An Interview with Art Olivier
The planes that struck targets on 9/11 have long posed a stumbling block for 9/11 researchers.
Let’s start with the government’s official explanation, which states that on September 11, 2001, the North Tower of the World Trade Center was struck dead-center by a Boeing 767 flown at approximately 465 mph by hijacker pilot Mohamed Atta, the South Tower struck slightly off-center by a 767 flown at approximately 585 mph by hijacker pilot Marwan al-Shehhi, and the Pentagon’s first floor struck precisely by a 757 flown at about 535 mph by hijacker Hani Hanjour.
Why the Government Story Cannot Be True
I think the easiest way to summarize the conundrum is by pasting in a passage from my previous article 9/11 Planes Part II: 33 Anomalies
A Matter of Logic. It is still accepted by me—and broadly throughout the 9/11 movement—that the Twin Towers were destroyed by demolition, regardless of the theory ascribed to—nano-thermite, nuclear devices, Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs), or more conventional explosives.
But to demolish the Twin Towers, successful plane hits had to be guaranteed up front. If Flight 175, the second plane, had only clipped the South Tower with a wing, and crashed elsewhere in the city, the tower’s demolition would have had to be called off.
The same holds true for the first plane, “Flight 11.” If this plane had missed, not only would the North Tower’s destruction have been cancelled, but no cameras would have been focused on the Twin Towers, enabling them to capture the iconic pictures of the second plane hit, which became so embedded in worldwide consciousness.
I do not accept that 9/11’s masterminds would have gambled that Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour (the alleged hijacker pilots) would have hit their targets in the way it happened, pulling off feats that experienced Boeing pilots have said they could not have achieved.
Focusing on the Hijacker Pilots. Hani Hanjour was the alleged pilot of Flight 77, said to have hit the Pentagon. The New York Times profiled him as follows:
Mr. Hanjour, who investigators contend piloted the airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, was reported to the [Federal] aviation agency in February 2001 after instructors at his flight school in Phoenix had found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine. . . .
Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,” the former employee said. “He could not fly at all.”1
Newsday reported on September 23, 2001:
At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.
However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot’s license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.2
If Hanjour had trouble controlling a Cessna, with cruising speeds a little over 100 mph, how was he able to fly a Boeing 757, executing a perfect strike on the first floor of the Pentagon at approximately 530 mph?
Mohamed Atta, who supposedly flew Flight 11 into the first tower, was a drug-addicted psychotic. He regularly boozed it up and snorted cocaine.3 When a girl he was dating broke up with him in Florida, he went to her place, and chopped her cat and its kittens into little pieces.4 Was anyone going to trust this guy to execute a James Bond-level mission?
The pilot of the second plane to hit the Towers, Marwan al-Shehhi, was officially flying at well over 500 mph. You can fly a jetliner at 500 mph at 30,000 feet, but at ground level, the air is three times thicker. I’m not saying a jetliner can’t surpass 500 at ground, especially after coming out of a steep dive, but the plane would be extremely difficult to control, its engines under enormous strain. On top of that, a loud distracting alarm would have been going off in the cockpit because the pilot had exceeded the plane’s speed limits. (You can hear the alarm here; it would have been even louder in the cockpit.) Passengers would have been screaming. The cockpit was presumably splattered with blood from the pilots whose throats had been cut. Yet—and you can see this in the footage—a couple of seconds before impact and his own death, al-Shehhi had the presence of mind to make a finessed adjustment, tipping the left wing to ensure the plane fully entered the building. (Perhaps best seen in slow motion, starting at the 2-minute mark of the following video:
Here are comments from Captain Russ Wittenberg, a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. A retired commercial pilot, he flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, with over 30,000 total hours flown:
I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist, to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding its design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding—pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. The aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it, and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.5
Next, here is a fascinating interview with Dan Govatos, who was chief pilot for Meridian Airlines. The day after 9/11, all flights were grounded. Since his pilots had nothing to do, Govatos put about ten of them on a Boeing simulator and asked them to try hitting the Twin Towers. None of them could do it unless they slowed down almost to landing speed (about 180 mph, about one-third of al-Shehhi’s speed), even though each of the pilots had thousands of hours of experience flying Boeings. Joining Govatos in the interview is Ron Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. A nine-minute interview, but well worth a listen:
Exploring the Alternatives
Since the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks—and the wars which followed—would never have gambled everything on Atta, al-Shehhi and Hanjour making the perfect strikes they did, we in the 9/11 Movement have always sought an alternative explanation.
In 2019, I joined a 9/11 group that included scientists and flight professionals. We explored three different ways in which the 9/11 planes could have been remotely controlled to fly into the 9/11 targets. (I’m not including here the “no planes” theory, which I dropped for reasons given in a previous post).
One proposed method was hijacking the autopilot.
There were problems with this scenario. Besides the fact that autopilots weren’t vulnerable to external hacking, an autopilot doesn’t fly a plane on a precise line—it only flies the plane within a general corridor with a “give” by a number of feet in any direction. The autopilot could not be set in such a way that it would make the precision hits seen on 9/11. I know that in his book Black 9/11, Mark Gaffney proposed that the autopilots had been fitted with military-grade GPS, but even if that were true, should a plane have developed mechanical problems on the day of 9/11, another plane with a specially equipped GPS would have to be waiting in the wings.
Another theory was the (Boeing) uninterruptible autopilot. Patented in 2006, this proposed system would, in the event of a hijacking, remotely take over the plane and fly it safely to an airport, overriding the control of any hijacker pilots. 9/11 investigator Joe Vialls suggested, as early as 2001, that such a system was already covertly installed in Boeing jetliners, enabling Deep State technicians to seize control of the 9/11 planes and guide them into their targets.
However, there seems to be no hard evidence for Vialls’ claim. Installing an uninterruptible autopilot would be no simple matter. In 2001 Boeing 767s and 757s flew on hydraulic systems, which controlled ailerons, elevators, rudder, flaps, slats, landing gear, etc. For an uninterruptible autopilot to be installed on an aircraft, it would have to be able to run these same systems digitally. It would require a major overhaul of the aircraft, putting it out of commission for weeks or months, and the refurbishment would be hard to conceal from engineers and pilots. And this theory encounters the same problem as a hijacked autopilot—if a plane developed mechanical problems on the day of 9/11, another plane with a uninterruptible autopilot would have to be standing by.
A third option we looked at was the Instrument Landing System (ILS). A pilot had separately written to me on social media, noting that this system enables a plane to land on a precise spot on a runway, even in a pea soup fog.
Could ILS have accounted for the successful 9/11 plane hits? The flight professionals in my group ruled it out. For one thing, ILS requires pilots highly trained in its use. More importantly, in order to function, ILS must interact with large antennas at the airport. That such antennas could have been erected at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, without detection, did not appear possible.
In 2020, I was writing a book on 9/11 (never finished due to the eruption of COVID and other PSYOPS), but was frustrated by our inability to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how the plane hits were carried off—plane hits that had to be guaranteed in order for the building demolitions to have been executed. At this point, I was ready to concede that a publicly unknown technology—something only an organization like DARPA would have had access to—must be the explanation.\
Interview
Today, I interview Art Olivier—and not for the first time. I have previously interviewed him about his quality film Operation Terror, a dramatization of the events of 9/11 told from the viewpoint of the bad guys.
Art has quite a background. An amateur motocross champion in his youth, he was the mayor of Bellflower, CA in the late 1990s, the Libertarian Party’s Vice-Presidential nominee in the 2000 U.S. Presidential race, and the Libertarian Party candidate in the 2006 California gubernatorial election, running against Arnold Schwarzenegger. He also spent 20+ years as an engineer for McDonnell Douglas and Boeing, which has helped him develop his unique theory of the 9/11 planes. His duties at Douglas were that of a project manager overseeing the design and construction of test facilities, including the C-17 structural test facilities. His book Sandy Hooked, which includes a chapter explaining his theory on what hit the Twin Towers, was published in 2025.
My questions to Art will be in bold; his answers in normal font.
Well, Art, it’s exciting to be back with you, especially since we’ll be heading into a discussion of 9/11 that—so far as I know—is uncharted territory. Perhaps we could start by having you, with your background as an aerospace professional, describe what you believe “planers” and “no-planers” got right, and didn’t get right. I’ve already described some of my own views on this in the introduction.
The “planers” correctly point out the following:
- There are videos of an aircraft hitting the South Tower, backed up by numerous eyewitnesses who say that they saw it.
- The holes in the Twin Towers resemble the size and shape of 767s.
- The buildings shook after impact.
- An analysis from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) titled “Aircraft Impact Damage” was published.
- Newton’s Second Law, where the large mass of a 767 is accelerated into the building, creating a tremendous amount of force.
The “no-planers” correctly point out the following:
- The thin aluminum in a plane, much of it is less than a 1/10” thick, is no match for 14” box columns made from 3/8” thick structural steel.
- The “nose-in, nose-out” video appears to be CGI.
- 583 miles per hour at sea level far exceeds the design limitations of a 767.
- The MIT analysis was conducted by two oceanography students and a professor. They admitted that “only the generally accessible information from the media and literature were used in the analysis.” They couldn’t show that 767s did the observed damage to the Twin Towers since as they stated, “The problem of interactive failure and fragmentation of two deformable and fracturing bodies, i.e., the aluminum airframe and steel structure, has not been addressed in the literature.”
- Newton’s Third Law, where the massive Twin Towers, with a steel exoskeleton, creates an equal and opposite force to a 767, making it easier for the columns to slice through the aluminum airplane. The aluminum and the steel didn’t know which one was stationary and which one was in motion.
The “planers” mistakenly claim that anything, given enough speed, can penetrate any stationary object. Examples include a ping pong ball going through a ping pong paddle, and water cutting through steel. However:
- Extremely slow-motion video of a ping pong ball hitting a paddle at a high rate of speed, shows that the ball is completely obliterated the instant it touches the paddle. It is actually the compressed air that pushes through the particle board paddle.
- High-pressure water jets use aggregates of abrasive minerals to cut through steel. The water by itself will not cut steel.
- An aluminum plane could not penetrate the exoskeleton of the Twin Towers.
- The more force an aluminum plane has hitting a steel frame building, the easier it is for the steel to slice through the aluminum. Again, Newton’s Third Law shows that the aluminum and the steel cannot know which one is in motion and which one is stationary.
“No-planers” know that a 767 cannot fly at 583 mph at sea level, that it doesn’t have a pod under the fuselage, that it couldn’t put massive holes in the buildings, and definitely not bend columns inward.
- But “no-planers” cannot explain why the perpetrators would want to fake a video of a plane with a pod going at an impossible speed and bending columns.
- “No-planers” claim that the shaking of the towers at the time of the impacts was due to internal explosions, but such explosions would equal laterally blow out the windows, and not move the buildings side-to-side.
OK, Art. I think that, between us, we have—however imperfectly—covered a lot of the difficulties investigators face in attempting to explain the 9/11 planes. And I want to make it clear that, in doing so, neither of us is attempting to denigrate the theories proposed by other 9/11 researchers. Many of them have put a lot of time and energy into reaching their conclusions. For myself, though, I ultimately decided that the solution had to lie in an unknown technology. And that’s why I was interested to discover your approach, which, to my knowledge, no one has ever proposed before. Where would you like to begin?
In Operation Terror, after being informed that “jumbo jets flying at five hundred miles per hour, will hit those buildings and bring them down,” the CIA engineer took an empty can of Pepsi, smashed it on the conference table and exclaimed, “Here’s your plane hitting the Twin Towers.” His boss followed up with “obviously the buildings are going to need a little help.”
When I wrote that scene, my guess was that the nuts were removed and welds were cut on the columns that made the exoskeleton where the planes would hit, and the planes could just push sections of the exoskeleton into the buildings. That seemed plausible until I saw the bent columns. It then became obvious that something massive, made out of a metal that is more dense than steel, bent those columns. I believe that the objects that hit the Twin Towers were largely made out of lead.
Lead, OK. In what ways would lead resolve some of the controversial aspects of 9/11?
Because lead has a low melting temperature. Lead melts at 621.5 degrees Fahrenheit, while aluminum melts at 1221 degrees. With alloys added to make the lead hard, the melting temperature can be even lower.
If the temperature in or around the aircraft was elevated to over 621.5 degrees, but less than 1221 degrees, the lead would have melted, but not the aluminum attached to the lead. That would leave behind seemingly physical evidence that aluminum planes hit the buildings.
The tip of the nose may have been uranium. Whether the uranium was depleted or not, it is pyrophoric. The instant it hits its target at speed, 30% of it will explode, which increases penetration, allowing the forward fuselage to get into the building while keeping most of the momentum that the wings needed to penetrate the columns in the exoskeleton. A rapid deceleration would occur upon the impact of the wings, and the much larger center core columns would stop the craft from going through the building.
OK, well, I can see why they might choose lead. Bullets are made chiefly from lead, largely because their high density gives them a strong degree of penetration, which is something the 9/11 planners would have wanted. I can think of some possible objections to the use of lead, but let me hold off on those, because I want to stick to one subject at a time. You mentioned that the tips of the plane noses might have been made of depleted uranium. The U.S. military, of course, uses depleted uranium in its anti-tank shells because of its ability to pierce armor—again, perfect for 9/11. Also, you mentioned that DU is “polyphoric,” which, for our readers who might not know (I didn’t), means that a substance ignites as soon as it is exposed to air. In your view, would DU have been used partly because of its ability to generate the enormous explosions witnessed when the Twin Towers were hit?
No, the explosion from the uranium would have been localized near the impact. The flashes that were observed when the objects first touched the buildings is consistent with a DU penetrator igniting.
OK, now, getting back to the lead. Molten metal was seen dripping from the corner of the South Tower. Would I be correct in surmising that in your theory, this would have been lead, which, as you have pointed out, has a melting point of 621 degrees Fahrenheit compared to 1221 F for aluminum, and much higher (2600 degrees) for steel?
That’s certainly plausible. Molten lead is usually a dull grey, but becomes a shiny glowing orangish-yellow when it’s extremely hot.
FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo said, “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel – molten steel running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry.” It would be difficult for a firefighter to distinguish the metal that he saw in a molten state.
A significant amount of lead was found in the World Trade Center’s rubble.
Now we run into a pertinent issue. It’s not hard to see how lead planes could penetrate the Twin Towers, since lead is 4.2 times heavier—more dense—than aluminum, and about twice as dense as steel. But this means the planes would have been much heavier and harder to control. I know you have a unique theory on that, but before we get into it, first let me ask: Just how much of these planes do you think consisted of lead? In his book Airplane Debris WTC 9-11, Matt Nelson documented a great deal of aircraft debris found around the World Trade Center—landing gear, pieces of fuselage, parts of engines—and none of it was noted to be lead. So are we talking about planes where the nose and wings were lead, or were fringed in front with lead? To what extent would the planes have been composed of lead?
Actually, lead is about 44% more dense than steel. I envision that there were two major lead components, a fuselage and a wing assembly. The fuselage may have had a small uranium piece on the nose, an entire 767 empennage attached on the aft, some 767 fuselage pieces wrapped around the lead fuselage, and landing gear underneath, plus the pod which we will get into later. The wing assembly probably had lead engine nacelles with gas compressors inside. My guess is that the wing fit onto a large notch on top of the lead fuselage.
The lead components could have had incendiary devices inside that were set off by the impact that would eventually melt the lead.
OK, let’s work from the scenario that lead components, due to their high density, enabled penetration of the Twin Towers. At first, I thought there would be a separate problem generated—Since an ordinary 767 would be extremely difficult to control at some 500 mph at ground level, I thought the weight added by lead components would make the plane even harder to control with pinpoint accuracy. However, according to AI, a heavier jetliner would be easier to direct due to its weight overcoming wind resistance and gusts.
But aside from this, there is the question of how the planes were remote-controlled with such precision. This is a problem whether we are discussing ordinary 767s or lead-modified ones. Why don’t you explain your theory, which I know is unique. I think we should discuss it one concept at a time. Where would you like to begin?
The biggest problem of a lead plane is that it would weigh millions of pounds, and the wings would not provide enough lift to fly. This is why I have avoided calling the aircraft that were used “planes,” because airplanes rely on lift generated from wings to get off the ground.
My theory is that quantum locking was used, where with the help from a superconductor, the objects could lock onto a magnetic field. The superconductor would be mercury cooled by liquid helium. Along with a significant amount of lead found in the World Trade Center debris, mercury was also found.
The superconductor can hold up to seventy thousand times its own weight in a magnetic field, meaning that one hundred pounds of mercury cooled to the temperature of liquid helium could lock seven million pounds in a magnetic field.
OK, well I want to stop right there because we’re moving into some esoteric areas of science—quantum locking and superconductors—that might confuse laymen, myself included.
Let’s take these terms one at a time. First, here’s how Microsoft Copilot defines “superconductor”:
A superconductor is a material that, below a certain extremely low temperature, lets electricity flow through it with absolutely zero resistance and pushes magnetic fields out of itself.
Normally, when electricity flows through a wire, some energy is lost as heat — like water leaking through cracks in a pipe. In a superconductor, the “pipe” becomes perfect. No leaks. No friction. No energy lost. A current can flow forever without needing more power.
When a material becomes superconducting, it suddenly expels magnetic fields.
This is why superconductors can make magnets float — the famous “hovering magnet” demos.
Copilot also confirms what you say about mercury being cooled into a superconductor:
Yes — mercury is a superconductor when cooled with liquid helium. And not just theoretically. Mercury was the first material in history ever observed to become a superconductor, discovered by Heike Kamerlingh Onnes in 1911.
I also asked Copilot about whether or not a superconductor could hold 70,000 times its own weight. It replied:
Yes—in the right conditions. Demonstrations and research setups have shown superconductors supporting loads tens of thousands of times their own weight through magnetic pinning.
AI defines “magnetic pinning” as
the phenomenon that lets a superconductor “lock itself” in place above (or below) a magnet, almost as if it were nailed to an invisible track.
OK, Art, I see that science confirms what you are saying. And AI’s language already seems to be transitioning us into “quantum locking.” I want to get into that concept next, but before we do, do have anything to add about superconductors?
Your readers may want to watch a video on how a superconductor facilitates quantum locking inside of a laboratory. Here it is:
Great. That makes it very real. The object remains suspended and moves without contacting the track below it.
That brings us to the definition of “quantum locking,” which AI describes as very similar to “magnetic pinning”:
Quantum locking is the dramatic, visible effect where a superconductor becomes frozen in space above or below a magnet, as if it’s glued to an invisible rail.
In other words, what we saw in that little video was quantum locking. Now some of our readers may say, “That’s fine for small objects, but what about a Boeing 767?
Here is Japan’s SCMaglev train:
Technically, this is not considered “quantum locking,” but it does use superconducting magnets. What’s important to know here is that at its high speeds, the train never touches the ground. It remains suspended about four inches above the track. The train has no engine and uses no fuel. It is propelled by a moving magnetic field. Anyone can confirm this with AI.
Does this have implications for your theory of the 9/11 planes?
The trains show that there is no weight limit for a quantum locking object, and the trains have stable levitation with flux pinning. But I don’t think that the 9/11 objects relied on switching magnetic polarities for propulsion.
I’m not comfortable calling the objects “9/11 planes,” since they didn’t use lift to fly. “9/11 aircraft” is more of an accurate description.
Oh, yes, I got that. I’ve been calling them “planes” because that is the popular perception.
I want to get to your theory about how the 9/11 aircraft were propelled, but first I want to ask you about the mysterious “pod” that was photographed on the underside of Flight 175.
It was three-dimensional and on only one side of the aircraft. It has been called a wing fairing, a landing gear cover, a missile, an optical illusion, and more. Now earlier we discussed how a superconductor such as cooled mercury can hold thousands of times its own weight. Perhaps this is off the wall, but is there any possibility that the pod was a superconductor able to carry the weight of the aircraft?
Not off the wall at all. The superconductor should be centered forward to aft, which the pod was, to keep the object level. Placing the superconductor under the right side of the fuselage would lift the right wing higher than the left. Both objects were tilted as if they were turning to the left with the right wing high, but they appeared to have been going in a straight line. So it is highly plausible that the pod contained a superconductor and its coolant.
OK, well perhaps that will fit with your theory of just how the aircraft were propelled, enabling the speed and precision of the hits. Let’s move on to that. I know this will tie in to concepts you’ve already mentioned, including quantum locking and magnetic fields.
I’m not sure how quantum locking vehicles are propelled, but there are several theories, such as plasma propulsion and electromagnetic processes. Perhaps the jet engines played a part. Normally commercial jet engines are not powerful enough to allow a 767 to reach 586 mph at sea level, although the wings wouldn’t be needed for lift, so they may not have had the induced drag of a standard wing.
Previously you had mentioned quantum locking experiments in a laboratory where little objects would lock into a magnetic field created by magnets laid out in a circle. Are you suggesting that magnets were laid out in a straight line on both sides of the Twin Towers?
Sort of, but the line is a natural phenomenon. This line has been known for at least a couple of hundred years. Native Americans called lines like this, spirit lines, and in Britain they are known as ley lines.
It was about fifteen years ago when I discovered this line. That was before I ever heard of a ley line. Playing around on Google Earth, I noticed that New York Harbor’s Fort Jay had a fifth ravelin added that served no defensive purpose. A ravelin is a corner of a fort that looks like an arrowhead from above. It was used to place a battery of cannons. It seemed to me that this fifth ravelin, which was added to Fort Jay in 1806, was pointing to something. Going north 7500 feet, or 5000 cubits, from the center of the fort through the fifth ravelin, is what is shown on maps as Ground Zero, the space between where the Twin Towers once stood.
Then I noticed Fort Independence in Boston. It too was originally a square fort, but was replaced by a pentagonal shaped fort. 5000 cubits from the center of the fort through the north ravelin is Boston-Logan Airport. The closest runway intersection to this point is where Runway 9 and Runway 4R cross. Flight 175 allegedly took off from Runway 9 and Flight 11 departed from Runway 4R.
Extending the line from the airport to the World Trade Center to the southwest, the line went over the middle of the Pentagon. Wondering if there were any other events on September 11th that may have happened on the line, I found out that General Winfield Scott held the council of war for the attack on Chapultepec Castle on September 11th, 1847. The line didn’t go to the castle, instead it went to the woods down the hill. I zoomed in on the woods until a ground view popped up, and there was a big obelisk! It is Obelisco a los Niños Héroes which memorizes six boys who were found with their chests cut open after the attack.
So there are four points that line up perfectly that are related to September 11th.
I have written two articles (here and here) on the dark side of America’s founding. What first moved me in that direction was Chris Pinto’s documentary series Secret Mysteries of America’s Beginnings. If you watch Volume One, starting about the 18-minute mark, it discusses ley lines, particularly in regard to the alignment of Washington, D.C, with Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, and if you keep following that line, it runs straight to Stonehenge in England.
Now I realize we’re undoubtedly raising questions with our readers, so I’d like to anticipate some of these. Some people will want to know how the builders of ancient forts, or General Scott in 1847, could have “anticipated” 9/11. And I think the answer to that is: personally, they didn’t. But they were Freemasons, who follow orders, often without understanding them. As you point out in your book Sandy Hooked, Scott was obsessed with being sure to execute exactly 36 Mexican soldiers and cadets. The numbers 1 to 36 add up to 666. And when President Harry Truman, 33rd degree Freemason, visited Mexico in 1947, he was sure to visit Obelisco a los Niños Héroes, which is now covered with six obelisks:
The point I would make is that the upper levels of Freemasonry, and other secret societies, are ultimately governed by Satan, who never sleeps. He has long-range goals in mind, which his humans minions may not be privy to.
And this calls to mind that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a satanic blood ritual, as author David Dionisi pointed out in his book Vigilant Christian III: The Occult Religion of the 9/11 Attackers. If people can’t accept that the attacks were satanic, I think they can at least agree that they were evil.
Ley lines, one of which runs through the World Trade Center, are tied to the satanic and the occult. Can you give us another example of satanic events happening on a ley line?
The monument that has the six pillars is Altar a la Patria. It is also known as Monumento a los Niños Héroes, but it is different than Obelisco a los Niños Héroes.
The obelisk marks an intersection of lines. The other line goes to San Francisco where it bisected the Church of Satan. That line goes through the middle of Desert Mesa Elementary School in Yuma, which is another intersection. The intersecting line at the school bisects the cafeteria at Columbine where the students were murdered. In my book, I show three dozen eyewitnesses who positively identified the real culprits. The shooters would stand on the tables in the cafeteria and yell “hail Satan!”
OK, thank you for correcting me on the obelisk. And of course, as you go into in Sandy Hooked, the Sandy Hook Elementary School intersected a ley line, and was connected, at least geographically, to both a Freemasonic Lodge and a Church of Satan.
But aside from the satanic aspects of ley lines, we need to talk about their implications for flight, because the question of how the aircraft strikes were made on the World Trade Center is what originated this interview.
Now at this point I have to broach a very difficult subject, which is UFOs—this is not to say the 9/11 aircraft were themselves UFOs, but that some of their technology was apparently incorporated. I call UFOs a “difficult subject” because many people are going to roll their eyes and say “UFOs? That’s absurd!” And that’s how I would have reacted years ago. But as I pointed out in the introduction to this interview, the flight professionals in my 9/11 group ruled out hacking the autopilot, ILS, and the Boeing uninterruptible pilot. All these methods failed to meet the requirements of 9/11. Therefore, at least for me, I was forced to accept that 9/11 depended on a technology not generally known to the public.
Let me just mention some of the transition I went through myself on this. At one time I thought UFOs were either hallucinations or a hoax, perhaps a military PSYOP.
But then one day, over 20 years ago, I was attending a men’s Bible study, and one of the guys, a very serious Christian who was an engineer and former Air Force pilot, told us about a nighttime bombing run he was on during the Vietnam War. He said a UFO came up and flew right beside the bomber. They could even see it in on radar. Then eventually the UFO took off at phenomenal speed, which is not untypical of UFO sightings.
My friend, author Rachael McIntosh, who worked for one of America’s top six defense contractors, recounts a strange experience she had in her book Little Yellow Stickies. On the first anniversary of 9/11 she was attending a defense-industry meeting near the Pentagon. During a briefing about a military crisis-management system, she saw an unfamiliar icon on the screen and asked what it was. The presenter simply said, “That’s a UFO.” A general explained that the military prepares contingency plans even for extremely unlikely scenarios. And the surprising part was—no one else in the room seemed surprised. Some even looked at her disapprovingly like, “What? You don’t know about UFOs?”
The real possibility of UFOs grew in 2024, when there were multiple sightings over New Jersey. Even President Trump and members of Congress were talking about them.
According to AI, 40 to 50 percent of Americans now believe in UFOs, so this is no longer something we can just call fringe. The work of Christian Ufologist Lee Marzulli went a long ways toward persuading me that UFOs are not merely science fiction.
But when we talk about aliens, we are not describing Star Wars-type “beings from an advanced civilization in other galaxy.” From my perspective—and that of many others—we are discussing elements of the spiritual realm: fallen angels and demons. I described this in some detail in a 2016 post called “Making Sense of the Supernatural.”
So when we see that both ley lines and UFOs are tied to satanism, and that a ley line directly ran through the World Trade Center, we may be nearing the true explanation for the remarkably accurate aircraft strikes of 9/11. Can you start to take it from here?
The line that bisects the Columbine cafeteria also goes through the middle of Yavapai College Sedona Center. I took a picture of the roof of the building with my drone, and also one of the ceiling from the inside with my phone.
The center of the building looks like there is a big flying saucer on the roof. There are architectural elements in the round structure that define an intersection of lines. To the northwest on the intersecting line is Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where they had a shooting exactly two years before the Vegas shooting, On the same line, forty miles southeast of the Sedona Center, is where Travis Walton was abducted by a UFO.
The night after I took the pictures, I went on a UFO tour in Sedona, where tourists are guaranteed to see UFOs with the supplied night vision goggles. Not knowing where we would view the UFOs, we met the tour guide at a hotel and the group drove to Cultural Park, which is right next to the Yavapai College Sedona Center! I saw about two dozen UFOs that were traveling on the two intersecting lines.
The reason that the UFOs don’t deviate from the lines is because they are locked into the straight magnetic fields.
The UFO psyop is getting people to believe that UFOs are from a different solar system, when they are actually made to lock into the magnetic lines in the earth, not fly into outer space.
Top ufologist Steven Greer, says that about eighty percent of UFOs are made by humans.
The object that hit the North Tower came from the north along the line that went right between the Twin Towers, and the object that hit the South Tower came from the south along the same path. By locking into the line, the objects could weigh millions of pounds and fly straight into the towers as they smashed into the exoskeletons and broke and bent the columns.
Well, I see that Greer dismisses a satanic connection to UFOs. Here I would lean much more to L.A. Marzulli’s view. However, it is interesting that Greer believes that most UFOs are human-made.
You have spoken of UFOs locking onto the magnetic ley lines, and earlier we discussed the modern Asian trains that do not touch tracks while moving, but are propelled at extraordinary speeds by moving magnetic fields.
If, in fact, the aircraft that struck the Twin Towers were following a ley line that has also been utilized by UFOs, would it be reasonable to conclude that the incredible speed and accuracy of the 9/11 aircraft were derived by mimicking travel mechanisms used by UFOs?
Would it be reasonable to say that this, along with the hardening of the aircraft with lead, very basically reflects your view of how the World Trade Center hits were carried off?
Yes, the only way that I can imagine an aircraft to be massive enough to put those holes in the Twin Towers, and still fly, is if they used quantum locking like UFOs do.
It’s like what Sherlock Holmes said, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Instead of aircraft being hardened with lead, they would have to been specifically designed and built to penetrate the buildings with 767 parts added on to them.
OK, so if I am understanding this correctly, the 9/11 aircraft were made of steel-penetrating lead, but disguised as ordinary aircraft by having 767 parts added to their exterior?
Yes, I envision two major components. First would be a hard cast lead fuselage that may have had an entire 767 empennage attached on the aft, some 767 aluminum fuselage pieces wrapped around the hard cast lead fuselage, and some landing gear pieces inside or underneath, along with the pod for the superconductor. It could have had a production 767 composite radome that would be crushed as soon as it hit a window or the aluminum cladding. Behind the radome, a depleted uranium penetrator could have been placed that would have been set off as soon as it was in contact with any surface.
The second piece may have been a one piece hard cast lead wing, complete with welded-on lead engine nacelles with standard gas compressors inside. The wing may have fit onto a large notch on top of the lead fuselage or possibly welded to the lead fuselage.
OK, we’ve hit some technical language here, and I want to clarify these for our readers before going further. The “empennage” is the tail assembly. This was presumably not made of lead, because there were no tail impressions on either of the “plane holes” in the Twin Towers, and for the aircraft to achieve penetration, there would have been no need for lead at its rear.
Yes, that’s right. The tail section could have just followed the rest of the aircraft into the building.
Now “radomes” protect radar equipment, and are fairly synonymous with a jetliner’s nosecone, which, as you have mentioned here and previously, would have been in front of steel-piercing depleted uranium. I gather then you are saying the nosecone was not made of lead. So I guess this raises the question: on 9/11, was it actually functioning as a radome?—in other words, was interactive radar required to implement their 9/11 scenario? Or might they have wanted these aircraft to be detected by radar in order to deceive air traffic controllers into thinking they were watching the official 9/11 planes? Or, on the other hand, would they have preferred to keep these aircraft completely off-radar in order to conceal the reality of what was unfolding?
No, I doubt if there were radars behind the radomes. These objects wouldn’t need radars, as they would just lock into the magnetic field. The official flight paths show the crafts heading straight down the ley line in the several miles before impact. Before that, they could have been at a high altitude above radar detection. Once they were at a lower altitude, air traffic controllers could easily see them without any radar equipment on the objects.
It’s important to note that radomes are extremely fragile. Quite often they are destroyed by a bird strike.
Yes, I’ve seen many pictures of those bird strikes. Now I want to get back to your statement that the 9/11 planes had “lead engine nacelles with standard gas compressors inside.” Just to clarify for our readers, engine nacelles are the pods that house and protect aircraft engines. The gas compressors compress the air entering the engine, making the air efficient for combustion.
So is it your view that the nacelles were made of lead, but not the engines themselves? Is it your view that the engines—despite what we’ve said about magnetic ley line tracking—were operational on 9/11? I ask because there are at least a couple of things we have to account for:
(1) Engine noise was definitely heard by witnesses, and recorded on multiple videos;
(2) The engine found on Murray Street seems to match the white-hot object that burst out of the South Tower, seen in multiple videos. But to my knowledge, it contained no lead.
Since normal aircraft engines are made of titanium, which is quite strong, is it possible they could have penetrated the Towers without lead nacelles? And is it your opinion that these engines made any contribution to the propulsion of the 9/11 aircraft, or were the aircraft moved solely by magnetic interaction with the ley lines?
Pound for pound, titanium can be stronger than steel, but it is not as dense as steel. Most likely, the center core of the engine that landed on Murray Street went between columns on the exoskeleton of the backside of the building. The fan blades were probably sheared off when they hit the columns. The titanium parts of an engine are designed to withstand the impact of a bird strike, but it’s highly unlikely that they could penetrate or bend a 3/8” thick, 14” square structural steel column.
It’s possible that the engines were used for propulsion, but my guess is that their main purpose was to create the engine noise necessary to convince the public that these were ordinary jetliners.
All right. Well, as much as possible, I want to stay ahead of objections critics are likely to raise. Let’s start with radar. I have a couple of questions about that. It is possible, from radar records from multiple stations, to track planes officially identified as Flights 11 and 175 all the way from Boston’s Logan Airport to the World Trade Center. I have seen these maps myself, and, assuming the radar records have not been tampered with, there is no clear-cut evidence of a swap-out.
On the other hand, as I reviewed in my post “9/11 Planes Part II: 33 Anomalies,” there is a ton of evidence that the 9/11 planes had duplicates—this is based on discrepant departure gates, discrepant departure times, ACARS continuing to communicate with planes well after alleged crash times, and more, even with Boston Center informing NORAD that another plane, not Flight 11, struck the North Tower. All of this, of course, syncs with the infamous Operation Northwoods.
In your opinion, did the ley-line aircraft originate at Logan Airport, or from some other original point of departure?
Also, separate from this, I want to back up to your statement that the aircraft “could have been at a high altitude above radar detection” prior to approaching the World Trade Center. AI is telling me that high-flying aircraft are detectable by radar, so I want to check that point with you.
The radars used at commercial airports cannot pick up on an aircraft above 25,000 feet. ACARS doesn’t rely on radar. The objects that I observed over Sedona seemed to be above 50,000 feet, well above detection from a radar at an airport.
Although Boston Logan Airport is on the same ley line as the World Trade Center, they don’t have a runway that is precisely on the line. Technically the objects don’t need a runway to take off, but such a takeoff would look highly unusual, and too many people would have witnessed it.
All right, then, let’s assume the flights departing Logan were decoys that landed somewhere else, as in Operation Northwoods. What about the modified aircraft that struck the Twin Towers—have you reached any conclusion as to their point or points of departure?
Before I get into where they likely departed from, I would like to explore where they could have been manufactured at. A commercial aircraft manufacturing plant would not have the tight security that would be required to keep the operation secret.
A NASA facility where the most advanced spacecraft in the world are built would be a likely location. The high bay Building 19 at Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland is such a location. The wings and the fuselages could have been built inside the building and the wings could have been attached to the fuselages outside.
Goddard is known as a key hub for analyzing data regarding UFOs. Expert panels have analyzed the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon (UAP) at Goddard, and have even had public hearings on UAPs and an archive of photos of flying saucers.
Well, Goddard is strong evidence that the government takes UFOs seriously, not as comic book stuff. Of course, you are not saying that the 9/11 aircraft were themselves UFOs; but rather built using some of their technology. Even though it will sound silly to some of our readers, I have to ask: If the aircraft were constructed at a facility such as Goddard, do you think it would have been done in collaboration with what are called aliens—because I have heard ambiguous reports of such collaboration—or would this have been strictly a human endeavor, using technology gleaned from UFOs; for example, technology reverse-engineered from a crashed UFO?
That’s hard to say, all of those scenarios are possible. College students are making quantum locking devices in their labs. Of course those are much smaller, but the technology is widely known.
OK, thanks. Back to the question, then: on the day of 9/11, where do you think these aircraft originated from geographically?
Each major component, the wings and the fuselage, would weigh millions of pounds. Even if a truck was built to carry them, they would tear up the roads. They had to have departed from a ley line. If a line is drawn from between the two fountains where the Twin Towers once stood, to the middle of the Pentagon, that line goes right through Building 19 at Goddard Space Flight Center!
My best guess is that quantum locking was used to move the four major components, two fuselages and two wing sets, out to the parking lot next to Building 19, bolt the wings on top of the fuselages, and take off from there while it was still dark. A quantum locking object doesn’t need a runway or a launch pad, it just lifts off of a magnetic field.
OK, Art. Well, I know we are going to get clobbered by some in the 9/11 Truth community for your proposed theory. In my experience, that is par for the course in the 9/11 Movement. But I want to go back to square one, which first led me to make this inquiry—namely, that the 9/11 aircraft hits had to be guaranteed in order for the demolition of the Twin Towers to be carried out. None of the proposed methods investigated by my 9/11 Truth group, which involved flight professionals and scientists, were considered viable, including hacking the autopilot, ILS, and the Boeing uninterruptible pilot.
Your theory potentially resolves many aspects of 9/11—including the penetration of the Towers by lead-modified aircraft, the purpose of the “pod” (to act as a superconductor carrying many times its own weight), and the remarkable accuracy of the aircraft strikes—made possible by the aircraft following the long-existing satanic ley line.
I know readers will be asking: What about the Pentagon and Shanksville? You have theories concerning them, but this interview has already been quite long. I think we should just make it clear that you are not saying these lead-modified aircraft were used to create the Pentagon and Shanksville impacts, correct?
Yes, even though the Pentagon is on the same line, I think that the only lead aircraft used on 9/11 were the two that hit the Twin Towers.
As to the fate of the passengers, your excellent film Operation Terror, which I interviewed you about last year, has a unique explanation. Readers can go to https://operationterror.vhx.tv/ to rent or buy the movie via download. A trailer can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOTZGCVl-Jk. Do you have any final thoughts to share with our readers?
To fully appreciate the accuracy of the 9/11 Ley Line, I encourage everyone to draw the line in Google Earth. Using the “Measure” tool (ruler icon), click on the point at Boston-Logan International Airport at the coordinates described below, and the other one on the obelisk in Mexico City, and save the line. Keeping the line in the center of the screen, view the line with a top-down view by hitting the “U” key. What will be observed is that this line will go through the middle of the Pentagon, through Building 19 at the Goddard NASA facility, and between where the Twin Towers stood.
Obelisco a los Niños Héroes 19°25’13.86″N 99°10’49.26″W
Boston-Logan Airport 42°21’31.77″N 71° 0’36.75″W
Thank you, Art. If people wish to reach you with questions or comments, what is the best address to reach you at?
art@operationterror.com
NOTES
- Jim Yardley, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence,” New York Times, May 4, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/national/04ARIZ.html.
- As quoted, “Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire,” What Really Happened, https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.html.
- Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to TerrorLand: Mohamed Atta & The 9-11 Cover-up in Florida (Eugene, Oregon: Madcow Press, 2004), 344.
- Hopsicker, 36.
- See Wittenberg make his comments at https://www.youtube.com/watcG6h?v=Y9o7n2nugmc 51:08 to 52:20.
