “in shadow”. An electronic warfare aircraft was already airborne and required to ensure that this shadowing worked, possibly an aircraft known on 9/11 as Flight 7112. N612UAYYc was a search-match-instantiate JPALS enabled aircraft initially flying with a minimal number of souls aboard (probably 1). N334AAYYa was a search-match-instantiate JPALS enabled aircraft that departed BOS with 92 souls aboard. N612UAMXc was an aircraft modified for inflight personnel transfer and at takeoff carried (probably) 64 souls and was shadowed by N612UAYYc. There was no N334AAMXa on 9/11. Upon meeting at New Windsor, N334AAYYa continued on its original flight path bound for New York City after its crew of 92 were inflight transferred using a patented inflight transfer device installed on N612UAMXc to transfer them to N612UAMXc. After this transfer N334AAYYa flew autonomously from that point to contact with WTC 1 (North). The meeting at New Windsor, occurred exactly when Bravo 089 (flight 7112, probably an Aero Industries chartered Boeing 767) also arrived at New Windsor.

The choice of inflight transfer over a quick landing and ground transfer was made based on time. Under highly prepared conditions a passenger transfer on the ground could probably be completed in as little as 5 minutes repose if the crew prepares while still rolling and both planes use the same runway. A landing and takeoff could take as long as 30 minutes which must be made up for in transit. An inflight transfer, if the passenger count on the plane is limited, could be performed in as little as 5 minutes. This, I believe, is part of the reason for the low passenger counts.

After New Windsor the aircraft N612UAMXc  and N612UAYYc flew over Sunrise Mountain. Because N612UAMXc departed BOS with presumptive passengers, ACARS squawking for UA175 initially propagated from N612UAMXc which, over Sunrise Mountain, necessarily had to switch to N612UAYYc, thus causing the transponders to “toggle” as witnessed by airline personnel at that time. At that time the crew aboard N612UAYYc was inflight transferred using a patented inflight transfer device installed on N612UAMXc to transfer them to N612UAMXc. Also after New Windsor aircraft N612UAMXc was being shadowed by N612UAYYc, both of them continuing to receive EW assistance from Flight 7112 which was flying on the same flight path as these aircraft. At this point N612UAYYc broke formation, squawking as UA 175, and proceeded from a course roughly aligned with the Appalachian Trail south of Sunrise Mountain to contact with WTC 2 (South).

Telemetry map for N591UAYYa, presumptive Flight 93. Nemacolin airfield lies next to the letter “G” (SW) in this graphic. Note that N591UAYYa turns at exactly 9:35 a.m.

Minutes before N612UAYYc broke formation, and while flying along the path of the Appalachian Trail below, the N591UAYYc – N591UAMXc formation met the double-formation of N612UAMXc and N612UAYYc just as they were all approaching the PA state line. ACARS data tracked N612UAMXc as it flew with this group then parted ways south of Lehigh Airfield and northeast of Camp David (Raven Rock R) over and around Harrisburg, PA. After N612UAYYc broke formation N612UAMXc flew under the shadow of N591UAUMXc and did not squawk (a plane does not need to squawk when in shadow). During this time all crew (save probably 1) aboard N612UAMXc were inflight transferred using a patented inflight transfer device installed on N591UAYYc to transfer them to N591UAYYc . In WV N5BPAAYYa  performed an aggressive drop in altitude and began turning near the Ashland, KY airport. Upon ATC radar lock loss of N5BPAAYYa near Ashland, KY, N5BPAAYYa met and initially shadowed an aircraft similar in role and type to 089 Bravo Flight 7112 which was being serviced through Olive Hill, KY.

Olive Hill, the airfield properly called Womstead Field, near Olive Hill, KY.

It has been stated that the radar system detected the aircraft during this time but did not display the return to the user interface; due to technical and software reasons. However, our concern is with whether or not, in this supposed condition, could the system have been reliably expected to record other objects in the vicinity of the target and, if it could detect the target even though it cannot display it, can the altitude information regarding the target at that time be recovered? In other words, what we need to know for our purposes was what was the altitude of the target during this time and did it meet within 1000 meters of any other objects? Additionally, we are skeptical of the claim that the return might have been recorded but not displayed since this would have to be determined by a technical examination of the device; which will likely result in subjective interpretation. And that is usually why software excludes things from user view

The EW aircraft from Olive Hill flew on a trajectory toward the Pentagon and spoofed as N5BPAAMXc, while N5BPAAYYa flew on a path slightly inclined to the north of the former trajectory, at low altitude (less than 4000 feet) and at a high rate of speed, over WV toward Harrisburg, PA where it rendezvoused with N612UAMXc, which had broken formation with N591UAYYc and N591UAMXc, dropped in altitude and proceeded to the area around Harrisburg, PA. N612UAMXc had the challenging task of having to catch up the planes it had just parted by flying low over the central PA mountains at a high rate of speed. At this point the convergence of the BTS data, the ATC radar tracks, the ACARS data and the aircraft capabilities provide no solution. What I mean by this is that thus far I’ve traced out a unique pattern of movement of all of these aircraft that is dictated by the combination of all that data. Once we cross into PA there is no solution that works. And when what is most likely is found to be false one must entertain the less likely. The only solution would be if the performance of N5BPAAYYa had been enhanced to allow greater speed. This would allow N5BPAAYYa to reach the rendezvous at the PA line with sufficient time to reach the Pentagon at 9:37:45 a.m. Thus, the most likely, best-fit solution is that N5BPAAYYa was heavily modified for performance and that, possibly, N612UAMXc was also. Telemetry calculations indicate modifications allowing a maximum indicated ground speed of 500 knots at 2000 feet for either N612UAMXc or N5BPAAYYa. If both were modified it would require a ground speed of about 450 knots at 2000 feet. Given the performance seen of the aircraft, I suspect that the United aircraft were the only ones modified for such performance. Additionally, terminal phase piloting appears to be programmatic; i.e. JPALS, in the case of the Pentagon and WTC 1 and 2. “Pilots for 9/11 Truth” have examined the aerodynamic aspects of the telemetry and have reached similar conclusions for very different reasons.

Telemetry map overlay for N591UAYYa (Flight 93) and N612UAYYa (Flight 175). The paths overlap perfectly for a stretch of about 25 miles which lies parallel to and over the Appalachian Trail. Notably, 25 miles takes about 3 minutes to traverse.

The path for N5BPAAYYa took it almost directly over Camp David and, upon reaching Harrisburg, PA, all crew aboard N5BPAAYYa were inflight transferred using a patented inflight transfer device installed on N612UAMXc to transfer them to N612UAMXc.  These two aircraft broke formation and N5BPAAYYa proceeded autonomously from that point to contact with the Pentagon.

N5BPAAYYa performed a final maneuver, with auto-pilot disengaged, under the programmatic control of a search-match-instantiate input device, obtained radio lock with JPALS transmitters upon turn completion and was thus guided to its final target. The last turn maneuver performed cannot be reliably performed by a human being, regardless of skill, and is part of the reason why I concluded that these stages of flight on 9/11 were all programmatic. Oddly, once the FDR data for this flight was finally released it showed that the cockpit door was never opened. Either the FDR data is false or no hijackers entered the cockpit. Similarly, first responders found one of the cockpit seats in the Pentagon and noted that it was intact, did not suffer high temperature damage, showed no indication of human remains or clothing and had its harness fastened and tightened against the back of the seat, just like one does when they park the plane. This is consistent with an autonomous, JPALS enabled flight.

At the Pentagon a cockpit seat was found next to the aircraft component seen in the lower center of this picture. This component is part of the floor of the flight deck. The cockpit seat, according to first responders, was sitting upright next to the flight deck piece and was quickly removed from the scene.

In any case, this plane was modified by substitution with a charter duplicate prior to 9/11 but which did not fly on 9/11. N612UAMXc, as mentioned, then turned northwest to catch up the N591UAYYc – N591UAMXc formation then flying at the reduced speed of about 380 mph (to allow N612UAMXc to catch up) westward across PA. This rendezvous of all crewed aircraft allowed the personnel transfer of all persons that embarked at airports to N591UAMXc and N612UAMXc. I note that N612UAMXc was tracked all the way across PA as UA175 by United Airlines employees using ACARS data.

The same ACARS behavior seen with N612UAMXc flying westward through PA is also seen with N591UAMXc, both of them masquerading as their counterpart. The ACARS messages show N591UAMXc to be squawking as Flight 93 at 10:10 a.m., once again proving substitution (since its counterpart had already crashed by then); to wit, that N591UAMXc had been substituted for N591UAYYa.

There is some confusion regarding what the ACARS data means because an employee at United Airlines made a critical mistake that no one, that I am aware of, has caught. And its an obvious mistake. ACARS stations are coded with three letters. But there are hundreds and hundreds of these across the United States. They are similar to cell phone towers. Twenty six to the third power gives over 17,000 possible combinations. However, this does not guarantee if you have, say, 5,000 stations that the namers would have given all the stations unique names. In fact, we know they didn’t. The employee who provided ACARS summaries was familiar with the Illinois area and saw an ACARS message from N591UAMXc at 10:10 showing it to be in the immediate vicinity of CMI, the code for the station in Champagne, IL. And he stated that. This is obviously physically impossible. Planes don’t travel that fast. However, if we look in PA, alas, we see that Nemacolin airfield is basically adjacent to an ACARS station coded as “CMI”. Given that this was 10:10 a.m. and there was precious little time to remain in the air without being on CNN, N591UAMXc clearly landed very close to CMI. The only field that could handle it was Nemacolin (Pittsburgh’s public airports obviously wouldn’t suffice for such a clandestine, sensitive aircraft landing. But more revealingly, had any such landing occurred there would have certainly been a report of it, just as happened at Cleveland, OH). This means that given the data available to us, the plane squawking at 10:10 a.m. as Flight 93 had no physical alternative but to land at Nemacolin, proving this airfield’s involvement. This, also, is damning. To be clear, had this aircraft landed at Pittsburgh or remained in the air there would have been reports of it that late in the morning. Additionally, F-16 “Fighting Falcons” were entering the area at about 10:15 a.m. with look down – shoot down radar meaning any large commercial aircraft’s ACARS, shadowing and flying on the deck games were over. An F-16 would pick it up at any altitude and interrogate it for Identification Friend or Foe, causing the ACARS box to squawk and air to air missiles to arm. This plane was out of the air no later than 10:20 that morning. There was simply nowhere for this plane to go without sticking out like a sore thumb … unless they landed at Nemacolin and cleared the tarmac pretty fast.

The EW aircraft serving the same role as flight 7112 and serviced out of Nemacolin field may have been the midsize, white jet seen by witnesses flying about the crash scene in the moments surrounding the impact of N591UAYYc at Stony Creek.

Either N612UAMXc caught up N591UAMXc or they remained in formation (including during the transfer of personnel from N5BPAAYYa) and both planes and N591UAYYc looped around Canton, OH, dropped altitude and changed direction, heading then for a rallying point just to the northeast of Nemacolin Airfield in PA over Stony Creek, PA where all the planes would diverge. The flight telemetry presented for N591UAMXc, N612UAMXc and N5BPAAYYa is a unique solution given by the body of data. ACARS data definitvely shows N612UAMXc catching up to or with N591UAMXc all the way across PA. And now we have this: at 9:35 a.m. the shadowing formation of N591UAMXc, N591UAYYc and N612UAMXc took actions to maneuver that identified N591UAYYc as a plane involved in the 9/11 attacks, the phone bridging platform. Its role made all other aircraft dependent on it and could not be lost or aborted before all planes finished their scripts. And this exposure happened immediately after the last script on N5BPAAYYa ended, which we’ve been able to determine was at 9:35 a.m.

Eastern Pennsylvannia showing the flight path of Bravo 089 7112, N591UAYYa (Flight 93) and Delta Flight 1989. It is noteworthy because Delta 1989 landed at Cleveland, OH and its flight path intersects that of N591UAYYa at exactly 9:35 a.m., the time when Flight 93 begins maneuvering to break shadow formation. Delta 1989 flew almost directly over Kalko Field but I’ve not been able to find any explicit connection to this flight and the 9/11 events.

Nemacolin was also likely used to service an aircraft similar to 089 Bravo Flight 7112, that plane having been serviced from Kalko Field. At all three private airfields the 9/11 aircraft performed abrupt and violent rapid descents to fall below civilian radar coverage (typically about 4000 feet) and turned to either initiate or terminate shadowing. The perpetrator’s plan was to crash N591UAYYc at Stony Creek after it performed an inflight substitution with N612UAMXc, thus allowing N612UAMXc to break formation  once below 4000 feet. Containing all but 65 of the total souls involved on 9/11 it would proceed to Cleveland, OH and land. Simultaneously, N591UAMXc would proceed to Nemacolin airfield with the remaining 65 souls. The effect of this is to split the air travelers into two groups, one large, one small. This is consistent with an intelligence operation in which the more sensitive personnel are sent to a different debriefing facility.

The on-script, pre-event for Flight 93 was that during this aggressive descent N591UAYYc would suffer a “catastrophic” structural failure and rapidly depressurize (and killing all aboard), while in reality the remote pilot would destroy the plane by flying it directly into the ground at Stony Creek, PA (note that remote piloting is not the same as autonomous flying and is a much simpler technology). The purpose of this was to destroy evidence and create a second, real event to account for the disappearance of its presumed passengers.

N591UAYYc was the electronic platform upon which all calls were being placed in an aerial play conducted by actors aboard N612UAMXc and N591UAMXc. By the time this formation of four aircraft (to include an EW aircraft) descended below ten thousand feet near Pittsburgh confusion at Air Traffic Control and amongst witnesses quickly set in. As we’ve noted, an identity switch from N591UAYYc -> N591UAYYa and N591UAMXc -> N591UAMXa occurred right around 10 a.m. In addition, N612UAMXc was pulling out of the area and heading to CLE while an EW aircraft was making its way, along with N591UAMXa, to Nemacolin. Transcripts of Air Traffic Controllers showed internal inconsistency and contradictory reporting. In addition, their observations contradicted ground witnesses at airports and observations by other pilots in the air. Controllers were tracking multiple aircraft and didn’t realize it. And if that wasn’t enough, only thirty minutes after a charter plane, N612UAMXc, arrived at CLE, in came another Boeing 767, Delta 1989. Its arrival served to distract everyone from noticing this obscure charter plane whose passengers were quickly whisked into the Glenn Research Center, followed not long after by the plane itself. Given the sensitivity of this flight I would expect that the plane taxied immediately to the hangar and all 200 persons were off the plane within minutes.

Delta Flight 1989 at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE) on September 11, 2001. The picture and background identify this as a runway at the southern end of that airport near the International Exposition Center located on that property.

Thus, we need to explain its full role. We first note that the phone calls were part of a larger script in a false narrative involving the deliberate, suicidal piloting of aircraft with innocent passengers into buildings. The  crash of N591UAYYc created the following historical constraints on any explanatory narrative after the fact:

  1. All phone calls ended at 10:06 a.m., unless we artificially move the time frame backward. But we can’t move the time frame forward since the broadcast of the “play” we are relying on to inhere our historical narrative ended at 10:06 a.m.
  2. Both N612UAMXc and N591UAMXc had already turned in generally opposite directions, then flying below 4000, and were initiating a heading for another location when N591UAYYc crashed at Stony Creek. Was Cleveland, OH that destination? I believe that it was intended that N612UAMXc would land at Cleveland, OH masquerading as a charter aircraft.
  3. The flight time to Nemacolin Wilderness Park from Stony Creek is pretty short (maybe ten minutes) and was positioned as the terminus of the descent, maybe only slightly shorter than the time taken to reach Cleveland, OH. Adjacent to Stony Creek was the National Forest that provided a few miles all the way in to Nemacolin, allowing an approaching aircraft some audio cover. I note that at least two witnesses saw, in one case in OH one plane at very low altitude and in another, two planes in PA at low altitude just west of Shanksville, PA. Note that this was very close to Nemacolin Airfield.

Neither N612UAMXc nor N591UAMXc required the autonomous, JPALS setup. Humans would be aboard to land the planes. Having said that, N591UAYYc did require remote piloting capability. I believe that N591UAYYc was the most modified aircraft of all being an electronic warfare platform of the clandestine services, to include sophisticated electronics for interfacing telco equipment, with capabilities never before flown. With all this modification it had to remain usable as a commercial airliner whose capabilities would not be superficially evident.

A word about the situation at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (CLE) is in order as I must establish why I have concluded that this airport is the airport used by N612UAMXc for its landing. First, the final heading of N591UAYYa was exactly laid for CLE and I’ve already discussed the matter of N612UAMXc flying in formation with it. Given the precious little time remaining to land due to the heightened activity in the area, CLE is the nearest airport in that direction. This is a logical inference from the telemetry. Assuming that the airplane was close to N591UAYYc when it crashed, I would expect an arrival time at CLE of about 10:15 a.m. Delta Flight 1989 landed at CLE that morning as well but I believe this was a different, unrelated aircraft. This is because the telemetry for Delta 1989 shows it tracking closely with the N591UAYYc formation when it first approached the area and turned around, at 9:35 a.m. The intercept point with the N591UAYYc formation was about 150 miles flight distance from Toledo, OH, to where Delta 1989 continued. Toledo is about 120 miles west of CLE. At Toledo the pilot was ordered to turn around and land at CLE but he had difficulty with local Toledo traffic which delayed him about thirty minutes. He descended over Lake Erie, turned around and should have landed at CLE at approximately 10:40 to 10:45 a.m. While these times are close, the margins of error are narrow enough to conclude that these are two different landings.

The next related reason is that, though these air travelers were lower security than those taken to Nemacolin, the security of this landing was paramount. What was needed was not only an airport that could handle a Boeing 767 but an airport that could hangar it in a federal facility immediately after wheels on. CLE is the only airfield anywhere near there that has such a facility, called the NASA Glenn Research Center located on the edge of the airport. As was the case with Nemacolin, I believe the most likely outcome for the aircraft was that they were either disassembled and trucked out (Nemacolin) or repainted with a different livery (NASA) and masqueraded as what to that point had been an unused identity. Delta Flight 1989 ended up being a wonderful distraction to take attention away from the landing of N612UAMXc. Did a clandestine EW aircraft take off from Kalko field and shadow it to its intercept with N591UAYYa? Was this why Delta 1989 executed a perfect turn just a few miles northwest of Kalko Field, inviting an aircraft from there to insert itself into Delta 1989’s flight path? And did that EW aircraft spoof radio transmissions from Delta 1989 indicating a struggle in the cockpit (which we do know is what caused ATC to order it to land at CLE)? Was this EW aircraft the one that assisted the N591UAYYa formation as it turned around and descended to the Nemacolin field area, circled and loitered around the crash site of N591UAYYa so a pilot onboard could remotely crash N591UAYYc into a safe area, then landed at Nemacolin itself? The intercept just west of the PA state line is precisely the kind of geometry we discussed earlier that readily lends itself to all kinds of interesting maneuvers. We may never know.

Flight Path Telemetry reconstructed from the body of available data. Note that N591UAYYa’s final heading was direct to Cleveland, OH, which is what our analysis would have predicted. From the impact site at Stony Creek to Nemacolin was about a two minute flight (direct, 500 mph).

About time

We are now better equipped to review the question of the mission timing. As we noted earlier, “Flight 93” or, in reality, N591UAYYc, crashed near Stony Creek, PA at a deliberately high speed. By “deliberately” we mean to say that a typical loss of control and powered vertical descent would most likely match that of the Boeing 737 that crashed near Pittsburgh, PA many years ago, reaching a terminal velocity of somewhere around 350 mph (and which was not intentional but due to a tricky mechanical failure), rather than the 550 mph dive that N591UAYYc took. This suggests a deliberate piloting into the ground. This further suggests that N591UAYYc was not necessarily an autonomous, JPALS equipped plane but one that could at least be remotely piloted. The purpose of the deliberate “pile drive” was destruction of evidence. But since the script officially ended when N591UAYYc depressurized at 10:03, we might ask why the Planners moved the mission time back three minutes, claiming the crash occurred at the script’s end time and not at the actual time of 10:06.

What impact might this have on the overall mission timeline? I’ll now attempt to address these questions.

On the Line of Position 74 degrees, 45 seconds West, United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 were running opposed north and south, respectively, and with a spatial-temporal separation minima of approximately 100 meters and 17 minutes. At 08:43:17 both internet and intranet access was interrupted (denied) in WTC 1 on 11 September, 2001 by an unknown event. I can state this with an allowed margin of error of + or – 30 seconds. Additionally, network analysis shows that considerably greater network disruption occurred in this building at 08:46:16 + or – 30 seconds. The difference in these two times is 2:59, a delay similar to the causality delay exhibited in the official narratives of flights 93 and 175. A similar pattern is later seen at WTC 2, though it is not as clear since outages caused at WTC 1 affect WTC 2; reducing my confidence level in the WTC 1 case of 77% to about 63% for WTC 2. However, I can conclude that WTC 2 suffered network disruption at 9:03:09 plus or minus 7 seconds. Additionally, an unknown event at WTC 2 in the impact zone of WTC 2 also occurred at 09:00:57 plus or minus 20 seconds. This fulfills a pattern developed thus far for Flights 93, 11 and 175 that indicate a time shift of about 3 minutes; here manifesting as “pre-events”. The accuracy of the timing itself is a function of the accuracy of the atomic clock in Boulder, CO at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

While witnesses have come forward and spoken of “pre-events”, this is the first time anyone has validated it with an electronic timestamp. I will note that no other anomalies were found that morning, beginning from 9 p.m. EDT the previous day, September 10, to the main events discussed here. Having said that, the low tenancy rate of the WTC 1 and 2 buildings means that network interruptions will not necessarily be picked up for any other floors, especially basement levels. I note this because I have not dismissed the possibility of considerable damage from explosives placed throughout these buildings. But I do not currently have enough evidence to engage it. There are 3 to 4 out of many witnesses whose testimony regarding both feeling and hearing explosions at times incongruent with known explosions or collapse has, at least, led me to conclude that other explosions occurred in the chaos, but I cannot yet determine their source.

Further confirmation of the pre-events comes from human reports of the events also recorded in text messages. In that case, a “pre-event” preceding the main event was reported about 1 minute and 25 seconds before the main event.

Could the reporting party have simply been mistaken? Given the rapidity of reporting (these were some of the earliest reports of planes from either building) we think the reporting party was located inside either WTC 1 or 2. So this seems unlikely. We can confirm that it is not an error of mistaken identity of the towers because these messages first began without referring to a tower (thus referencing WTC 1):


Next, the tower was identified, but only around the time of the first WTC 2 pre-event:

2001-09-11 08:59:59 Skytel [007663740] D ALPHA (1/1) CONFIRMED PLANE CRASH AT 2 WORLD TRADE CENTER. EMRP, 38ST, HAZMAT RESPONDING. // CC 595-6777

This message continues about every 10 seconds until we approach the main event:

2001-09-11 09:00:05 Skytel [003914925] D ALPHA (1/1) CONFIRMED PLANE CRASH AT 2 WORLD TRADE CENTER. EMRP, 38ST, HAZMAT RESPONDING. // CC 595-6777

And oddly, the last repeat of this odd message ends when the reporter realizes there is something wrong with their report, but doesn’t know how to amend it (no other similar message comes out):

2001-09-11 09:01:44 Skytel [007663733] B ALPHA (1/1) CONFIRMED PLANE CRASH AT 2 WORLD TRADE CENTER. EMRP, 38ST, HAZMAT RESPONDING. // CC 595-6777

These messages, unlike network traffic, were not pegged precisely to atomic clocks and could have a variance of + or – 45 seconds. This would explain the pre-event timing; i.e. 8:59:59 + 45 = 9:00:44, which is within our margin of error. The best estimate, therefore, is probably 9:00:37 a.m. It seems reasonable then that the actual, predicted main event times were 8:45:00 and 9:00:00, with about 46 and 37 seconds realized error margins respectively. If these were the targeted times of impact it demonstrates just how precise this mission was.

In the final analysis we shall see that these so-called “post-events”, or main events that follow, were the actual impact times. We see in the WTC computer network traffic that catastrophic events occur in both buildings about three minutes before they were supposed to. My analysis of this data constitutes the first such analysis, to my knowledge. It is damning.

The faux impact, or end of script, times are recorded by characteristic network failure messages on the appropriate floors at 8:43:17 a.m. (WTC 1 +- 30 seconds, confidence interval 77%) vice the official time of 8:46:16 a.m. and 9:00:57 a.m. (WTC 2 +- 17 seconds, confidence interval 63%) vice the official time of 9:03:45 a.m., both on the morning of September 11, 2001. If the compression were proportionate across aircraft and the estimates made by software for future calls made presumptively from N591UAMXc  were reasonable, we can narrow this time down by overlapping them thusly:

8:43:17 to

8:43:17 + 30 = 8:43:47 OR

8:43:17 to

8:43:17 – 30 = 8:42:47

Generating the interval [8:42:47, 8:43:47] vice 8:46:16 a.m. +- 30 seconds official time for time of impact for WTC 1


9:00:57 to

9:00:57 + 20 = 9:01:17 OR

9:00:57 to

9:00:57 – 20 = 9:00:37

Generating the interval [9:00:37, 9:01:17] vice 9:03:09 a.m. +- 7 seconds official time for time of impact for WTC 2

Factoring in the official time intervals we get:

[8:45:46, 8:46:46] official time of impact at WTC 1

[9:03:02, 9:03:16] official time of impact at WTC 2

And, finally, taking the difference of intervals we get:

[8:45:46, 8:46:46] – [8:42:47, 8:43:47] = [3:01, 3:01] WTC 1

[9:03:02, 9:03:16] – [9:00:37, 9:01:17] = [2:25, 1:59] WTC 2

And at Stony Creek, PA we have

10:06:05 a.m. actual time of impact (seismographic data and local power outage time)

10:03:11 official time of impact.

The difference is 2:54.

For WTC 1 this gives the following upper and lower bounds for the difference in the first and second event:

Upper bound => 8:45:46 – 8:42:47 = 3:01

Lower bound => 8:46:46 – 8:43:47 = 3:01

For WTC 2 this gives the following upper and lower bounds for the difference in the first and second event:

Upper bound => 9:03:16 – 9:00:37 = 2:39

Lower bound => 9:03:02 – 9:01:17 = 1:45

The convergence of the bounds for WTC 1 merely show that the time difference was likely very close to 3:01; a sharp bell curve of probability with very small standard deviation. What is interesting, however, is that WTC 2 shows its bound well outside the bounds of WTC 1. This suggests that the WTC 1 time delay between events 1 and 2 could be as high as 3:01 taking WTC 1 data alone. But if we combine that with WTC 2 it shows a range more like a time gap between the first and second events as being as large as 2:39 and as small as 1:45. Thus, the actual boundaries, when WTC 1 and WTC 2 data are combined, is [1:45, 3:01].

And at Stony Creek, PA we have

10:06:05 a.m. actual time of impact (seismographic data and FAA radar record)

10:03:11 official time of impact.

The difference is 2:54. This shows that our values are consistent, since from WTC 1 and WTC 2 we could have “predicted” the Stony Creek time difference accurately as on the interval [1:45, 3:01]. What happens if we now plug 2:54 back into the WTC 1 and WTC 2 data? It depends on to which end we anchor it; the time of the first event or the time of the second event. Let us try anchoring the interval to the second event. Then we have:

9:03:09 – 2:54 = 9:00:15 a.m.


8:46:16 – 2:54 = 8:43:22 a.m.

Suppose, however, the times were not all identical, but staggered more or less proportionately over the allowed interval [1:45, 3:01]. Then we could posit that the times of impact were closer to:

8:46:16 – 1:52 = 8:44:24

9:03:09 – 2:23 = 9:00:46 and

10:06:06 – 2:54 = 10:03:11

According to research consistent with the USG narrative, WTC 1 was struck at 8:46:30 a.m. and WTC 2 was struck at 9:03:02, these times constituting another variant of the “official impact” times.

Plugging these times in we get:

8:46:30 – 1:52 = 8:44:38

9:03:02 – 2:23 = 9:00:39 and

10:06:06 – 2:54 = 10:03:11

Curiously, POTUS, the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces walked into a classroom in Florida at 9:03 a.m., likely immediately after news of the second, true impact could have been communicated to him if he were a Controller.

At 9:37:46 a.m. we are told that “Flight 77” has impacted the Pentagon. If we factor this flight into our analysis we have something like:

8:46:30 – 2:00 = 8:44:30 a.m.        {Flight 11 – WTC 1}

9:03:02 – 2:10 = 9:00:52 a.m.        {Flight 175 – WTC 2}

9:37:46 – 2:40 = 9:35:11 a.m.        {Flight 77 – Pentagon}

10:06:06 – 2:54 = 10:03:11 a.m.   {Flight 93 – Stony Creek, PA}

The purpose of this exercise was to assess what might be close to the accrued time compression due to audio manipulation as the mission progressed.  The times 8:44:24, 9:00:46, 9:35:11 and 10:03:11 are all pre-event times designed to be a spoof of the timing of the actual events. We will shortly see that these are the times that the phone scripts ended.

The Flight 77 phone script end time is odd. I am not aware of any pre-events that occurred at the Pentagon, so I will take this opportunity to make a prediction. I predict that a pre-event will be someday confirmed at the Pentagon at or about 9:35:11 a.m. on Septemeber 11, 2001.

But we need to add a wrinkle to the Pentagon case. The linear distance of the flight path from its origin to its target was far less than 23 miles. Flight 77 was in a hard turn and only at the last minute did it align for a linear path. Thus, the time of 9:35:11 a.m. is the latest possible time of the pre-event. We could find that it was even a few minutes before that because the plane was moving at an angle to the final flight path. It might also explain the necessity for the hard turn: the script and pre-event timing were not easy to align in the case of Flight 77. If that were the case, then the impact at the Pentagon could have occurred several minutes before the official time and that could be the reason why the FBI still refuses to release dozens of security camera videos of the impact (which may be time stamped).

Denoument: the workings of a phone bridge and how to have a simplex party call where the joke’s on you

Suppose I, designated as an Actor, decide to call my mother on the phone. Suppose I do this using a simplex bridge; which is just a two cent phrase for calling someone to establish a party line (conference call) but in which your own connection is simplex. By simplex I mean that your voice can be heard by your mother, but you can’t hear your mother. The sounds on your end travel only one way; from you to your mom, and the sounds on your mother’s end are muted from you. Now, suppose another party calls in to the conference call, we’ll call her an Agent. The Agent dials in to your conference call also using a simplex line, in this case a one-way line carrying sound from your mother to the Agent. Finally, the Agent creates another simplex conference call by placing his call to a bridge number simplex such that sounds from his end travel only to the bridge. Now you place a call to the Agent’s conference call also in simplex mode so that sound travels only from the Agent to you. By creating two conference calls with all three parties online we can perform our ruse. My mother hears my voice, which she expects. But I hear a completely different person, the Agent, who is pretending to be my mother because I am told this is an exercise. The Agent’s job is to repeat what my mother says in response to my comments to her, but the Agent must also be able to modify the message to maintain operational security if needed. This requires a quick-thinking person to play the role of Agent. But no matter how good the Agent is, some lag will be created as they listen to what my mother says. Now we can begin to see why some of the 9/11 calls were so strange. As we explain further, shortly the fingerprinting of the calls of 9/11 to this simplex con will be blatant. When a stewardess was asked what she saw outside the plane it caused all sorts of delay because the Agent wasn’t sure how identifying landmarks might compromise operational security, as just one example of many. And all this causes lags that, if scrutinized after the fact, could expose what is going on. If the lags occur during a live call those on the call will likely just think it is a normal phone lag between airphones or cell phones and ground lines. But keep in mind that the sounds passed through the telco system could be recorded by devices the perpetrators have no control over. This is why phone lags have to be cleaned up before they are piped through the telco systems. We need a way to dynamically remove this lag before it hits the telco system. How?

The answer lies in the nature of the conversations and speech. First, we require that the Actor only use medium length sentences. So, no short quips like, “see ya” or “got it”. But the Actor shouldn’t use anything really long either. A perfect length for a line might be, “Hi mom, this is Todd Beamer. You believe me don’t you?” Next, we have software take the Actor’s statements to the Mark (the mother) and dilate them. The call will start off with a small lag but after the second statement from the Actor the dilation of his or her statements will act as cover for the delay encountered by the Actor in getting the response coded back to him. The overall timeline, therefore, dilates as the call progresses. The conversation has been artificially lengthened in time. The only problem with this is that the voice of the Actor now sounds slurred and unnatural. To fix this, we will need to use optimizations which we’ll now discuss.First, let us represent this condition algorithmically. Let the difference in duration between a speech-dilated Actor’s line, q, and the nominal duration of the line q be denoted r. Now, let the lag time introduced by the Agent in the next nearest Mark’s response be denoted s. Then,

r ≥ s else you’re busted.

The point is that making this work requires taking the delay, the dilation of the conversation, created by the Agent’s translation and filtering of the Mark’s speech and “transfer” it to the Actor’s response as received on the Mark’s end by a uniform and predictable dilation of the Actor’s voice, thus slowing his or her voice down. One might rely solely on the talent of the Actor to “drag out” his or her responses but this might not be reliable in a conversation intended to sound natural and uncontrived. And if you have to use dilation as a backup to that, the dilation must be applied universally in a uniform manner to prevent detection. Thus, the only reliable way to cover for the lag created by the Agent’s filtering is dilation of the Actor’s speech.

Realistically, it will almost always be the case that,

r > s.

There are potential optimizations of this and we need to understand them because that is the reason for the curious delays we see in the mission timeline. Let

t = r – s;

t being defined per conversational exchange such that for a full length phone call we might have:

{t0, t1, t2, … , tn} where n is the n’th, the last, exchange of the phone call. Next, suppose we have a thirty minute phone call that begins with a speech dilation factor, T, which is chosen in advance to be a number sufficiently large to ensure that, when applied to the Actor’s responses, will ensure the required condition:

r ≥ s.

This would be a necessary feature of the software used to do this and, if followed without optimization, would yield a total, default phone call duration of, say, Pd. However, what if we program some smarts into this system? Suppose we allow this phone call software to observe the conversation dynamically in order to see exactly what value of Pd per exchange would minimize the dilation of speech, and subsequently the duration of the overall phone call? This is called a dynamic optimization which will result in an overall phone call duration that cannot be exactly known in advance as it is dominated too much by the nature of that specific conversation. There is no need to digress into it here, but this optimization can also be “smoothed out” so that abrupt changes in speech dilation rates, or factors T, will not occur and thus create an unnatural sounding conversation. Therefore, this software will generate two overall durations for each call. The un-optimized version we’ll call “static”, even though strictly speaking it is not (it merely allows better guessing), and we will denote it S. The other we’ll call Dynamic and denote it D. Now, here is the conundrum for the Planners: optimization will be crucial because T would be too large for this to work if we relied only on the S. The voices would be dilated too much and the Mark’s on the other end would be suspicious. Remember, T must be chosen fairly large in order to ensure that no large gaps of “pregnant silence” appear in any recording of the telco exchanges outside the perpetrator’s control. And if we happen to come across an exchange where an unusually large lag was created we can rely on the D to use its “smoothing” ability to moderate that lag (reduce it). We need D to make this work reliably.

Therefore, the Planners end up with two estimates for phone call durations. One is Pd, which is based on running our program in S mode. It represents the upper bound of our best guess as to how long a phone call will last based on knowing the duration of that same call were it a “natural” or “unspoofed” phone call. But in D mode our program will generate a smaller number; a lower bound that can only be computed in real-time. Realistically, mission Planners would have known that the upper bound represented the longest phone conversation (based on the phone conversation already scripted – or at least framed – out) likely to occur on any of the flights. The lower bound would be calculated real-time for the same phone call in question, but would most certainly be a smaller value.

Speech dilation will be necessary unless there can be staged a conversation in which the responses of the Mark (the mother in our example) are progressively longer; that is, the duration of each of the Mark’s responses over time is monotonically increasing. This assumes that the difficulty level in filtering does not increase as much as the duration of the Mark’s responses.  In these cases, we can further optimize our software and include this in our D mode algorithm.

Finally, our S mode estimation will, of course, also be artificially high due to the fact that we also can’t anticipate how long the responses of the Mark’s will be. Thus the total duration of the Mark’s contribution to the scripted conversation cannot be known in advance, only projected based on considerable practice. This, in turn, will also result in a lower D mode value depending on how well the Actor is able to control the conversation.

People can’t be on the phone talking if their plane has disintegrated. We can’t let that happen if the mission is to succeed. But the closer the script ends to the true final event – wiithout continuing beyond the final event – the more convincing it is.

The astute reader might have already realized at this point why so many military/clandestine exercises so similar to the events of 9/11 were occurring: in order to play your own people you have to have them engage in exercises that they don’t realize are real, then, when telling your Actors – your own assets – what happened, pin the blame on any of a large number of other, fully anonymous “teams” participating. It’s a con job involving your own assets, the American people and the world. The key ingredient to making that work is that all the different teams must be doing something very similar; thus the degree of similarity between exercise and real event must be high.

Returning to our timeline, it is now blatantly clear what is going on:

8:46:30 – 2:00 = 8:44:30 a.m.        {Flight 11 – WTC 1}

9:03:02 – 2:10 = 9:00:52 a.m.        {Flight 175 – WTC 2}

9:37:46 – 2:40 = 9:35:11 a.m.        {Flight 77 – Pentagon}

10:06:06 – 2:54 = 10:03:11 a.m.   {Flight 93 – Stony Creek, PA}


Planned actual impact based on scripts used for Flight 11/WTC 1 :: 8:46:30 a.m.

Run-time calculated faux impact (and end of script) based on scripts used for Flight 11/WTC 1 :: 8:44:30 a.m.

Planned actual impact based on scripts used for Flight 175/WTC 2 :: 9:03:02 a.m.

Run-time calculated faux impact (and end of script) based on scripts used for Flight 175/WTC 2 :: 9:00:52 a.m.

Planned actual impact based on scripts used for Flight 77/Pentagon :: 9:37:46 a.m.

Run-time calculated faux impact (and end of script) based on scripts used for Flight 77/Pentagon :: 9:35:11 a.m.

Planned actual impact based on scripts used for Flight 93/Stony Creek :: 10:06:06 a.m.

Run-time calculated faux impact (and end of script) based on scripts used for Flight 93/Stony Creek :: 10:03:11 a.m.

Welcome to the cult. Now you are the illuminated.

What we see is that the data appears to be converging on or near a distribution of values proportionate to the audio compression required at each indicated time. 2:54 for the last time difference is is what we would expect. We know this because the confidence interval for WTC 1 is much better than it was for WTC 2. I believe the second network events reflect the true impact times and that the first events were an attempt to make the time of impact appear earlier to match audio data found in the phone scripts, should audio recordings supporting that timeline be found in the public domain afterward. Just as evidence was deliberately destroyed, the pre-events were a means of planting evidence. We might also recall that Planners did not think the buildings would collapse when they planned this and had to assume all evidence would be recovered and reach the public domain – they can’t control everything and a mission this sensitive means they would have control over very little. If they indeed found all the black boxes as has been reported they were merely “lucky” that they were able to keep it out of the public domain. Thus, the first event had to be carried out with a method that would well mimic impact from a large commercial airliner. I believe this method was too good and damaged the WTC buildings far more than anticipated.

I also suspect, for lengthy reasons I cannot discuss here, that WTC 7 had a civil defense method built into its design that allowed the building to be destroyed by pre-placed explosives. This self-destruct scheme is used in several sensitive buildings across the United States and is classified. For whatever reason, on 9/11 Planners opted to use it. This is why WTC 7 was ignored by the 9/11 Commission and NIST.  So, this would be the only “controlled demolition”, even if it can be called that since it was an emergency feature.

I believe the WTC buildings were deliberately damaged at a time to coincide with the time difference given in software and later seen at Stony Creek, PA, and that this was a planned component of the larger plan to ensure consistency in the mission timeline. It could have also inadvertently contributed to the collapse of both WTC 1 and 2. Since the purpose of this “light show” component built in to WTC 1 and 2 was intended to obscure the impact time or mislead anyone to a desired, false impact time, I believe the perpetrators used diametrically opposed, untamped ribbon charges possibly specifically designed as a high temperature, sharp cutting instrument to mimic the appearance of a heavy, fast mover colliding with the building. It likely had a brisance in excess of 20,000 fps. There is insufficient information to determine what kind of explosive, specifically, was used, but it does not appear to be conventional C-4.

So much for controlled demolitions. The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was an unexpected artifact of a type and kind of explosive that worked too well. Therefore, controllers fired these charges around 3 minutes before the true impact on both WTC 1 and 2 based on the final, computed end time of the respective phone scripts for each plane. This allowed for a seamless and mostly undetectable time constriction of telco audio.

The last nail in the coffin for the offical account

Some readers might postulate that the “pre-events” are in fact network errors caused by the spinning up of the JPALS system. Now, it is about to really get interesting. It is possible for electromagnetic interference to disrupt the signal on a Category 5 Ethernet cable, however, it takes considerable output wattage to do so. Additionally, the interruption would need to be very close to the JPALS transmitter antenna. I examined this hypothesis. I first started by noting that the spin-up of the JPALS system will be keyed to the distance the aircraft is from the target. Once it reaches a point within a given threshold the JPALS transmitter will emit. While we don’t have exact durations for the time intervals between pre and post events, we do know the proportion of the duration of that time at WTC 1 to WTC 2. If it were due to JPALS interference, we’d expect that two aircraft at two very different final velocities would cover the same distance, since the JPALS system triggers off of distance. Therefore, looking at the data on aircraft speed taken from radar tracks we have (our adjustments will be justified in the text that follows):

430 knots (NTSB) / N334AAYYa American Airlines 11 WTC 1 (North) 173 seconds interval between events object closing @ 495 mph is 0.1375 miles / sec => 23.79 miles. [duration adjusted to within margin of error by 20 seconds]

510 knots (NTSB) / N612UAYYa United Airlines 175 WTC 2 (South) 141 seconds interval between events object closing @ 587 mph is 0.1631 miles / sec => 23.0 miles [duration adjusted to within margin of error by 27 seconds]

That the distance traveled in each aircraft’s pre to post event interval converges on one distance, that is, 23 miles, is remarkable by itself. But 23 miles is likely not a random number either. JPALS ground application systems obtain radio lock at 23 miles (20 Nautical miles) out. So, this is beginning to look more and more like a JPALS artifact.

And we can take our estimate for the script end time for flight 77 at 9:35:11 and calculate the distance traveled after radio lock.

460 knots (NTSB) / N5BPAAYYa American Airlines 77 Pentagon 154 seconds interval between events object closing @ 530 mph is 0.147 miles / sec => 22.67 miles. [duration adjusted to within margin of error by 0 seconds]

Thus, it may well be that this is simply a JPALS artifact, which is damning by itself. Now, we will show why rather than contradicting the script timing hypothesis it complements it, making for an even more daming conclusion.

The Pentagon timing, indeed the proportions of all the interval durations, was based on a monotonic increase driven by the compression of phone scripts! What is going on here? Alas, the durations seen are indeed an artifact of JPALS, but that is in turn an artifact of the scripts. Let me explain.

While it might be the case that the speed of the aircraft was changing in the last 23 miles of flight, it is quite unlikely. This ground was covered in a little over 2 minutes under autonomous flight control. There would be no reason for the speed to vary. The impact speed is likely the same speed the aircraft had, or very near it, when it obtained radio lock. Why were the planes traveling at such different speeds at radio lock? That the scripts had to end exactly at the point of radio lock is a necessary conclusion if we assume that our hypothesis about the scripts is correct and JPALS was in use. Here’s why:

First, the end of the script needed to be as close to the real impact as possible to avoid any incongruities between the script and what the plane was observed to be doing; from the ground, radar or whatever. Being in populated areas the Pentagon, WTC 1 and WTC 2 plane’s were publicly exposed on their final approach. But they can’t allow the script to run if the plane is running under JPALS for the same reason: JPALS will control the plane and the movement and the behavior of the plane won’t be as predictable as it was before that. Therefore, the script must end at 23 miles out at a time dynamically chosen.

If in the script an Actor purports to see “water” and “buildings”, then the plane needs to actually be over water and buildings when she says that. This must be the case since any observation made of the plane, when later combined with the phone call information, could expose an incongruity. And there is no way that the Planners could know in advance who or what could be observing the aircraft at any given time.

The Planners can write the scripts in advance to match the pre-planned flight path and flight parameters of the aircraft … right up until JPALS takes over. An excellent example of behavior that cannot be known in advance was the behavior of N612UAYYa when it performed a banking maneuver just before it struck WTC 2. You can’t have stewardesses claiming on the phone that the airplane was in level flight at the same time it is banking. This cannot be allowed to occur. Note that at Stony Creek, PA there were presumably few if any witnesses or devices to record the impact there. This ineluctably leads us to conclude the curious fact:

It is possible that USG will release or otherwise share with individuals in the public domain the CVR for “Flight 93” provided they assert the “pre-event” as the impact time. However, one can expect enormous resistance to the release of CVRs for the Pentagon, WTC 1 or WTC 2 impact zones.

Therefore, the solution in the cases of the Pentagon, WTC 1 and WTC 2 was to adjust the aircraft speed to ensure that the script ended exactly when the plane was 23 miles from its target … exactly when JPALS took over. This is why we see the different aircraft speeds and the different durations between pre and post events. The next thing to examine is, what are the odds that these numbers would match up like this by chance alone?

This will necessarily be somewhat speculative and subjective, but we’ll record our assumptions here and the reader can modify as they see fit:

The minimum cruise speed seen on 9/11 appears to be 380 mph (Flight 93)

The maximum cruise speed seen on 9/11 appears to be 587 mph (Flight 175)

Taking these two as reasonable maxima and minima, we can then calculate a range of speeds allowed by our timing margins thusly:

AA11: -20 seconds => 23.79 miles and +20 seconds => 29.29 miles or [23.79, 29.29]

UA175: -30 seconds => 22.5 miles and +30 seconds => 32.29 miles or [22.5, 32.29]

Since we don’t have an explicit margin of error for AA77, we will need to base it on the presumably broader bounds given by the aircraft’s performance limitations and set the time variance to the full duration of the time gap between pre and post events:

AA77: – 174 seconds => 0 miles and +174 seconds => 28.37 miles or [0, 28.37]

So, 29.29 – 23.79 = variance = 5.4 => 5.4 / 23 = 0.235

32.29 – 22.5 = variance = 9.21 => 9.1 / 23 = 0.4

23 – 0 = variance = 23 => 23 / 23 = 1

=> 0.235 * 0.4 * 1 =  0.9 % probable that these times are due to chance alone, another damning conclusion that:

It is 99.1 % probable that Flights 11, 175 and 77 were all deliberatately adjusting their flight speed in order to arrive at the point 23 miles away from their target at the exact time their script ended and the exact time of their corresponding pre-events.

Thus, as we did above, we are indeed free to adjust our distances within our margin of error and it will yield the same probability just derived.

430 knots (NTSB) / N334AAYYa American Airlines 11 WTC 1 (North) 173 seconds interval between events object closing @ 495 mph is 0.1375 miles / sec => 23.79 miles. [duration adjusted to within margin of error by 20 seconds]

510 knots (NTSB) / N612UAYYa United Airlines 175 WTC 2 (South) 141 seconds interval between events object closing @ 587 mph is 0.1631 miles / sec => 23.0 miles [duration adjusted to within margin of error by 27 seconds]

460 knots (NTSB) / N5BPAAYYa American Airlines 77 Pentagon 154 seconds interval between events object closing @ 530 mph is 0.147 miles / sec => 22.67 miles. [duration adjusted to within margin of error by 0 seconds]

And what was before clear and convincing is now obvious and indisuptable.

9/11 was an inside job.

Thus, the mission planning included a timeline, which in turn included exact times for contact with the targets. This was necessary because you can’t have dead people talking on phones. Nor can you have a script that includes events inconsistent with the moment of the crash or the general details of the flight. But you also cannot have a script end before the plane’s disintegration. There must be a synchronicity between the scripts and the mission timeline. The issue for the Planners was one of discrepancy: there can be no discrepancy such that passengers are talking after contact nor can there be any discrepancy where the script ends in a contrived fatal event when the plane continues to fly for another three minutes. The best choice of narrative, in evidentiary terms, will always be consistent with the real impact times. But should the exact time the script ends enter the public domain, the Planners must use the alternative narrative and rely on the planted evidence to support their official contention.

Under optimization Planners knew the contact times would be slightly earlier in the scripts, but not in reality, so pre-events were rigged which could be remotely triggered the moment the script ended. In each of those cases, the aircraft would be within about twenty three miles of their target. However, the termination of the script would most likely be known first on the stage aircraft who could use any means of encrypted communication to program an appropriate delay into hardware at each impact site. And the purpose of the pre-events was to mimic the main events so that, depending on which way the evidentiary wind blew, the perpetrators could claim either time as the “real” time. And each “pre-event” could be fashioned so as to allow an incontrovertible means of pegging an exact time to it that the perpetrators could use as evidence for an earlier impact time. One clear hint of this thinking amongst Planners was the way in which Flight 93 ended. If we assume a narrative in which innocent passengers are aboard, decompression of the aircraft is sufficient to assume a time of death and an adequate basis for ending the script. But if in reality no human beings are on the plane, decompression in and of itself would not be sufficient to make the airplane unflyable.

But we’re not done. We now see that of four aircraft, the perpetrators only decided that one of them, “Flight 93”, would require the alternative narrative; that is, only “Flight 93” would require USG to insist that it crashed not at the real time, but the faux time, the actual time the script for “Flight 93” ended. When we think about what happened with the family of the “Flight 93 passengers” after 9/11 the narrative I’ve meticulously tried to show as being what really happened on 9/11 now becomes painfully obvious. For whatever reason USG wanted the family members to have the opportunity to hear the CVR. But the only way to do this was with the faux narrative and timeline; that is, to claim that “Flight 93” crashed exactly when the script ended at 10:03:11. Here’s why. The Controllers and Planners had to realize that several family members knew the exact time they lost voice contact; the end of the script. Maybe they didn’t know if the plane crashed at that point, but they knew when the script ended. Indeed, this was the point the entire Act and Play ended. And at that point there is no more script left to cover an additional three minutes.This means that everything that could exist on the CVR afterward were off-script sounds of the cockpit which the families obviously could never be allowed to hear. It had to be chopped off and inhered as the last of the recording they could recover. In other words, the crash time. USG was forced to adopt the “pre-event” as the “final event’ if it wanted to allow the families to hear the CVR. And the full extent of this conundrum might not at first be clear: I point out that this also means that the CVR constitutes a “second audio witness” that family members would immediately compare to their recordings and recollections. And there is no way to make them congruent if the script end-time is known to the families (unless you chop off the last three minutes and claim the plane crashed at 10:03).

Here we see a picture used by some to augment their argument for limited tenancy. But the picture is misleading. This was taken in the 1970’s before construction was completed. Tenancy was very low on 9/11, but this is not a actual representation of that fact. 

Loss of life – the dirty secret

In reality, when we take in the fact that the WTC was attacked at an hour thath might as well have been midnight, when we examine the abrupt maneuver of N5BPAAYYa at the Pentagon, its impact therefrom upon a virtually empty portion of the building, the “never opened” cockpit door, the cockpit seat in which no person ever sat, the impact of two aircraft on towers whose tenancy was almost zero, which took about one hour or more to fall, precisely the time known required to evacuate those buildings (unless some knucklehead is telling people to stay inside and the building is not properly evacuated – something the perpetrators could not anticipate), the almost empty (and we now see completely empty) aircraft that collided with the ground and buildings, the curious but precise pile driving of damning evidence of a flight gone wrong into a totally unpopulated, fairly safe impact area, and the lame anthrax attacks that followed I was taken aback by the fact that this alone was the biggest clue of all that a “friendly” nation-state was behind this.  Common sense alone screams “inside job”.

The whole point of this mission was to create a histrionic, circus of fireballs and property destruction while killing very few if any people. In classic sociopathic form, the perpetrators were blaming someone of the very thing they themselves were guilty of in spades: terrorism. I believe the death toll was initially estimated at only about 30. While the hour of the day was also likely chosen to minimize casualties as well (waiting one or two hours and contacting the buildings lower would have been far more effective), the date we find coincides with the optimum satellite arrangement for the Global Positioning Systems JPALS or any variant of it requires. But as for the casualty count, they were way off because WTC 1 and 2 were not properly evacuated, there were people working in the new portion of the Pentagon who hadn’t been scheduled to work there until later and the anthrax worked really, really well because the lab that made it had a hell of a lot more practice at it than the Planners realized (imagine a friend you enlist in a con to make crystal meth which you think will be harmless because your friend doesn’t know what he’s doing. Afterward you find he’s being running an illegal Meth lab for fifty years. Ooops). The offices in the impact zones of WTC 1 and 2 were mostly evacuated, but some may not have been to the surprise of Planners who thought they had arranged for them to be empty.

So, the Planners choice to “spoof” the passengers themselves led to all the phenomenon related to audio and time shifting. It inevitably meant that the timing of this mission was exceptionally critical, to such a point that synchronization of aircraft movement, as demonstrated by the acrobatics, was superb. The planes likely flew into their targets within thirty seconds or less of the planned time which was itself based in part on estimates of maximum script duration. Despite these difficulties, its value is obvious: having live persons participating in the 9/11 saga as it unfolded made the entire thing seem realistic, staid, tangible and undeniable. The Actors likely practiced these scripts dozens of times, as the phone calls themselves hint, and would have been very good at controlling the duration of the “loved ones” responses in order to create a predictable duration for each Act.

We also note that fraud was running rampant after 9/11, artificially inflating the death toll. We won’t digress into that here as it makes no difference to our conclusion.

The Global Modus Operandi

And if you think all of this is a ploy unique to the United States, think again.

In India Mossad agents posing as “Arab extremists” were caught red-handed trying to board airplanes with box cutters with plans to take over the planes and fly them into buildings. Apparently, little is known about this incident and finding more information has proven difficult.

On July 7, 2005 exercises involving a series of four explosions, three in a subway and one on a bus, were carried out in Europe. As a result, several people were killed when one of them went live. Indeed, a popular British television program discussed these very attacks a full year before they occurred, describing it as a hypothetical in consideration of how British authorities and the public might react to such a situation. Peter Power, a Crisis Management Expert, indicated that the idea for the attack came from a client who he has never clearly identified (he has given contradictory statements regarding the client’s identity). Once again, Actors became Marks.

An Israeli company called ICTS was responsible for the security at all the airports involved in the 9/11 attacks. Their British headquarters was directly adjacent to the location where one of the explosives was detonated; on London Bus Number Thirty. Several innocent people on that bus were seriously injured, dismembered and killed. That same company was intimately involved in the attacks of July 7, 2005; the 7/7 attacks. The attacks occurred in central London and the Commissioner of Police, Ian Blair, Rudy Guiliani, the Mayor of New York City on 11 September, 2011, Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel and Peter Power; were all present in London on 7/7, in or around London railways; to wit, service from London Luton Railway Station, where the the train to King’s Cross departed for the subways where explosions occurred and in Tavistock Square. There are strong indications in the 7/7 events that Actors – traditional, Sunni assets of MI6 and other clandestine services – were duped into carrying what they thought were inert explosives to their targets where, unbeknowest to them, live explosives in the backpacks they were carrying were fired (it has also been suggested that the real explosives were pre-planted on the trains and the bus. The majority of victims from the subways suffered injuries predominantly to their lower limbs, consistent with exposure to explosive force from beneath the deck – under the train – where instead the injuries would presumably have been high on the body if emanating from a backpack). In a particularly cruel twist, the widow of one of the Actors was coerced by British police to denounce her husband as a terrorist and was not given his will and suicide note until a full two years after the attacks.

At least three different press sources reported that three of the suicide bombers had been shot and killed by police in the London business district of Canary Wharf; two at the HSBC building and one at the Credit Suisse building, the two buildings being about 400 meters apart. As this is incongruent with a successful suicide bombing, it was not repeated in the press. Some have explained this as being associated with timing anomalies regarding train, subway and bus schedules that suggest that three of the “attackers” might not have made it to the three subways. Of course, the explosions would have tipped them off that they, just like the “passengers” of 9/11, were being played by their own people and set up as patsies. At the airport gate boardings on 9/11 most of the cameras were temporarily “not working”. The same remarkably targeted failure of cameras occurred on 7/7 as well in which all four bombings occurred where cameras were temporarily “not working”.

The behavior of the “suicide bomber” who attacked London Number Thirty (with registration id “LX03 BUF”), Hasib Hussain, appeared to be scripted and demonstrated a conscience of privileged knowledge of the events of that day. One of those behaviors was attempting to call the other “attackers” after they were dead, indicating that he was going off-script upon realizing that he had been betrayed (his attack came after the subway explosions, which he might have heard of very shortly after they happened). Back in the States, a similar kind of off-script reaction was apparent, interestingly, in the behavior of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, TX when he proceeded after the shooting of President John F. Kennedy to what appeared to be a pre-planned rendezvous location, only to be thrown off-script when confronted by Officer J.D. Tippett of the Dallas Police Department.

While it is outside the scope of this article, 7/7 has numerous similarities to 9/11 beyond just those mentioned here. There is a reason for that. As we can see, the modus operandi was the same. The Controllers are global.

Finally, the Airfields, the side show that will lead to names

In this story there are three private airports that kept showing up as prominent to the Planners; Charles G. Kalko field north of Honesdale, PA, Nemacolin airfield about 10 miles southwest of Shanksville, PA and Olive Hill, KY, about 10 miles from the National Forest where witnesses heard what sounded like a large airliner screaming down to the ground at precisely the area where ATC lost radar lock with N5BPAAMXc. Oddly, these airports are quite rare in the United States, being large enough to handle commercial jets but being totally privately owned. The odds that three of these would lie directly below these aircraft at precisely the points where they were turning or otherwise conducting shadowing maneuvers, is beyond coincidental. Add to that the owner of Nemacolin already discussed, the owner of Olive Hill who has ties to the oil industry, including connections to some high in the Saudi government (also, it is unclear if this man was the same man as U.S. Senator Steve Womack, OK, of exactly the same name. Tracking this Olive Hill owner down has been very difficult), and Charles G. Kalko, an eccentric man who had “CIA” written all over him. The Senator also worked for Merrill Lynch, which had an office at the WTC complex on September 11, 2001. I have deliberately left this part open to those with the resources and time to chase down all the human connections implied by this evidence and it would be interesting to see what is found.

Marti Kalko, molecular biologist and the widow of Charles G. Kalko, right

A quick word about the military response

Because it doesn’t have any bearing on my findings I have not discussed it here. But suffice it to say that my conclusion is borne of the analysis found in the spreadsheet that supports this summary, which can be found at this website. In any case, I concluded that:

… the delays in military air interception experienced on 9/11 were not part of a deliberate act but were due primarily to an over-reliance by the military and the FAA on transponder technology rather than the radar system’s independent capability to obtain basic physics data on any given contact. Secondarily, the requirement to shoot down aircraft with innocent “bystanders” on the aircraft hampered the ability of the rank and file to execute. And thirdly, the number of interceptor and fighter aircraft available that day for service was inadequate to defend CONUS.

On the second point, a critical fault in established procedure was an over-reliance of fighter aircraft on “being directed” to a target. In other words, there was too much reliance on ground direction. While it may be preferable to do this whenever possible, if the ground controllers can’t find a plane they very much need to use their airborne assets to find them. Fighers are equipped with radar systems that are much more immune to the evasion tactics being used on 9/11, one of which is realized simply by virtue of being airborne: one cannot hide by flowing low. And this is precisely why 9/11 aircraft were so frequently flying low, to evade ground radar. And that is the reason for the paralysis in not ordering aircraft to get airborne. They wanted to know from the ground (FAA) where the planes were before they launched, even though it was obvious their ground radar was being defeated. They were hemmed in with linear thinking and did not know how to do anything outside procedure, even when that procedure was obviously flawed. In every other case of plane interception over the many years prior to that, none of the planes in question were trying to evade ground radar by flying aerobatically and low and few if any turned off their transponders. The correct response, as soon as they realized the aircraft were not being tracked as usual (which was right away), would have been to arm and launch every available fighter in the region and every available tanker to support them. AWACs and EW aircraft should have been launched as needed also. The “hijacked” planes would have been shot down in minutes. When the military blamed the FAA for dropping the ball, what they were really saying was that the FAA couldn’t track the planes. They were right. But that doesn’t absolve the military from shooting them down and is not an excuse for them to sit on their hands and whine about how their fighters have to be “guided” in order to take off. Nonsense. If the military could not find those planes entirely on their own, even if they were all flying on the deck, then everyone in the military responsible for that should be in prison. The U.S. military has been given billions of dollars by the taxpayers for equipment that is quite sophisticated and could have easily found those “hijacked” planes. Besides, even on 9/11 they had some pretty good guesses from the FAA on how to narrow it down … the northeastern and mid-atlantic United States. And that is the backdrop of the military/FAA controversy during the 9/11 Commission investigation.

Indeed, the reason why the U.S. military’s response was so weak and slow was because professionals were using state of the art equipment and extraordinary flying skill to defeat civilian radar systems; all the while exploiting a key weakness in the ATC methodology of over-reliance on information provided by the plane, (ACARS) not the radar itself.

The Hijacker Acting Role

Because it is so obvious I have not bothered to engage the question of the “hijackers” living in the United States prior to the attacks, and who the FBI claimed were the “hijackers”. But suffice it to say, there is overwhelming evidence to show that they were under the influence of a clandestine service and being set up as patsies, to be remembered and noticed at key places, at the right times and in meaningful contexts. These were classic intelligence operations utilizing “asynchronous anomalies”. Of course the identities are fake. Of course the Flight 77 autopsy excluded their remains from the crash site. Of course OBL was CIA. Of course the real Agents or Assets acting these roles were not really muslims, which is why they hired prostitutes almost every night, drank heavily, cursed and apparently were not aware that they should be praying 5 times a day or, if Shia, at least 3 times. Lots of Muslims do this stuff. But I will simply point out that any Muslim so radical as to commit to a suicide attack will come from a highly traditional, conservative Muslim background which would have zero tolerance for this kind of behavior. In Shia Islam there is the notion of Taqiyah which I won’t get into here, but I can assure you it would be no excuse or “free ticket” to act like an idiot. And of course they were being tracked by any number of the myriad law enforcement or even intelligence agencies around the world who thought they were real … because the perpetrators were doing their job well. The more we go down this road the closer we get to names and finding manifest motive for a crime. I will leave it to the reader to follow those breadcrumbs.

The final financial connection; naming names

If we trace the ideal JPALS transmission station locations we follow a line into two offices that have a peculiar connection to 9/11. In the case of WTC 1 our transmission station is located in the Marsh and McLennan offices on the 93rd to 99th floor and in the case of WTC 2 the office of IQ Financial Systems on the 83rd floor. This is all a bit too coincidental when we look into these two companies. If we limit our attention to the 93rd and 94th floor of WTC 1 (since M&M takes up several floors) we see that these offices in both WTC 1 and WTC 2 are in the center of the impact zones. IQ Financial Systems offered software that tracks loans and leases and was bought by MiSYS in 2004; This “exit” sale was handled by ABS Ventures – the venture capitalist investor in Paratek. Paratek is an investment partner with InQTel ( a CIA hangout for finding investors in new technologies for CIA. This means that CIA can get funding for the development of new technologies for CIA through ABS Ventures vis-a-vis Paratek ( vis-a-vis InQTel. Confused yet? Basically, this means that money flows from ABS Ventures to CIA tech projects. It can, therefore, be “public” since the investors are simply investing in novel technologies that CIA just happens to also want. All these companies are just hangouts. Now, why would ABS Ventures handle the merger, or buy-out and “exit” of IQ Financial systems to Deuthsche Bank? See that name down there? It is Buzzy Krongard, the main man at Deutsche Bank and King of 9/11 put options. This ABS Ventures connection strongly suggests that IQ Financial systems may have been one of inQTel’s creations. If so, the connection is complete.

Marsh & McLennan advised USG on how to manage risk. This is the same company through which foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks was exposed by an aberrant pattern of put options on American and United Airline stocks performed under the name of Marsh & McLennan. The Senior Principal of Marsh & McLennan, Stephen Friedman, also sat as a Trustee of InQTel. About 250 people working for Marsh & McLennan were supposedly killed on 9/11 when Flight AA11 crashed into their office; this being reportedly all the employees in that office on that day. In subsequent years the connections of Stephen Friedman and a man named Paul Kaminski would be exposed when in 2004 a Venture Capital company called Crestview Partners was formed.

This is the “organization” for whom Stephen Friedman was the “senior advisor”. Stephen Friedman (see below) shared a seat on the Board of Trustees with Paul Kaminski at inQTel.  He was also a Senior Principal at Marsh and McLennan from 1998 to 2002.

2/10/11  Crestview Partners/L/P            SC 13G                 2:70   Charter Communications/Inc/MO     Davis Polk &…LLP 01/FA

Crestview Holdings (Te)/L/P
Crestview Offshore Holdings (Cayman)/L/P
Crestview Offshore Holdings II (892 Cayman)/L/P
Crestview Offshore Holdings II (Cayman)/L/P
Crestview Offshore Holdings II (Ff Cayman)/L/P
Crestview Partners (Pf)/L/P
Crestview Partners GP, L.P.
Crestview Partners II (Ff)/L/P
Crestview Partners II (Pf)/L/P
Crestview Partners II (Te)/L/P
Crestview Partners II Gp/L/P
Crestview Partners II/L/P
Crestview Partners/(Erisa) L/P
Crestview, L.L.C.
Encore (Erisa)/LTD
Encore II/LLC
Encore/LLC   Additional Info: Symbion Inc/TN; FBR & Co [ formerly FBR Capital Markets Corp ] Forest Holdings LLC
Richard E. Francis, Jr.

Symbion Holdings Corporation
Symbol Acquisition/L/L/C
Symbol Merger Sub/Inc; Clifford G. Adlerz

The significance of Paul Kaminski is that he is “kind of a big deal” in the world of clandestine, pilotless aircraft. He was a principal in the management team that developed the F-117 fighter. He is also a far right conservative and strong supporter of the Israeli lobby in the United States. The ideological part is not surprising since the owners of each of the airfields are tied up heavily in far right politics and all of their associates (which I have not listed here but are available in the spreadsheet from this site) follow suit. And the Israeli connection is suspicious since so much involvement of Mossad in 9/11 has been uncovered by other researchers. This completes a loop from:

Blatant foreknowledge of 9/11 attacks exposed in suspicious stock trading => Marsh & McLennan => Stephen Friedman and Paul Kaminski => JPALS …

and …

JPALS => American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 => Marsh & McLennan and IQ Financial Systems => inQTel  => Stephen Friedman and Paul Kaminski => CIA => pilotless aircraft for the clandestine services => JPALS. Damn.

The connection to JPALS and autonomous flight and navigation finds its nexus at the Charles Stark Draper Lab., Inc. company:

Stephen Friedman was also the Senior Advisor at Crestview Partners; that is, Crestview Aviation

Paul Kaminski was the Chairman and CEO at Technovation, Inc. and Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. is described as “a state-of-the-art research and development laboratory.” Approximately “750 engineers, scientists, and technicians [work] on a broad array of programs for government and commercial sponsors.” Sponsored work includes:

Strategic Systems

Tactical Systems

Space Systems

Special Operations and Land Robotics


Biomedicine: “April 7, 2003: Draper Announces Creation of Biomedical Engineering Center”

The Office of the Inspector General, Department of Defense is “the Federal cognizant agency for The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.”

According to the Draper web site, “Draper’s roots date to the 1930s when Dr. Charles Stark Draper created a teaching laboratory at MIT to develop the instrumentation needed to make precise measurements of angular and linear motion. The Laboratory was renamed for its founder in 1970 and remained a part of MIT until 1973 when it became an independent, not-for-profit research and development corporation.”

“A primary focus of Draper’s efforts throughout its history has been the development and early application of advanced guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) technologies to meet DoD’s and NASA’s needs. The Laboratory’s record of outstanding achievements includes the design and development of the world’s most accurate and reliable guidance systems for intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as the highly precise, ultra-reliable GN&C systems needed to guide the first astronauts to the moon and back safely to Earth. Draper’s pioneering work has contributed substantially to the development of today’s complement of precise inertial sensors, software, and ultra-reliable systems that are critical for precision GN&C of commercial and military aircraft, submarines, strategic and tactical missiles, spacecraft, and unmanned vehicles.”

Let us recall Crestview Partners. Sun Capital Partners is the bank into which all the presumptive “hijackers” (clandestine assets whose role was to make their existence known to the general public after 9/11 in order to offer themselves up as patsies – even though they didn’t really exist as USG identified them) placed their money. This Florida-based outfit was controlled by Rodger Krouse and Marc Leder. In later years it joined the trade group Private Equity Council, a “Washington” based (read CIA who’s who) trade group, alongside Crestview Partners. Oops.

Falls Church, VA is a very wealthy and conservative town. Oddly, some of the “hijackers” lived there. So did Paul Kaminski. Oops, I just said that.

The final connection that pulls it all together is with the Draper lab. This labs field testing was performed at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. One of Draper’s primary customers was NASA. In fact, Draper had also made frequent use of another NASA facility, the NASA Glenn Research Center at CLE. But the really interesting part is where the connection to the political oligarchy comes in. As it turns out, not only was Draper lab using Dryden but right alongside them (literally) was SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, whose CEO from 1987-2001 was Dov Zakheim. SPC developed their Flight Termination Software in the same place that JPALS was developed … Dryden. Some have surmised that Flight Termination Software, or FTS, might have been used on 9/11. My own suspicion is that, since FTS is used for aborting drone flights, it might have been used as an abort backup on each of the aircraft. In any case, you can google Dov Zakheim to find out all about his political connections and where the 9/11 Controllers might be. This pretty much connects Mr. Zakheim directly to the Marsh insider trading of 9/11, and foreknowledge thereof.

If it isn’t pretty evident at this point what happened on 9/11 then I must register low faith in my skills as a communicator.

Paul Kaminski, man of the hour and person of enormous interest

Oh Come on, Kir. How could any of this be true?

This is perhaps the best question of all. How does one reconcile their everyday common experience with facts and details such as those we’ve shared here? The whole thing seems so incredulous, despite facts that make my conclusions seem incontrovertible. Phillip Zelikow, the head of the 9/11 Commission tasked with conducting an official investigation of that day, is a far right conservative and guru of public myth, something we discuss a lot here, and for people like him 9/11, and so many other major components of history and culture, are just “public presumptions” (Zelikow’s politically correct phrase for “public myth”).

Like her husband, Phyllis Kaminski is studded with connections to the far right political culture in the United States, including the pro-Israel lobby here.

Back in 2007 an author named “Andrew” on wrote a surprisingly frank piece entitled, “Rape Story – Phillip D. Zelikow … 911 Myth Maker” where he wrote of Zelikow:

If we can get people to see that the guy who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report got his Ph.D. in PUBLIC MYTHS [author’s emphasis] and actually had his hand in scripting the 9/11 event itself in 1998, they might be more receptive to the idea that the official story of 9/11 should be revisited.

In 1998, Andrew notes, Zelikow did a lot of writing that sounded suspiciously similar to the events of 9/11. If he wasn’t writing the script for 9/11 back in 1998 he certainly would have liked what he saw in 2001. Zelikow believes that the elitists of the world should write history as they see fit; taking advantage of what he calls “searing” or “molding” events which he correctly notes are fugitive decision points in history whose number and available decision paths vastly exceed what is available at any other time. In other words, searing events like 9/11 are a golden opportunity to assert, extend and exercise considerable amounts of power and control never before realized (I’m describing this as Zelikow and his ilk really believe it, not with their poltically correct terminology – but it means the same thing). And that is why a small, incestuous cabal of less than about 5,000 people globally feel that they are justified in fabricating events like 9/11 and 7/7; for they are the leaders and it is their duty to do “good” things for humanity. Indeed, I was surprised to hear a phrase I’d heard since childhood – not coming from my parents but from the company vision statement at Marsh & McLennan in 2001; the oft-repeated phrase wrapped in jingoistic language, “the Greater Good”. It was a mantra each employee was required to know and promote and Paul and Stephen would routinely query new employees to see if they knew the “secret phrase”.

Phillip Zellikow

Thus Zelikow admits that, as most who have written about public myth have, public presumptions are not always valid or true. What matters for public policy makers – in the pursuit of the Greater Good – is the script written to bring it, devised and bona fide, not the immediate outcome of the act. Zelikow’s “family” and ilk believe that they are simply being mature adults and seeing the world the way it really is, in a way that the “masses” are too infantile to understand. But this misses the point. To the extent that the public consensus is puerile, it is because this ilk has so thoroughly and dastardly lied to them. It’s time to let the secrets, the Truth, see the light of day. I’m sorry but there is only one country in this world. And we shall see salvation only through the spirit of humanity and the power of reason. We absolutely must take that greatest step in all our history, the step toward maturing beyond Zelikow’s lies and into an open, transparent and fully participatory global rule of law. Zelikow’s design has been around for a long, long time. It has failed us for over one thousand years and its time for change. And this is why I’ve told this story. Yes, it really is true. You are being lied to and the lies are even bigger than what this article exposes. Don’t be a Mark.

– kk

For those readers interested in the human connection, arguably the most important angle, here is an excellent video to get you started:

  1. I just like the valuable information you supply for your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your weblog and take a look at again here frequently. I’m rather certain I’ll be informed plenty of new stuff proper right here! Good luck for the following!

  2. kesler12 said:

    This is a very good article, one of the best I’ve seen on the issue of drone swap, in fact. The possibility of in-flight personnel transfer is something I had never considered! However, with that said, there are a few things I raise my eyebrows at.

    First is that, according to the RADEs database, delta 1989 never got closer than 30 km to kalko field (and this tiny airport is located far from the delta 1989/flight 93 intersection anyway). Second, the explaination of how the phone calls between passengers and their familys were staged is (while interesting) very convoluted and not adequately explained.

    Also, why not use a single ‘drone’ to take aboard all the passegers in the northern attack arm (I.E, those aboard flight 11, 175, and 93)? All it would have to do is link up with flight 11 sometime after its departure from logan airport and merge with it. There, it could link up with flight 175 east of stewart airport, fly underneath its radar shadow, and repeat the procedure with flight 93 over sunrise! Bing bang boom, all transfers done in sequence. With this arrangement, there is no need to have the drone try to catch up to delta 1989 after getting both of 11 and 175s passengers: It can pick up 93s passengers and proceed directly to hopkins airport!

  3. kesler12
    Thanks for reading. I didn’t think I suggested Delta 1989 anything to do with 9/11, but I’ll check it out. As for the merger, that is exactly what I’m saying. One of the wide-bodies returned to Cleveland (but not the Delta) which contained exactly the total number of persons on all the aircraft. Nemacolin was intended for one of the FL 93 substitutes, not the wide-bodies.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: