ContactI respond to ALL mails that are not spam within a day or two, with a real answer, not a script even if it takes hours to answer them. IF you mailed me and got no response, it got intercepted.
Web resourcesI am going to post the most valuable web resources here.
This is the best video sniping site, you don't have to buy the app, just use it and let it use Java.
Internet explorer hates this, but Google chrome works fine.
This is the best absolute stealth mode Linux out there, (Kills ubuntu dead) but you need an older PC for it (4 or more years)
When it downloads, double click it with a burnable CD in your drive, NOT a dvd, and it will take care of the rest. Re-boot via CD and enjoy. You don't have to install it, and it leaves your computer untouched.
Since Vialls work was so similar to mine, it will be archived here.
April 26 2012, 2:07 AM
This report has been approved for posting by a veteran commercial airline pilot, with the following disclaimer:James,
Great job with the photos. I scrolled back and forth between the 800 and the impact plane. I still think 300, or slight chance 400-500 (not very likely though) because of the relative proportion. The impact plane to me still looks too small for an 800. The 800 was stretched to carry up to 189 passengers and had a longer fuselage.
However, it ABSOLUTELY is a 737. Tell you what. Just link to my article (attached unchanged in case you lost it) and if it is an 800 you can have all the glory. I only pointed out the picture for the flap track fairings which are huge on all 737's. It doesn't really matter which model it is. It is NOT a 767 and your pictures show that superbly, better than what I linked to.
I just hope the main point doesn't get lost in a red herring chase over which model 737 it is. The photos are secondary evidence. The engine in the street, confirmed by mechanics, is the hard evidence of what it was.
I don't mind disagreeing with you on this issue and if it turns out you are correct, I will cheer you on. I just can't see it yet. What the heck, as you implied in your intro, I'm a semi-senile retired fuddy duddy who doesn't know what he's looking at. Gosh, I'm 69, what do you expect?
My comment about the intro: you are still WITH IT!!! 69 is nothing these days!
I have to get this online in stages, so bear with me, I have a lot to do. His full report will appear in the guest writer's section as soon as I manually retype the code to HTML.
The full report by Mike Phillips is now linked Here
IntroductionI had readers warn me not to post ANYTHING about 911, because it's become a religion for many and I would lose readers. However, I think I have something here that will end the pod plane theory, and the computer graphics / no plane theory in one shot. The pod plane theory will be set aside because the plane used for the theory (the one that appeared in Popular Mechanics) is a fake. You can't blame people for running with that, and the birth of that theory is the fault of Popular Mechanics.
The no plane theory is now going to have to factor in HOW on earth, or WHY on earth would a computer graphics team use the wrong airplane, when they could have used the right one.This report is open to discussion, but I think it has been pretty well nailed.
Was an unused five year old prototype 737-800 the real 9/11 plane?
Comment: The plane was made of aluminum and could not break the side of the building.
Answer: The plane had an aluminum skin over a very strong sub structure. What structure is there that can survive an F5 tornado? The 737-800 can easily survive a 700 MPH dive, which will hit the plane with four times the stress of the worst F5 tornado. Jumbo jets are not weak.
Furthermore, the plane weighed 174,000 pounds and was going 300 MPH. Most wrecking balls weigh around 10,000 pounds and seldom go over 30 MPH. In a car accident, how much worse is 60 MPH than 30 MPH? Then, how much worse is 300 than 30? deceleration of mass will always exert a lot of force when it is that fast and that much. I don't doubt for a minute the planes broke the beams on the front of the building, 174,000 pounds IS WHAT IT IS.
Comment: Several pilots have come out and said the planes were going too fast for specifications
Answer: Not this pilot. Since he knew it was a 737, he knew the apparent speed would be higher than reality, a LOT higher, and his own calculations pegged the speed at 300 mph (a quick guess, he said 250 knots). This is because all the speed calculations of less observant pilots factored in the length of a 767, which is twice the mass of a 737, so when calculating how long the plane took to travel it's length and equating that to speed, their numbers were way off. 300 MPH looks VERY impressive only 800 feet or so from the ground. Add to this the fact that early on the plane looked like it was going a lot slower, and as the years progressed it got faster and faster, and video fakery is now in the equation. He calculated the speed on day one, before any of that happened.
When I did this report, all these questions were addressed and answered.
April 25 2012
The following was written by veteran commercial airline pilot Mike Phillips.I am posting this without edits. The pictures he links are confusing, so if you need clarification, Use this reference
I was a Captain for a major airline and retired about twenty years ago. During my career, I flew in and out of New York and Washington thousands of times. When 9-11 happened, I felt like it happened on my turf so to speak. It was commercial airliners and places I was very familiar with, so I took a special interest in the subject.
For years I collected everything I could find about 9-11. After a decade of this, I think I've got the basics pretty well figured out; who did it, why and a good deal of how it was done. From my experience I could see through the airplane parts of the story and reject those which didn't make sense to me, but which might to someone outside the business.
The trouble is we all have blind spots. As a former pilot I knew from day one that many of the airplane aspects of the official story were not credible. However, not being an expert in architecture I saw no reason why airplanes hitting the buildings couldn't have brought them down.
Then the architects appeared and explained how these buildings were put together and specifically designed to withstand airplane impacts. The only way to bring down the buildings the way they were constructed was with massive explosives. If you follow me so far, and most people who have looked at 9-11 probably do, then you can see that the people who blew up the Trade Center had a problem which required a solution.
They couldn't just blow up the buildings. Everyone would demand an investigation into who did it, who rigged the explosives and how. If you see this, then you understand that the airplanes were essential in order to provide a cover story for detonating the explosives. In addition, it had to be believable. New York is a city of about 9 million people. The airplanes had to be real, seen and photographed to buttress the story. It worked too. Even today most people still think that airplanes hitting the towers were what caused them to collapse.
The next problem was since the airplanes were essential to the story, how to insure that they actually hit the buildings. That absolutely had to happen before the explosives were detonated or the story would fall apart. They certainly couldn't trust some semi-literate, technically unskilled Arabs with no flying skills to successfully take over four commercial flights armed only with putzy little box cutters and successfully complete the mission.
How they solved this is evident from the photographs and video. There is a photograph that shows what is supposedly Flight 175 from below just prior to impact with the building. To the average person, I'm sure it just looks like a jet airplane hitting the building, but if you know what to look for, the airplane is a 737-300, not a 767. The easiest way to tell is by the flap track fairings which are considerably different on the two aircraft.
Below is a picture of the 737 just prior to impact. It's the second one down. Under that are four pictures. The first two are of a 767 and the second two of the 737 which hit the tower. Notice the flap track fairings. (see paragraph below for description) On the 737. they are relatively thick, but on the 767 they appear relatively thin. There are other differences, but they are more subtle.
I have shown this to people who didn't understand what the flap track fairings were. To clarify: the wing flaps run back and down on geared tracks to allow the airplane to fly slowly when coming in for landing. They have to cover these tracks to make them aerodynamic. On the rear underside of the wing look for two parallel structures pointing in the same direction as the aircraft outboard of the engines. They are about one third and two thirds the way out to the wingtip. These are the fairings. Fat ones identify the 737, slender ones the 767.
In addition, in the video of the airplane hitting the tower, after impact you can see an object coming out the rear of the building circled in the first image in the link below. It is one of the engines and it landed near the intersection of Church and Murray street in lower Manhattan. Before the evidence could be removed, it was photographed in the street by Fox News and positively identified by airline mechanics as a CMF56, the primary engine of the Boeing 737. This is an engine much to small to power a 767.
In the images below notice that in one shot the camera crew got there while the engine was still smoking. In another you can see the concrete cracked where it landed. Also you can see the bent street sign it took out on the way down. At first I'm sure they wanted this televised. Airplanes were supposed to hit the buildings and this supported the story. However, soon after mechanics identified the engine as coming from a Boeing 737. Oops. It's the small details that get them. The story disappeared from TV soon after.
Thus there are two pieces of evidence that an actual Boeing 737 hit the South Tower. Small problem: Flight 175 which left Boston was a Boeing 767. While it is highly unlikely that four airplanes could be taken over by people armed only with box cutters when those airplanes were manned by military trained pilots who know there is a crash axe in the cockpit and where to find it - crash axe trumps box cutters - it is absolutely impossible to use box cutters to turn a Boeing 767 into a Boeing 737 in midair. Sayonara, official story.
So, where did the 737's come from and why? It turns out that just prior to 9-11 there were over 40 737's parked in the desert which could be purchased cheaply. There was also an Israeli owned company that specialized in converting airplanes to remote control. The problem with this particular point is that I saw it, but I have lost the documentation over the years. In any case, there was no evidence that this company actually did the modifications. However, the modifications had to be made and an Israeli owned company could be trusted to do it and keep quiet. What we do know is that exactly what they needed to accomplish these modifications existed. Beyond that is speculation.
When you realize the absolute necessity of the airplanes hitting the buildings first, you can see what they did. They converted the 737's to remote control and installed a camera facing out the cockpit window. The airplanes were absolutely empty. There were no people on board to chicken out at the last minute and foul things up. They were remotely flown into the buildings.
There is indirect evidence for the airplanes being remote controlled. It is very convincing to me as a pilot, but maybe not so much for a non-pilot. The World Trade Center buildings were approximately the width of a runway. If you watch airplanes landing at an airport, you will notice that no matter whether they are being flown by the most experienced captain or a brand new co-pilot, they never have to make a last minute 30 degree bank to land on the runway. With the parallax that comes from having two eyeballs, any slight drift off course is easily noticed and corrected by any pilot.
However, if you only have a camera with a single lens what you must do is point the airplane at the target. If there is a crosswind, the target will drift very slowly off center - until - until - you get very close and then it will appear to move off center very quickly. I had a friend and fellow pilot who in his time off raced remotely controlled airplanes. He explained a lot to me about the difficulty of flying a plane you weren't actually in. That is obviously what happened and the remote operator must have realized in the last few seconds that he was going to miss the building entirely. Hence the massive left turn striking the building at a angle.
So, what about the real Flight 175? It turns out there were drills going on that day simulating aircraft hijackings. What airplanes do you suppose they used for those? According to airline records which were leaked, Flights 11 and 175 didn't operate as normal paying flights that day. The captain on one of the flights was a reserve officer who worked at the Pentagon on the operation to simulate these drills. Perhaps not conclusive proof, but the pieces fit.
They've made a hack job on the internet of the American pilot, saying he deliberately flew the airplane into the Pentagon, etc. This is, of course, nonsense. Apparently he was still in the reserves. While there is some question about that, it would be normal. Lots of airline pilots retain their reserve status for the retirement benefits and many keep it for the opportunity to fly fun things like F-4's again.
They were flying drills that day and had to use real airplanes for them. Airlines do cooperate with projects like that and would make flights available to train FAA personnel. Having a captain who had participated in the preparation of the drills would be ideal. Regardless of his reserve status, he did fly the plane. All they did, all four flights, was take off on what they assumed would be training flights for the controllers. They also would have had people acting as passengers and hijackers to help with the simulation for crew training.
There are areas of the country where radar coverage is very poor due to terrain and other factors. The flights were all routed over these areas and that is where the transponders were turned off. I figure this is where they swapped the remote controlled airplanes in a way that the FAA couldn't see and sent the drill airplanes somewhere for "debriefing." Poor guys. They had no idea that "debriefing" meant their elimination. They shut down all air traffic in the country for about a week after that except for authorized flights. There would have been no problem taking the drill aircraft afterwards and ditching them in the sea where no traces of them would ever be found.
This is my informed speculation. To me, the pieces fit, but if a better explanation for any of the details were presented, I'd sure consider it. Bear in mind I'm no genius, just an observer with a perspective that not everyone has.
There is more that could be said about Flight 77 (the Pentagon) and Flight 93. Here is a little of what I see for consideration. I currently think they were screw-ups and didn't do all they were supposed to. Less is known about them since they weren't televised live like the New York flights. All we got from the Pentagon was the aftermath and even less from Flight 93.
Flight 77 was ten minutes late leaving Dulles and about an hour late arriving at the Pentagon, assuming they wanted the attacks to be simultaneous. If the Pentagon had been hit at the same time as the Trade Center, they could have used it for an explanation of why the Air Force wasn't scrambled - our communications were disrupted. As it is, they've had a hard time ever since explaining why they sat on the butts for an hour after the Trade Center was hit.
Then there's the conversation reported by Panetta between Cheney and an aide. "The plane is ten miles out, do the orders still stand?" Of course they still stood. Cheney had his eye on the big picture. It didn't matter that the plane was late. There were over 2 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon and they needed to blow up the part of the building that housed the records. Mission accomplished.
As for a large commercial airplane hitting the building, I don't see it. People like to say that it "vaporized." I'd like to take them out on a flight line and let them look at the landing gear of a 757, or even a 737. They are massive and strong enough to absorb the impact of 200,00 lbs landing hard and repeatedly. Not all landings are smooth, not even mine, but don't tell anyone I said that. The landing gear might have been a little scratched and bent, but it wouldn't have vaporized. There are no records of them hauling any massive pieces out of the Pentagon of which I am aware.
That still leaves the problem of the airplane. Too many people saw it and many credible witnesses said that its flight path was not over the telephone poles that were downed. How an airplane could hit several massive metal telephone poles and not have its flight disrupted resulting in a crash mystifies me.
My current guess (and I emphasize guess here) is that they did a magician's trick. They flew by the Pentagon at low altitude and detonated explosives in the building just as the airplane passed over. Practically anyone who saw this and the smoke rising in the air would "assume" that the airplane hit the Pentagon. All it had to do was stay low for a little while and then climb out unobserved in the confusion.
Interesting to note: there was a second explosion at the Pentagon about 20 minutes later. Perhaps some of the explosives didn't go off the first time. If you look at a picture of the Pentagon taken immediately, not 20 minutes or more after the initial explosion, the damage is much less consistent with the impact of a large airplane. I'm not terribly comfortable with this explanation, but nothing else I've heard so far is better. Someone, a reader perhaps, might be able to help me out here. On this I would definitely consider any alternative, but it would have to make sense..
Flight 93 was even worse. It was delayed 41 minutes on the ground at Newark. I could have warned them about that. Newark is the stepchild of the New York airports. Ground delays are most common there. I figure it left too late to accomplish whatever they had planned for it and they shot it down. The question is, what did they shoot down, Flight 93 or the remote controlled aircraft they had planned to substitute for it? Actually, if it was the remote, they might have just remotely crashed it rather than shoot it down.
There were scattered reports of Flight 93 landing somewhere (Cleveland if memory serves) with the tail number and all and taxiing to a military hangar. That would fit the overall modus operandi. Then where the crash was supposed to have taken place, no wreckage was found. Some wreckage was later claimed to be seen at a lake several miles away. Again logical. If it was the remote plane, they wouldn't want anyone examining the wreckage.
It appears to me they were ad-libbing with Flight 93. There are all the reports of cell phone calls when at that time cell phones didn't work in the air. Even worse, on Flight 77 (the Barbara Olsen flight) the aircraft didn't have the in-flight phones installed. A little while back, confronted with the absolute impossibility that they could have taken place, Ted Olson quietly admitted that no phone calls took place with his wife. He was high up in the political pecking order and it's possible he had advance knowledge of what would transpire. I've always wondered if he didn't perhaps arrange one of those "divorces" where he got to keep everything? That's total speculation, of course, but we already know he's a scumbag. Who would lie about his wife at a time like that?
Anyway, that's the basics of what I know or speculate about the "How" of 9-11, I've still got questions, but since they rushed to destroy all the evidence as quickly as possible, it is unlikely that everything will ever be known. Obviously, they didn't intend for us to know what they did, so we are left to work with the bits and pieces they missed.
What it looks like when my site gets attacked |
ArchivesMy writing did not start with this site. I will fill in history over time by posting previous articles here
Prior to the Fukushima war disaster, this was a photography site.
These were old non-news articles, from the ancient days, originally used to drive traffic to the photos.