Wednesday, 31 August 2011

9/11 - Part 7: Let's Roll...

   Just after 10 am on 9/11, United Flight 93 (travelling 580 mph) was reported as flipping over and crashing straight down in a empty field in the rural town of Shanksville, PA, burrowing itself underground. The passengers reportedly tried to take over the plane from the alleged hijackers. “The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground." (Washington Post - 05/12/02). "But although the government was authorized to shoot down the errant planes, Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told the NewsHour he believes that crash came instead as a result of a passenger uprising… we were already tracking in on that plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. I think it was the heroism of the passengers on board that brought it down, but the Air Force was in a position to do so if we had had to." (PBS - 9/16/01)

   This remark: “The Air Force was in a position to do so”, is the central notion of the real investigation into the ‘crash’ of United Flight 93. In the minutes leading to this event, UK ITV news showed live footage of an F-16 fighter jet in the area; thus proving that the military did indeed have the means to shoot down a passenger jet. Kevin Dunn (ITV foreign correspondent) was interviewed by news reader Kirsty Young. She asked, “Would it be possible for an American Military plane such as this, to have any impact on the destination or, indeed, the course of a plane?” and he replied, “Well the warplane could obviously challenge by radio, whoever is in control of an aircraft and ultimately threaten and indeed shoot them down.”

   The lack of bodies and debris has been pointed to, in the truth community, as the absence of Flight 93. I actually believe that was a plane smashed across the landscape of Shanksville and the surrounding area. Whether it was Flight 93 or not is a pertinent question. How it was ’downed’ is probably the more important question to ask though. Many have pointed to sink holes and mine shafts as the resting place for much of the larger debris (the area of land had been previously strip-mined for coal) and a nearby lake for much of the rest. Whilst I can’t argue with this, I also know there is a huge number of accounts of a military craft pursuing and even shooting down the ‘high jacked’ plane. If this scenario were true, it would almost certainly account for the debris pattern and lack thereof.

   Much of what follows here has been debated and questioned for validity. Whilst it is difficult to positively confirm the 100 percent accuracy of the following claims, they do raise questions. I would like to present them, merely, as a possibility…

   At 9:58, a Flight 93 passenger allegedly made a cell phone call and said that he saw an explosion and smoke and that the plane was "going down."

   The Tactical Air Communications Unit at the National Security Operations Centre (NSOC) at NSA was broadcasting live the cockpit communications between two U.S. Air Force F-16s over Somerset County, Pennsylvania. One F-16 pilot said "we are now engaging the target."
the NSA CRITICOM messaging system contained a flash message called a "CRITIC" that stated a commercial aircraft was "intercepted" over Pennsylvania. The latitude and longitude of the interception was provided along with the time of the interception. There were many ‘live’ training exercises on 9/11. Could it be that one of these exercises was mistaken for this occurrence?

   It is alleged that an encrypted special communications network that linked Air Force Chief of Staff General John Jumper to the Vice President and National Security Council, and a few other intelligence officials contained a message on the morning of September 11 that confirmed the U.S. Air Force shot down United flight 93. The message stated that a U.S. Air Force fighter jet shot the engine on flight 93 with a heat-seeking missile "over Pennsylvania". 

   A 911 emergency call to the Somerset Hospital Critical Care unit stated that the hospital should prepare for mass casualties since "two planes collided over Pennsylvania."

   Several first response workers at the ‘official’ Stony Creek crash site described a crater that closely matched a Global Hawk unmanned drone, a story corroborated by an eyewitness at a nearby junk yard who witnessed a similar vehicle “colliding” with ‘Flight 93’. Another witness observed a small white aircraft pass over Ginger Hill Road and clear some trees before exploding in a small mushroom cloud on the other side of the tree line. The fallout from the explosion was described by the witness as "glittery".

   At the Huckleberry Highway residential debris field, witnesses described the debris as little more than paper. More oddly being insurance papers, bank statements, and stock and bond certificates. The New Baltimore debris field (10 miles away) also reportedly consisted of singed bonds and insurance and bank papers.

   One of the few impact witnesses described it as "not a plane" with no engine, pure white, tubular, with no markings or windows, soundless, and with the appearance of a moulded piece of plastic. The aircraft banked to the right before ascending over a tree line before crashing. Under the aircraft and mid-belly could be seen what the witness described as a "fin and spoiler". After the crash, the witness noticed two fighter jets in the area that circled and departed rapidly from the scene.

   A phone call to a witness from a relative in Lancaster, Pennsylvania said that a friend in the Air Force said that the service had "shot down a plane in Pennsylvania."

   Several farmers who were working in their fields that morning saw U.S. Air Force fighter planes shoot down United 93 and were (allegedly) subsequently threatened by FBI agents. One witness had a security gag order placed on him by the FBI. Eventually, a number of farmer witnesses changed their stories to coincide with the official story.

   There are allegations that several local witnesses were harassed and intimidated in a threatening manner, by non-local law enforcement and FBI agents. One was claimed to have said to the eyewitness, “Do not lose faith in your government. We are handling it".

John, Tessa and Brian (three students who were at Shanksville High School at the time), witnessed a “big fighter plane” fly over the school “like 10 seconds” after the ‘crash’. Brian and John both believe that the jet shot down ‘Flight 93’.

Shanksville, PA, is a military flight corridor.

Mayor Ernie Stull, on arriving at the crash site, said he saw no evidence of a plane crash.

The "Flight 93" crash site remained fenced in and restricted, to the public.

 In August 2003, Fox news reported that US investigators now believe that the ‘high-jackers’ crashed the plane BECAUSE of the passengers starting to revolt.

Norman Mineta (see: Pentagon) said he wasn't aware of Flight 93 until after it crashed and thought “it was shot down“.

On Dec 24, 2004, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gives a speech about 9/11 using the phrase: “shot down the plane over Pennsylvania” .


On September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush was overheard stating: "We shot a plane down over Pennsylvania".

So there we have it.

Never let yourself be TOLD what happened…9/11 is for YOU to decide.

I will be doing one more evidence based overview post (covering some as yet undiscussed aspects) to begin September and will then begin my 9/11 Legacy Blog Series.

Till Next Time!
The Truth Seekers Guide.

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One -
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two -
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics -

Monday, 29 August 2011

9/11 - Part 6: "The Smoking Penta-gun"

   The events at The Pentagon provide us with damning evidence of a story that contradicts the ‘official’ account. It is perhaps obvious, for reasons that will become apparent, why the debunkers tend to shy away more from this aspect of 9/11 or why they only give it a cursory acknowledgement.

   Many have pointed out the lack of video surveillance camera footage, as an indication of the US military and intelligence agencies protecting national security. A full disclosure could hamper the capacity of those that work at The Pentagon or endanger it’s assets. I actually believe that if you look at the evidence, as well as the lack of footage, there is a different picture to be painted.

   On March 7, 2002, the first footage of The Pentagon event was released to the media. A set of five frames taken from a security camera include: one showing a white blurry shape and the last few showing an erupting fireball. Much more of this footage from two angles (a few feet apart) has been released over time. Apart from a brilliant white flash, which is only visible from one camera, the footage shows absolutely nothing more (relating to the event) than the original five frames. There has been little more footage from others sources. On September 15, 2006, The U.S. government released a CITGO gas station security video that barely shows the Pentagon explosion and does not show a plane. On December 2, 2006, The FBI released a Doubletree Hotel security video that showed an explosion coming up from the Pentagon. Again, it did not show any plane, or even the Pentagon which was blocked out by an overpass. It therefore falls to the structural damage analysis and eye witness testimony to tell the reality of this story. 

   Before the event, Pentagon medic Matt Rosenberg was on the phone with the FBI talking about who had command of the MASCAL emergency plane crash plan if a plane were to hit the Pentagon and emergency equipment for the MASCAL emergency plan was already out it’s storage areas for an inventory check.  A large number of fire and medical service units were dispatched to a high-rise building fire near the Pentagon, but the fire was already reported out by the time the first responder arrived which made most of the units available to help at the Pentagon.  Other key rescue workers were available within minutes. While much of this could be labelled coincidence, it is odd that many of these workers had been involved in MASCAL training exercises and commented how “eerily alike” they were to the real life events of 9/11.

   The damage at The Pentagon contradicts the ‘official’ account in numerous ways. Will Jarvis (operations research analyst, Office of Secretary of Defence) said: “There was just nothing left. It was incinerated. We couldn’t see a tail or a wing or anything”. Maybon Pollock (Sergeant First Class, NCOIC Logistics in the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic) said: “I was more impressed, I was truly impressed, with how the building stood up, after they told me the size of the plane. And then I was in awe that I saw no plane, nothing left from the plane. It was like it disintegrated as it went into the building.”. Eileen Murphy (Head Nurse of the Minor Surgery Clinic at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic) said: "The building is like rock solid. I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, “Where’s the plane? How come there’s not a plane?” I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen something like part of, or half of the plane, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a real surprise that the plane wasn’t there”.

   Even CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre reported live from the Pentagon, that there was no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the building. "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse“. He was obviously remanded as a result because, later in the day he was changing his story (even though subsequent evidence continued to support his initial view). In the days that followed, he tried to deny he’d ever said it. When footage showed his gaff, he tried to explain it away as ‘heat of the moment’.

   Amongst the debris that was recovered, was a fuselage section that was a fuselage section that was rectangular in shape (Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and they’re fuselage at the time was round), a small cockpit window piece (inconsistent with 77), a J52 turbine wheel (engine part) found inside the Pentagon was never installed in a 757 and an engine rotor photographed on the lawn was approximately 3 foot wide (757’s twin engines are 9 feet diameter/12 feet length, Pratt & Whitney PW2000 or Rolls Royce RB211 engines with a 7 foot diameter turbofan). This rotor does not match the 757 engine specifications and it is revealing that when John W Brown (spokesman for Rolls Royce Indianapolis) was shown this part, he said: “It’s not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with”.

   The fire damage sustained by The Pentagon appears to be rather less than claimed. Witnesses commented on the lack of fire and smoke damage severity. The photographs taken after the collapse show some real oddities. Aside from two clocks that appear to have frozen at the exact moment of impact, there is also the strange matter of a book perched on a stool (right on the edge of the collapse section) which appears totally untouched by smoke or fire damage. It wasn’t even budged by vibration from the collapse or the spray of water from fire hoses putting out the remaining flames.

   Photographs before the building collapse show that column 14AA remained intact… bizarre considering that the American Society for Civil Engineers Report concluded that the impact took out 50 support columns including 14AA. They also show a pre-collapse hole of 14 - 16 feet. The foundations suffered no damage from the left engine pod which, according to the official flight path angle, would have gauged into the ground. Subsequent ‘official’ reports and investigation solved this problem in animated simulations by pretending that the plane had no engines at all!

   Pre & Post-collapse shows no damage from the tail impacting the front edge of the roof (at the position it allegedly struck) and windows were still intact where vertical stabiliser would have ploughed through. If, as some have claimed, The Pentagon was suitably reinforced to withstand this… where is the tail/vertical stabiliser in the outer debris? Was it pulverised by jet fuel, yet again?!! This would be a very selective fire, if you consider that The Pentagon’s super-reinforced lawn suffered no scorching after the debris was cleared…

   Most bizarre are the images from the inner courtyard, which reveal a puncture hole created by the nose of the plane. 757 nose cones are made of fibreglass (see also: The Twin Towers) as it contains the radar guidance system. Signals from which would simply bounce straight back if the nose was made of metal. What a super vehicle: Flight 77! Consider this: the plane hits the section that recently had reinforcement work completed. It impacts…and proceeds to plough through several ring walls: each 3 foot steel reinforced concrete (a total of 9 feet). After which the fibreglass nose peeks out the other side, disappears from existence and leaves a man and a half sized hole in it’s wake…

   There is speculation that the real means used, was possibly an A3 Sky Warrior (consistent with the engine parts recovered) or a bunker buster type, piece of ordinance. This could have been in missile form or launched to precede the impacting craft. This possibly ties in with theories about ‘Smack Sonic Insulation’ which allegedly reduces the aircraft and contents to the consistency of super heated plasma, therefore explaining the bizarre pattern of structural damage.
Whilst it is difficult to say what it WAS that struck The Pentagon, it would probably be safe to say that it wasn't Flight 77.

To Be Continued…

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One -
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two -
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics -

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

9/11 - Part 5: "WTC 7"

   World Trade Centre Building 7 was a 47 storey building adjacent to The Twin Towers. I was aware of the building and it’s location (like many of the landmark buildings of New York), through years of interest in Americana and US pop culture… hence my interest in the unfolding events  of 9/11. I taped hours of news coverage on the day and was totally confused by the BBC’s reporting of the collapse of WTC 7. At 5.08pm,  BBC correspondent Jane Stanley announced that the WTC 7 had collapsed… not started to or about to collapse… actually gone. This was confirmed by the news anchor in the studio:

"The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed."

I knew where the building should have been in relation to the landscape and was bemused to see it standing in clear view, in the background, as she spoke live about the collapse. As eyewitness testimony (and official record) shows, it would not collapse for another 12 minutes. Did the BBC cock up and accidentally reveal that they had prior knowledge? This was one the key events of 9/11 that has since made me question the ‘official’ story. The collapse of WTC 7 got very little attention at the time. In the days, months and years since, those who manipulate and control the agenda  have tried to dismiss, even ignore it. Even the BBC have subsequently “lost those key tapes” from their archives. Thankfully, some of us had our VCRs running!

   WTC 7 allegedly collapsed as a result of fire… a handful of moderate fires on 2 floors to be exact. Like WTC 1 & 2, the building collapsed at free fall speed, into it’s own footprint. It was not hit by a plane and it was only mildly damaged by falling debris after The Towers collapsed. When examining the footage of this building, it appears obvious that it suffered little more than minor damage and burning. If we believe the ‘official’ account, then this must have been a very shoddily constructed building, to fall so easily! It would also make it the first steel high-rise building in history to collapse due to mostly fire.

   Like The Towers, there are oddities leading up to the collapse.  At 6.47am of 9/11, WTC 7's fire alarm system was placed on "TEST" mode for an eight hour period for "maintenance or other testing". Any alarms that were received from the system were not shown on the operator’s display, considered the result of the maintenance / testing and ignored. Several demolition teams were documented as being at Ground Zero (mid afternoon) and witnessed WTC 7 collapse. Several Ground Zero rescuers were heard (and filmed) saying the WTC 7 was going to "blow up" and will be "coming down soon". Others mentioned they were told around 3 p.m. that it was going to collapse and others were waiting around for it to fall. These accounts began about 3 hours before it collapsed. Indeed, the FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden stated that at 2pm: “we  were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Centre would collapse”. At 4.15pm, CNN reporter Aaron Brown reported: "Building 7, in the WTC complex, is on fire and has either collapsed, or is collapsing” (this footage is available on Youtube).

   When the building went, A NYU medical student (who was watching the WTC 7) heard a clap of thunder, a shockwave rippling through the building, windows popping outward, then saw the bottom floor cave out followed by the rest of the building. Many researchers have pointed to footage of the collapse, that could indicate what looks like the central column supports “going” before the rest. The remaining debris from the WTC 7 was speedily removed without investigators having the chance to examine the wreckage at the scene to help determine the cause of failure. This was also the case with The Towers debris.

   Danny Jowenko was a Dutch explosives and demolition expert. He did not know about WTC 7 and was shown the footage of the collapse, but not told it took place on 9/11. After watching this he said, “Does the top go first? No. The Bottom… They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards. This is controlled demolition. This was a hired job performed by a team of experts.”

   Jowenko was then told by the interviewer that it took place on 9/11. His reaction was shock and surprise. “The same day?! Are you sure?!.. Are you sure this was the 11? That can‘t be”. After a long pause he said, “Then they worked hard!…. It‘s without a doubt a professional job. They knew exactly what they’re doing”. When asked to estimate how it would be carried out, he said that you would need experienced men: 30 to 40, 2 with a cutting torch, some to clear the walls, some to hook up the detonation cord and boosters and others to hook up the electronic systems. Jowenko subsequently went on to become an advocate of 9/11 truth.

   He sadly died in 2011 and his death has raised questions in the truth community. He was killed in a car accident, driving from church when he collided head on with a tree. There was also a dog in the car who survived.  If his death was related to his work to uncover the truth, we may never ultimately know.

   The significance of this particular building is not lost on some people. Despite the building being pretty much empty, some have claimed that Mayor Rudy Guiliani’s command centre (which allegedly orchestrated the events in WTC Plaza) was based in WTC 7. Whilst it is hard to prove this, it would be convenient to destroy evidence of said operation in the collapse. It has also been widely recorded that the CIA’s undercover “New York Station” was housed in WTC 7. Whilst it has been documented that over a billion dollars of gold were stored in WTC 4, it is also claimed that Gold Bullion was stored in WTC 7 too. This may be corroborated by eyewitness accounts of Gold Bullion being found in tunnels under WTC 5, when the site was being cleared.

It is also very well documented that key evidence in the ENRON scandal investigation was stored there and destroyed during the collapse. The ENRON scandal is inextricably linked to 9/11 through George Bush. ENRON Corporation was the biggest financial backer of Bush in the 2000 election and supported his career since his ‘Governor of Texas’ days. There is a huge amount of evidence linking Bush to Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling (both key players in ENRON leadership). Lay served on Bush’s transition team in 2000 and donated $290,000 to his campaign. Dick Cheney was also connected to ENRON, which he consulted at least 6 times before announcing US energy policy. ENRON collapsed due to manipulation of massive expansion of it’s global holdings, through the help of politicians on the payroll.  Executives sold their shares at the top of the market and encouraged employees to buy up shares. With the meltdown of ENRON, certain individuals made a killing. They so expertly played the system. It would make sense that exposing the activities of these people would reflect badly on the administration at the time. What a coincidence then, that key evidence in this case was lost on 9/11...

   Then, of course, there is the statement made by Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, who said (on record, viewable online in video form): "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is ‘pull it‘". And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" (PBS - 09/10/02). Any demolition expert worth their salt, will tell you that (what with all the road closures, debris and chaos) it would have next to impossible to set up the kind of operation needed for a ‘clean pull’ like WTC 7. Especially in only, a maximum window of, 8 hours. With this in mind, certain individuals must have had advance knowledge of 9/11 in order to set up the demolition of WTC 7.

   There may be some pieces of coincidental evidence to prove this supposition though.  In July of 2001, Larry Silverstein signed a 99-year lease for the rest of the WTC (just six weeks before the attacks). At roughly the same time, his insurance brokers changed WTC policy. The new policy allowed for the possible destruction of the towers to counted as two separate insurance claims (one per tower), instead of the original policy that counted both towers as one claim. On 9/11 itself, FOX reporter Jeffrey Shapiro said that several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers had told him that Larry Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the WTC 7. The ultimate outcome of Silverstein’s foresight, allowed him to pocket $861 million (a profit of $478 million) for the collapse of WTC 7 alone. With the following court battles (to claim double payment for The Towers), he was ultimately awarded just under 5 billion dollars. Not a bad days work at the expense of such tragedy and loss of life…

   The overall ‘official’ account and investigation of the collapse of this building has been a whitewashed lie of the highest order. The FEMA report, regarding WTC 7 gives no concrete conclusion as to why it collapsed. It states only that it MAY have occurred through fire alone and that additional study would be required. The 9/11 commission report almost ignores it’s existence, saying only that the collapse was “highly improbable”. To this day, there has been no further ‘official’ investigation into the collapse of WTC 7. Exposing the truth about this particular aspect of 9/11 may bring us closer to definitive answers. Maybe that is why debunkers, the powers that be and the propaganda machine goes to great lengths to pretend it never, ever happened.

What THEY won’t touch on, is where WE may find the answers.
To Be Continued…

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One -
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two -
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics -

Tuesday, 23 August 2011

9/11 - Part 4: "Method In The Madness"

   The methods used to bring down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre is a huge matter for debate in the truth community. These matters have been fuelled and compounded by photographic and video footage combined with eyewitness testimony. As the media began coverage of events, many individuals (including certain reporters) made claims about all manner of aircraft and hardware, with some showing no knowledge of the involvement of jet airliners: “A bomb has gone off” and “There has been a huge explosion” were the sorts of statements made.

   As events progressed, people were continually being corrected by news anchors: “It was high jacked planes!“ Eventually there were numerous people, cited as eyewitnesses, who were actually from certain institutional agencies and organisations. Some have even been exposed as ‘fake testimony’ (individuals claiming to be a certain individual when they clearly were somebody else!). These people were shown by the mainstream media repeatedly as reliable testimony, almost as if to reinforce an engineered consensus: “Two planes slammed into the towers!” (I will discuss the media’s role in 9/11 in a forthcoming post).

   Reconciling inconsistencies in the wealth of eyewitness accounts from 9/11, is difficult. There are a huge number of people who never actually saw planes, yet saw and heard the initial explosions. Some have subsequently filled in the gaps based on “general consensus”. Yet if pushed, they still cannot be 100% sure they even saw a plane. One or two witnesses have even claimed to have seen a plane, yet heard no explosion! Make of that what you will! Testimony from the moments before both the impacts and the collapses, also describe unusual sound anomalies. Droning, hissing and “thrushing” sounds were spoken off by several witnesses. The sound of military-like jets and missiles were also spoken of by others. It is difficult to imagine how the brain ultimately compartmentalises a first hand experience like 9/11. I believe the lack of consistency amongst these differing accounts, exposes the flaws in the ‘official’ story.

   More revealing, are numerous accounts of various differing aircraft. Some witnessed small planes: “It looked like a commuter plane” (Don Wright), “The plane appeared to hold 8 to 12 people” (Steve Patterson), etc. Anthony Bartolomey , in his interviews stated: “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane”.

   Former Republican Party insider Karl Schwarz began investigating oddities in the wake of 9/11. In running across the video footage in a French foreign film entitled The Barbarian Invasion (a film unrelated to 9-11), he noticed a 1 minute 52 second video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwartz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower… rather than the government claimed 767. Schwarz said he also had evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767.

   There was even an account from Tom Wright (an operations manager at FAA’s New York Terminal Radar Approach Control - DRACON) of a Sikorsky helicopter that was tracked until it collided with the WTC at 8.27am on 9/11. He also claimed that it was “the only target that we saw in the vicinity of the Trade Centre”.

   It is conceivable that there would be numerous differing accounts. Despite the fact that, the FAA grounded all aircraft (including military) at 9.24am, various credible internet video footage shows passenger jets in the skies throughout the day. It has been confirmed that the Bin Laden family was flown out of the US after the lockdown, so how many planes were still in the air? Student video footage from across the Hudson River shows fighter jets speeding toward the Towers (between the initial ‘impact’ and collapse) and throughout the day. This poses the larger question of a military presence being able to prevent said ‘attacks’! Even at the moment of ‘impact’, video footage reveals both: a large commercial aircraft flying past the North Tower, as it was hit and a white aircraft behind the towers, as the South Tower was hit.

   There were also claims of military hardware: “I was convinced it was a missile”, ”We heard what sounded like a missile”, “One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building” (Anthony Bartolomey), etc. At 9.06am, PAPD Police Desk radio report, PA Channel W reported: “Units on channel W, this is 8581 Sierra. Theres been a reported missile launching from the Woolworth Building. CPD, if you are monitoring, get in touch with New York City. Have them check the Woolworth Building roof top".

   The debate about military vehicles and devices was blown open, with claims made about a ’pod’ attached to the underbelly of Flight 175. Subsequent study of numerous photographs and video footage has shown this ’pod’ to be visible from several angles. Researchers have studied the smaller amount of footage of Flight 11 and showed the possibility that it too had a ’pod’. Whilst it is difficult to quantify this theory given the ease with which footage can be doctored, it has fuelled truthers and sceptics alike. Those who follow the ’official story’ claim it is nothing more than shadows and light anomalies. Truth Seekers have been heartened by several independent successes with video analysis. Whilst experts don’t know what it is, they can rule out the shadows and lighting factors. It appears that it is very much a part of the whole vehicle. Combined with the ’flash’ footage that pre-empts the ’impact’, some believe that it is an Incendiary Device. Thus calling the nature of these two planes into doubt.

   Were they military in nature? FOX employee, Mark Burnback stated at the time: “There was definitely a blue logo with like a circular logo on the front of the plane, toward the… yeah, definitely toward the front. It definitely didn’t look like a commercial plane. I didn’t see any windows on the side… It was not a normal flight that I’ve ever seen. It did not look like it belonged in this area”. Footage from the time shows eyewitnesses initial observations. One woman screams: “That was not an American Airline” (repeatedly). One man said; “The plane wasn’t no airline or anything. It was a twin engine, big, grey plane”. With this in mind, you have to ask the question: If not Flight 11 and 175, what happened to the planes they claimed were used? Where are the passengers and crew? Considering the answer to this question is a chilling realisation…

   You would also have to ask, would those responsible have people prepared to fly vehicles into certain death? The Japanese did it in WW2! Those who believe in an agenda would loyally lay down their lives for, what they perceive to be, the greater good. However, what if these aircraft were unmanned? As crazy as that may sound, it has applications based firmly in reality.
In 1984, The NASA Dryden Flight Research Centre and the FAA flew a fully fuelled Boeing 720 via remote control and crash it into the ground. In 1994, An experiment at the Crows Landing NASA Facility in the Central Valley of California involved 110 landings of a Boeing 737 airliner using an experimental GPS navigation system. On April 24, 2001, The Global Hawk made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned, robotic aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean. On August 25, 2001, Raytheon (several of the listed 9/11 flight passengers were employed by Raytheon!) and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times using a military GPS landing system that enabled ground control to take control of a hijacked airplane and force land it. They also successfully completed flight testing of a system providing accurate and reliable landing guidance for both rotary and fixed wing aircraft during low visibility (Category I and II) approaches, on September 6, 2001.

   All four planes hijacked were made by Boeing (a major defence contractor) and have virtually the same flight decks, can store an entire flight path plan, and can be automatically flown immediately after takeoff up until landing. It is strange when you consider that the two Boeing 767's that were claimed to have hit the North and South WTC Towers crashed at approximately the same angle, both hitting their targets tilting to the left. The technology to precisely fly planes by remote, avoiding obstacles and undertaking manoeuvres of near impossibility for a living pilot, is in commercial use today. Military technology is known to be at least 20 years ahead of that in commercial use, so it is certainly feasible.

   In examining the theory of unconventional weaponry use to collapse the towers, I must credit Dr Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson for their tireless research into the subject of energy weapons or means. Whilst I still have certain reservations about these matters, I am certainly open to the idea. Especially if you consider the 60 year or more history of classified research, development and testing of microwave weapons, exotic energy weapons and weather modification technology. I am convinced these means exist in some form and, with this in mind, it is not such a stretch of the imagination to entertain the notion of black technology usability in a false flag or covert operation.

   Many in the truth movement have lambasted these ideas and, whether you agree or not, the research into this theory is certainly worth taking the time to at least examine… instead of immediately dismissing out of hand. Whilst studying the “bubbling”, “foaming” and “dustification” effect, visible in footage of the collapses, they have also pointed to anomalies in the surrounding area. Upturned cars, bizarre scorching of vehicles, inconsistent fire damage of property and environment and ’cold fires’ (photographs show rescue workers walking through small fires with no effect on the person).

   Evidence of these unconventional methods to bring down the towers, may lie in the mystery surrounding Hurricane Erin, which was over the Atlantic Ocean and the longest-lived hurricane in the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. The hurricane maintained peak strength for 18 hours. Erin should have made New York landfall on September 11, yet it rapidly decelerated and veered off in a totally different easterly direction. Although it could be argued that nature is, by it’s very nature (no pun intended), is unpredictable… is it just a bizarre coincidence?. If Erin had continued on course, we would not have had clear blue skies on 9/11 (for the footage!), flights may have been delayed or cancelled and we may never have had an event called 9/11. It may have been 9/14 or 9/26 (the numerological significance of the date would have diminished though!)… who can tell. However, anybody who knows the history of weather modification projects knows that altering the path of a hurricane is not so far fetched as it may appear.

The problem with examining the twin towers as evidence of a cover-up?
It is difficult to get close to solid proof. The Towers evidence (whilst damning) contradicts itself… left, right and centre.

Proof of something more tangible lay just down the road from the centre of attention though.
Whilst most people didn’t realise it, a confession of guilt was televised, live and for all to see….
At World Trade Centre Building 7.
To Be Continued…

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One -
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two -
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics -

Sunday, 21 August 2011

9/11 - Part 3: "The Twin Towers"

   There are numerous perspectives on the methods, culprits and motivations that resulted in 9/11 being labelled as a cover-up or inside job. Certain groups of people have said that there is a cover-up, but this cover-up simply encapsulates a peripheral view of only certain aspects of evidence. This view proposes three questions: Did the US government know of an imminent attack? Could they have prevented it? Or worse, did they allow it to happen?

   Threats of terrorisms and plane hijackings, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century, are a matter of historical record. There are numerous accounts of individuals and groups planting bombs and seizing commercial airlines. Also, the notion of such acts have been a mainstay of popular literature, film and television for a long time. With this fact being so prevalent in the common political and cultural zeitgeist, it would be hard for any government (especially a global power) not to take such threats seriously.

  It appears, as early as September 1972, that such threats were. Richard Nixon formed a high-level, government panel at the time to develop methods to protect the US against the possibility of terrorist attacks (in various forms). Bureaucracy, Elections and Watergate eventually diluted the findings and purpose of the panel. Even as late as June 1995, President Clinton signed the PDD-39 Counterterrorism Directive in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of terrorism investigations, by placing the FBI in charge.

   It is questionable how effective such measures and warnings were, but it does show that such notions were taken seriously at the time. It does seem obvious from both records and events (pre- 9/11) that the US government was aware of the seriousness. Boeing 707, continental airline flight 11, was destroyed, mid flight, by a bomb in 1962. Four US bound airlines were high jacked over Europe in 1970 (3 of which were later blown up on an airstrip in Jordan). Private Robert Preston stole an army helicopter and flew it to the White House in February of 1974. Five days later, Samuel Byck attempted to highjack a commercial plane…with the intention of crashing into the White House and killing Nixon. The list goes on and on.

   Indeed, US officials had considered the possibility of planes being flown into the Olympic Stadium in Atlanta in 1996. In 1997, John O’Neill (the man who was killed on his second day of work as chief of security at the World Trade Centre on 9/11) warned, in his role as assistant director of the FBI, that imminent and organized terrorist attacks were possible and that terrorists were already operating in the US.

   More evidently, we have the foiled 1995 terrorist plot: ‘Operation Bojinka’, which alerted the US to plans that included hijacking planes to attack the Pentagon, WTC and CIA headquarters. There are also actual events like the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. An event that was, ironically, associated with Osama Bin Laden.

 In August 2001, it was claimed that the US were warned by both French Intelligence authorities and The Taliban of an imminent terrorist attack against the US.
On August 6th, the CIA drafted a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US”. This document was reported by at least a dozen or so mainstream newspapers and TV news outlets, after 9/11.
On September 7th 2001, the US State Department warned US citizens may be targeted by Al Qaeda associated terrorists

With all of this in mind, it is utterly staggering that in May 2002, Condoleezza Rice gave a press briefing where she stated:
“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Centre, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

   This is compounded by her claims that (pre 9/11) intelligence reports “did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning“, and did not contain information that Bin Laden and his associates were discussing a “particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method.“.
In retrospect, specific documents and testimony combined with historical precedence almost overwhelmingly show that the powers that be, were at least aware of the possibility of a 9/11-style terrorist event.

   The 9/11 Commission Report was published in July 2004. Despite the CIA rebuking the final report, claiming that they regularly reported on “threats to civil aviation” and citing Osama Bin Laden as “a danger”; the 9/11 report exonerated both the Clinton and Bush administrations and their intelligence agencies of any blame. 

   It is interesting to note that that in December of 2003, Chairman Kean of the independent 9/11 commission pointed fingers inside the administration and ultimately insinuated that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. This brings us onto the second question: Did the US government, military, intelligence agencies have the capability to prevent the attacks? You only have to research the slew of operations that were planned and carried out in the year, months, weeks and days leading up to 9/11 (and on the day itself) to see that the capability of prevention was available.

   In October of 2000, The Pentagon conducted the first of two emergency exercises (MASCAL) involving mock crashes of passenger aircraft into the Pentagon. NORAD planned a similar practice scenario in April 2001, which they ultimately rejected as being “too unrealistic”! Oddly, in the same month, Fort Meyer conducted a Force Protection Exercise which included aspects of NORAD’s “unrealistic” scenario. In June 2001, NORAD admitted that it had scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 67 times since September 2000, proving that such military capability of interception/prevention was possible. Further exercises were carried out.
  • NORAD’s “Amalgam Virgo 01” (June 1st 2001),
  •  “Mall Strike 2001” (June 16th 2001)
  • “Operation Dark Winter” (June 22nd / 23rd 2001 - which included scripted TV news naming Iraqi/Afghanistani terrorist groups as possible culprits),
  • Another MASCAL exercise (June 29th 2001)
  • Mock terrorism drill at Buffalo Niagara International Airport (September 8th 2001),
  • NORAD’s operation “Northern Vigilance” (September 9th 2001)
  • “Vigilant Guardian” (September 10th 2001 - a one-week exercise)
  • Fort Belvoir’s “Garrison Control Exercise” (9/11)
  • Fort Meyer’s “airport emergency operations” training exercise (9/11)
  • NORAD’s simulated aircraft high-jacking exercise (9/11 - Source: Vanity Fair - 08/01/06).
There other exercises planned for 9/11 (& post 9/11) that were reported “cancelled”, including:
  • Joint CIA/NRO exercise involving simulated plane crashes into buildings (Source: USA Today - 08/22/02), another force protection exercise for Fort Myer Military Community (Source: DC Military - 09/14/01)
  • FEMA’s “Operation TRIPOD” (Sept 12th 2001), which, coincidentally, had it’s command centre located at Pier 92 where the 9/11 command centre was ultimately located. 
 This leads us to the last question of culpability. There are some who say that a total ineptitude on the part of dozens of state departments, lead to the attacks being “unavoidable”. Even the evidence above makes that theory doubtful (not unless hundreds of thousands of civil servants, intelligence officers and military personnel had the skill level of the Key Stone Cops!) Others say that the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing, for example: real events were being mistaken for training exercises. Looking at 9/11 through this narrow perspective of US responsibility without considering huge amounts of other evidence is a bit like exonerating a criminal just because they have nice smile!

   It does beg the questions: If they had prior knowledge, if they could have prevented it and didn’t… Did they allow it to happen?

   You would have to ignore a lot of other aspects to make this argument work.
This leads us to the ultimate question: Were they complicit or even, directly responsible?

To Be Continued…

Books available from Carl James:
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume One -
Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda - Volume Two -
What Really Happened at the London 2012 Olympics -

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

Max Keiser Predicts False Flag Event

   Whilst recently on the subject of 9/11 and false flag events, an item on RT’s The Keiser Report caught my attention this week. Max Keiser has predicted the possibility of a false flag attack in the next 90 days. The reason: impending Pentagon budgetary cuts. He referred to an article in the Financial Times that suggested the real possibility of the cuts following the deficit reduction deal agreed by congress.

   “The defence budget will sustain at least $350bn in cuts over the next 10 years as part of the initial deal. But if a bipartisan “super committee” cannot agree on $1,500bn in spending cuts before November, the Pentagon faces another $500bn automatic reduction to its budget.”

   As Keiser points out, the US needs it’s military at full capacity. It is an integral part of the financial and global power machinery that drives America. If you can’t prevent the cuts, you need to then justify the existing (or more) budget. For that, the military has to be ‘necessary’. A war or ‘event’ justifies such a necessity.

   Keiser is a top economic analyst who has been repeatedly on the nose, with regard to economically connected global affairs. Whilst I tend to agree with him, I believe there is currently a much larger picture developing in relation to the idea of false flag usage. Much of this is based on observation of current events.

   The last 8 days has seen a meltdown in global financial affairs. The media is downplaying the gravity of events, yet with the US triple-A downgrading, the threat of a Euro monetary collapse, new European countries dragging their feet in adopting the Euro, Greece’s rapid privatisation of selling off of national assets and the coincidental prop-up of Spanish & Italian debt… the picture speaks for itself. People are getting wiser and they are starting to see the reality unfolding around them.

   Maybe this is the case for the current unrest in the UK. Who knows what is currently going on. Whilst I recognise that some individuals love to take advantage of such situations and engage in ‘Droog’ mentality in an unforgivable and disgusting manner, I can’t help shake the feeling that we’re not getting the whole story. This is hardly surprising if you truly understand the nature of news propaganda in the mainstream media, yet some people still fall for it. The information about the shooting that apparently started the rioting, is sketchy at best. I have heard rumours about peaceful protesting in the early stages, but finding solid information about this is even harder.

   Now we have talk of the scale of deterent needed to quell the violence. The violence needs to be stopped. I understand this, but when high up political figures and news reporters are talking about the use of the Army on the streets of our cities, we are getting into very dangerous territory. This is a story we need to watch very carefully and be vigilant. We (those who recognise the real nature of global events) need to be ready to sound the alarm if it appears that such events are being used to further erode our rights and freedoms.

Protecting innocent people and property is fair and good, but we don’t need to lose anymore of our civil liberties.
They’ve already taken more than enough!

See you in part three of my 9/11 series.

9/11 - Part 2: "The New Pearl Harbour"

   At the end of part one, I posed the question: Was the US complicit in or even, directly responsible for 9/11? Before you even start examining the evidence relating to the 9/11 inside job theory, you have to take a look back through US history and try to establish a context. Many believe that those in the upper echelons of the US power structure have, on several occasions, played a role in assisting or creating events to advance a plan or agenda. The most “infamous” of such theories begins with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour that instigated US entry into World War 2.

Whilst there is still a degree of speculation surrounding the evidence of a cover-up, it does appear that the US knew that Japan intended to attack (pre-Pearl Harbour).

The Hilo Tribune Herald reported “Japan May Strike Over Weekend” on November 30, 1941 (the weekend before the attack), so generic insight was common knowledge at the time. As for exact knowledge of the where and when, is open to debate.

   Much of the debate revolves around the degree of Japanese code-breaking that had occurred (the NSA released NJ-25 orders of 1979, certainly show detailed knowledge of Pearl Harbour on the part of the Japanese) and various documentation , such as the “ McCollum” memo (an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia). What raises the questions are the oddities.
  • The positioning of the US fleet to safety just before the attack and leaving old battered ships in place… coincidence?
  • FDR began putting the 8 point plan into effect the very next day… coincidence?
  • FDR proposed sacrificing 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila (in Feb 1941) to get into war… coincidence?
  • Churchills’s observation at the Atlantic Conference: "astonishing depth of Roosevelt's intense desire for war."… coincidence?
  • Secretary Interior Harold Ickes: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan"…coincidence?
  • The tri-party agreement between Japan, Germany and Italy, executed one year earlier. The agreement stipulated that a war against any one of the parties would be considered to be a war against all three… coincidence?
   In August 2002, both the BBC and the Chicago Sun Times ran features on the sunken, 78 foot submarine at Pearl Harbour. These featured the story of a Japanese midget submarine that was shot at (and sunk) by US sailors, a full 2 hours before the aerial attack on Pearl Harbour. Whilst Pearl Harbour can certainly be shown as instigating the US entry into the war, it does allow for the speculation of false flag and ‘events by design’.

   Far more compelling, though, is Operation Northwoods. Made public in 1997 (and more completely several years later), Operation Northwoods refers to documents originated by the Joint Chief of Staffs within the Kennedy Administration. Specifically, they refer to engineered events that could used to justify military action against Cuba. The following co-ordinated events were proposed: Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

(1) start rumours (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbour; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbour entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

   The United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base. There was discussion about blowing up US ships in Guantanamo Bay to blame Cuba. Destroying unmanned, drone vessels and arranging “to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both”. Developing a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.

   “We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”

   “An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.” With the ‘plane’ speculation surrounding 9/11, this particular proposal raises a few eyebrows.

   It has to be noted that JFK ultimately rejected these proposals. Some have connected his untimely assasination to his refusal to approve the Northwoods mandate, however this is only speculation. What is fact, is contained within the pages of these documents. Aspects of the US power structure were perfectly prepared to carry out false flag events to advance a political/military agenda. The Northwoods documents are readily available on the net and I would suggest it as recommended reading for anybody interested in learning the truth about the notion of false flag operations.

   Such examples as Pearl Harbour and Northwoods are not isolated affairs. You only have to do a cursory look into the Gulf Of Tonkin incident and the subsequent entry into the Vietnam War to see a pattern. Even as late as 1995, the Oklahoma City bombings have raised such questions. Were it not for local affiliate TV stations, we may never have become aware of the presence of a second (and possibly third) bomb/bombs in the Alfred P Murrah building… Or the defusing operation taking place at the time.

   The final twist in researching these suggestions, relates to the (Council on Foreign Relations associated) document: Rebuilding America’s Defences, created by the think tank: Project For The New American Century (PNAC).

   Not only is this a showcase for individuals who became closely associated or directly involved with both the Bush Administration and proponents of the ‘New World Order’ agenda, it is also seen by many as a roadmap (or worse, policy document) of US political and military, global aspirations post-2000. The document proposes the subjugation of several nations (by name), countries which coincidentally ended up on Bush’s ‘Axis Of Evil’ hit-list. It talks about establishing a “Pax Americana”, a strategy of global influence and expansion which includes the justification of war with other nations as: preservation of “American Peace” and the spread of “Democracy”.

   It is strange to note that this policy and mantra has now been adopted by many western countries (UK and Europe) and continues unabated today, despite both the US & UK having ‘politically opposite’ governments to those who initiated this agenda. One should never forgot that all of this could not have easily occurred, were it not for the events of 9/11. AND… what should we find on page 52 of this document:
“The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - LIKE A NEW PEARL HARBOR”

Like a new Pearl Harbour… sound familiar?
Well it should. 9/11 was that “new Pearl Harbour“.

In part one and two, I’ve looked at the possibility of an engineered strategy.
In part three onwards, I’m going to start looking at some of the evidence from 9/11 and see if it matches the ‘official story’ or tells us something more sinister.

To Be Continued…