Tag Archives: hijacked planes

War games: timing of 9/11 exercises offer too many coincidences

By Craig McKee

It was the first thing that made me suspicious.
At 8:21 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, it was clear that unknown parties had hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles. Fighters were unable to intercept the plane before it crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175, also a Boston to Los Angeles run, hit the South Tower.
How could these planes reach their targets without encountering any opposition from the incredibly powerful and expensive U.S. military? Under normal circumstances, they couldn’t. But this day was anything but typical. In fact, nothing – from protocol to the laws of physics – operated as it should have on 9/11.
By the time the second tower had been hit, it was already known that American Airlines Flight 77 out of Washington D.C. had been hijacked. That flight, too, managed to fly around the northeast United States for more than 40 minutes before it allegedly flew into the Continue reading →

Aerial illusion: facts support 757 flying over, not into the Pentagon

By Craig McKee

You have to admire the creativity. And you have to admire the sheer scale of the deception.
One of the largest examples of misdirection ever attempted has, for the most part, worked. But that’s only because people haven’t looked closely at the evidence.
It seems clear that a large airliner did fly towards the Pentagon just after 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001 (I’ll get to how we know this momentarily). It is also clear that there was a large explosion that rocked the outer ring of the building as the plane arrived at its supposed target. But there’s one more thing that is clear: the plane didn’t hit the building and didn’t cause the explosion.
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was supposedly flown into the Pentagon at 530 miles per hour by an incompetent pilot who was denied permission to rent a Cessna the month before because of his poor flying skills. After negotiating an incredible 330-degree spiral descent, alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour is supposed to have flown just a few feet above the ground, hitting five light poles before crashing into the ground floor of a newly renovated section of the Pentagon.
There are two main reasons why the evidence supports the conclusion that the plane the witnesses saw never hit the building – and that it flew over. One is that the Flight Data Continue reading →

Explosions BEFORE plane impact: the 9/11 account of William Rodriguez

When Bush shook hands with Rodriguez, he had no idea how damaging this WTC employee’s account of 9/11 would be.

November 30, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s something you won’t hear about in the mainstream media. A loud, devastating explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center’s North Tower BEFORE the impact of an airplane that hit between the 93^rd and 99^th floors.
That was the account of William Rodriguez, who was a 20-year employee of the World Trade Center when the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001. He was later hailed as a national hero for pulling people out of the buildings, saving a number of lives that morning. He was believed to be the last person to escape the North Tower before it fell. He was even photographed with President George W. Bush. Now, the government doesn’t want to hear anything he has to say.
No matter how well known he is within the 9/11 Truth movement (in fact he’s one of its best known figures), very few others have heard the things he has to say – things that make the purveyors of the official story very nervous.
That’s because if what he reports is true, then the official story can’t be. That official version contends that airplane impacts and the resulting fires were solely responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. But if his account of Continue reading →

The tilting south tower gives it away

Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance – Albert Einstein
November 26, 2010

By Craig McKee

People who believe in the official government theory of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must find the laws of physics to be a real pain in the neck. They must hate it when these silly laws keep showing how their neat story of Islamic terrorism simply isn’t possible.
There are so many examples: the too-small hole in the Pentagon and lack of wreckage outside; the scattering of debris from Flight 93 over an area of several miles and virtually no wreckage at the crash scene; molten steel under the three World Trade Center towers that came down; the fact that fire was simply not hot enough to have brought down both of the twin towers; and that they couldn’t have been destroyed so quickly without explosives. And those are just the big ones.
There’s another aspect to the destruction of the twin towers that doesn’t get as much attention but that is huge when it comes to proving the fiction of the official theory.
When the destruction of the South Tower started at 9:59 a.m., just 56 minutes after it was hit, the top of the building began to tip over (as you can clearly see in the photo above). And, according to Sir Isaac Continue reading →

Critical, open-minded thinking is in short supply in 9/11 debate

The goal of education is to replace an empty mind with an open mind – Malcolm Forbes
People are very open-minded about new things – as long as they’re exactly like the old ones – Charles Kettering
November 24, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s all about assumptions – that immovable foundation of ideas we won’t compromise under any conditions even when those ideas are proven wrong. These are the dogmatic beliefs that block us from considering new possibilities.
We all have biases. We all operate with a set of core beliefs about how the world works. We all see things through the filter of our upbringing and our experiences. But truly wise people are those who realize the limiting effects of their biases, and who will consider new information even when it contradicts their existing beliefs.
The 9/11 Truth Movement was born as a result of people who were willing to look beyond the obvious. They didn’t take what they were told as unchallengeable truth; they used their brains to evaluate what they were told and what they saw. They tested the information critically.
Most people think they are completely open to new ideas and concepts; but they aren’t. They don’t apply the same criticism to the “official conspiracy theory” of 9/11 that they do to others they don’t like. Continue reading →

Official 9/11 story depends on a 'perfect storm' of blunders

Somehow no fighters were able to intercept any of the four hijacked planes.

November 20, 2010

By Craig McKee

It’s a very tempting notion for a lot of people. Incompetence. Confusion. Bad luck.
For people who can’t bring themselves to believe that their own government would murder 3,000 people, it’s comforting instead to chalk up the attacks of 9/11 to a series of unfortunate mistakes. The Bush administration did not admit that catastrophic errors were made, but if 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, there’s no other explanation.
Somehow the idea that the terrorists were too fiendishly brilliant for anyone to be able to stop them just doesn’t cut it, even for “official story” believers. Claims by George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld that no one could have anticipated hijacked planes being flown into buildings have been discredited. We know for a fact that war games going on that very morning simulated this very scenario.
So that leaves people who don’t believe in official 9/11 complicity on the part of the government to settle on the idea that the country’s defences broke down inexplicably. It’s not a pretty theory if you believe in your government, but it has to do. The alternative, that the Bush administration planned the attacks, is unthinkable for many.
So how can someone make the case that it was a string of honest mistakes that allowed the attacks to succeed? Basically the scenario goes like this:

Law enforcement agencies like the FBI had their eyes on some of the future hijackers long before 9/11 but didn’t follow up or somehow lost track of them.
Airport security on 9/11 singled out the hijackers for additional screening but failed to Continue reading →

Fallen light poles undermine Pentagon official story on 9/11

November 15, 2010

By Craig McKee

It seemed that they would confirm for the world that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 just as the government said. But they might just have done the opposite.
“They” are the five light poles that lay on the ground after allegedly being knocked over by Flight 77 in the seconds before it is supposed to have hit the Pentagon.
The reason the existence of these poles is helpful in questioning the official story is that they provide us with an exact flight path that the plane would have to have taken if indeed it hit the building. If the flight path had deviated even by a small amount, the plane would not have hit these poles.
So is it possible that the actual flight path was different from the one outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report? That may depend on who you believe. The film National Security Alert by Citizen Investigation Team makes the case that the plane that people saw flying near the ground Continue reading →

How Occam’s Razor can be twisted to serve any 'official story'

November 13, 2010

By Craig McKee

Conspiracy “debunkers” have a number of weapons at their disposal to discredit those who try to expose deceptions and cover-ups.
They will often condescendingly brush aside what these people say by making fun of their ideas so they don’t have to actually refute them. If that doesn’t work, they can explain how the conspiracy would be too involved or that someone would give away the secret or that the powers that be “would just never do anything that terrible.” Failing that they can resort to putting their hands over their ears and singing, la la la la la la la la until their opponents go away.
But there’s another way touted enthusiastically by believers of official stories. That is to invoke the dreaded Occam’s Razor, which most people take as being “the simpler of two Continue reading →

Are we all hard-wired not to question 9/11 official story?

I’m not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true or involve dentists. – Michael Moore

November 11, 2010

By Craig McKee

The human brain is a fascinating thing. It controls everything we perceive. It is the vehicle through which all information passes, the filter through which all external events are processed. We can use it to search for the truth, but it can also stop us from looking.
We believe that any opinion we might have is based simply on our understanding of the facts. Sure we all have our biases, but we’re aware of them, right?
Not necessarily. We may be aware of the obvious ones, but the subtle ways we resist facts presented to us often slip under the radar. The things that motivate us to defend what we Continue reading →

Evidence points to bombs being detonated in the Pentagon on 9/11

November 9, 2010

By Craig McKee

A great deal has been written about the evidence for explosives in the World Trade Center, but not enough attention has been paid to the evidence that bombs were detonated in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
As I wrote in my Oct. 2, 2010 post, “How could Flight 77 have caused interior Pentagon damage on 9/11?”, there was a great deal more damage done to the interior of the Pentagon than a plane impact could account for – or any impact from the outside for that matter.
We know that the government’s conspiracy theory states that American Airlines Flight 77 penetrated the Pentagon at roughly a 45-degree angle and managed to go through three rings of the Pentagon, punching a round exit hole in the inside wall of the C Ring Continue reading →