Before reading this post, please see my 9/11 disclaimer.
This is the fifth post I have written on 9/11. The most recent previous ones were:
- To 9/11 and Beyond, which examined evidence that the two explosions which ultimately decimated the Twin Towers were nuclear (a post I could not have written without technical advice from sources who preferred anonymity);
- 9/11 Simplified, which attempted to reconstruct the 9/11 events, regarding both the who and the how, and proposed a new take on the fate of the original passenger planes (that they were hijacked by Israeli special ops, and diverted over the Atlantic);
- Conversations with an Airline Pilot about 9/11, an exchange with a highly experienced, active Airbus captain (his identity shielded as “Pilot A”), who helped clarify many technical aspects of 9/11, including elimination of electronic hijackings on that day.
Because in these posts I had to keep revising and refining my own understanding of 9/11, I felt that I should finally sum them all in a short book. But I tabled that idea because there was still one major 9/11 riddle that seemed impervious to a firm solution: what actually struck the Twin Towers (and the Pentagon and Shanksville).
In “9/11 Simplified” and “Conversations with an Airline Pilot,” I reviewed the evidence that it could not have been the original jetliners, as the official narrative claims. Without belaboring details here, this included:
- The planes reaching speeds unattainable by jetliners in the thickened air of low altitude, speeds that could have caused structural damage during flight, with pieces of wings, tail or fuselage breaking off;
- The demonstrable uncontrollability of planes at such speeds and altitudes, in a scenario where bullseye hits had to be guaranteed if the Twin Towers were to be demolished afterwards;
- The government’s failure to match a single aircraft part, found in wreckage, to any of the original 9/11 planes, a task that would be easy by comparing serial numbers to logbook records;
- The impossible physics seen in footage of Flight 175 hitting the South (second) Tower, its aluminum frame slicing through massive 14-inch steel columns, whereas there are many examples of jetliners shattering upon hitting water, having their noses bashed in by bird collisions, etc.;
- The three-dimensional, missile-shaped object visible on the underside of “Flight 175,” which could not have been missed at Logan Airport by the maintenance crew or by the pilots during their mandatory preflight inspection of the aircraft.
So what did hit the targets on 9/11? In the earlier posts, we narrowed this down to two basic options: cloaked missile or drone.
The cloaked missile is a variation of the “no planes” paradigm, and though it is often ridiculed, had much going for it:
- Missiles can precisely hit targets at high speed; they would not have been subject to the strong “G-forces” facing the alleged jetliners;
- Unlike airliner noses, a missile’s nose is hardened for penetration;
- By the 1990s, for strategic purposes, the Air Force had developed holographic technology capable of simulating three-dimensional images of aircraft in broad daylight;
- Israel—suspect number one for 9/11—had commissioned its first cruise missile-firing submarines in 1999, and began test-firing missiles from them in 2000; it had also been working on stealth technology since the 1980s;
- A holographic image might explain the “impossible physics” of a plane gliding through steel, as well as other strange phenomena, such as Flight 175’s nose appearing to emerge from the other side of the South Tower, observable in footage from multiple angles.
However, a cloaked missile could not account for the airliner debris found in the World Trade Center vicinity (such as the famous engine remnant on Murray Street), even though this debris was limited in quantity, and has never been matched by serial numbers to flights 11 or 175. This meant the debris would have had to be planted, which seemed very improbable. However, given the obvious planting of other evidence (such as a Koran together with a flight manual in a car at Logan airport), and the fact that the “dancing Israelis” worked for Urban Moving Systems, which possessed the trucks and manpower to dump off some wreckage during 9/11’s smoke and confusion, this option seemed worth considering.
The alternative to the missile hypothesis was a drone, an idea with its own strong points:
- Drones are consistent with the prototype of Operation Northwoods, a real-life 1962 Pentagon plan to stage a “false flag” in order to justify invading Cuba. It called for swapping a drone, disguised as a jetliner, midair for a passenger plane. The passenger plane would be landed safely at a military base, while the drone would be exploded by remote control over Cuba after it sent a fake radio message that Cuban MiGs were attacking it.
- A drone could account for the aircraft wreckage;
- It would avoid any risks that holographic cloaking might fail; it wouldn’t just resemble a plane, it would be a plane.
However, the drone presented its own difficulties. How could a “substitute jetliner” overcome the risks posed by G-forces on a regular jetliner, at high speed and low altitude? How could it be controlled with such precision, and be immune to structural damage in flight? And how could a drone defy physics any more than other planes, sailing right through steel and concrete “like a hot knife through butter”?
After considerable discussion, Pilot A and I were both favoring the cloaked missile hypothesis over a drone, which seemed burdened with more problems.
Then, however, I sent Pilot A a picture I found on the Internet juxtaposing the gashes in the two Twin Towers. I asked him if he thought the nearly identical angles had significance.
Other observations, however, caught Pilot A’s attention. He replied:
Upon first glance the after-impact damage looks like the shape of an aircraft complete with a cutout of the wings all at an angle and looks convincing. I looked at a few more [pictures] and I’m starting to think that maybe it was an aeroplane as the damage pattern looks like I think it should, and not like a conventional military missile. I can see from the photos that some of the steel beams are bent inwards. Some of the weaker outer aluminum cladding is inwards and outwards, probably owing to the blast of the fireball. I do remain convinced it wasn’t suicidal hijackers that flew ordinary B767s into the WTC. But perhaps you should try and flush out some other possible scenarios, like maybe the planes were from a secret base somewhere, and had been specially kitted out to achieve high speeds and higher impact damage, etc.
Looking at the gash pictures myself, I couldn’t deny Pilot A’s conclusion. A missile could explain the holes in the middle of either photograph, but not the peripheral damage. Some of the steel bars do bend inward as if struck with tremendous force from outside. I realize that some in alternative media have suggested the gashes were cut-outs from planted charges. But to get the bars bending inward meant planting charges outside the building. True, the famed “Israeli art students” had occupied the North Tower’s 91st floor in the spring of 2000, and had even removed a window and erected a small balcony. But would they leave external charges in place for more than a year? And how could pre-planted explosives coordinate to create such a realistic impression? The weak, furthest tips of the wings, for example, have only dented the external aluminum cladding, as one would expect in a genuine collision.
Yet we still see improbable physics in these photos. In the North Tower gash, for example, part of the left wing has not merely damaged the external cladding; it has sliced right through and shredded 14-inch steel. Even at high speed, what fragile aluminum wing could accomplish that?
This looks like neither a cloaked missile nor an ordinary aircraft.
At that point, I gave up. Until now.
Unfortunately, we do not have adequate historical examples of what happens when airliners slam into buildings. One can see footage of a telephone pole slicing off a jetliner wing; yet there is also a case of a Boeing wing cutting through a brick building. Variations in speed, wing construction, and the impacted material make comparison to the World Trade Center challenging. Even the 1945 crash of a B-25 bomber into the Empire State Building does not help us much; in ways it contradicted the official 9/11 story (a wing was shorn off and landed in the street below; there was no collapse from “steel beams melting,” and the building was open for business just two days later). But in other ways it emulated 9/11 (an engine flew out the other side of the building, fuel set office workers on fire, and an elevator line was cut). The plane was traveling much slower than “Flight 175,” but the Empire State Building’s exterior was also quite distinct from that of the World Trade Center, which was a virtual steel wall.
After earnestly praying for the truth in the manner of an Orthodox Christian, conducting additional research, and consulting knowledgeable professionals, here is my conclusion. By the way, I’m aware that many divergent opinions exist regarding 9/11. I respect all people seeking the truth, including those who disagree with me. As always, what I present should be understood as a suggestion for consideration, not something I dogmatically insist on as fact. I remain open to further revising any views.
My New Take: Preliminaries
I’ll start by quoting an email I received last year, omitting the writer’s name:
I listened to you last night on “SGT Report” talk about 9/11 and I was very impressed with your research. But I want to tell you this, I am one of the few people, maybe the only one (who knows?) who watched the first plane hit the North Tower from West Broadway just above Houston Street. I was locking up a van I was driving at the time and heard the plane overhead—much louder than normal. I looked up and watched it fly over Washington Square Village and directly over my head. The plane seemed old, frankly. The plane then penetrated the top of the building. And I mean penetrated, the entire plane entered the building as if it was a hangar and did not explode until the rear fin was completely inside the building. I know what I saw. I’m just emailing you so that you don’t go down a blind alley in your research. The second plane I never saw. But the first plane was definitely a plane. And it tipped its wing slightly a few seconds before it hit as if it was being controlled. I wish you luck in your research and I think most of what you present is correct. But don’t fall for that holographic theory for the first plane. I saw that plane and watched it hit. But keep up the good work and I wish you luck.
OK, so this individual witnessed what he is convinced was a real plane, yet it did something no real plane should do—completely penetrate the Tower before exploding.
Actually, what he described is quite similar to the countless videos of the second plane—which vanishes into the South Tower, seemingly laughing at physics, followed by an enormous explosion. Here it is in slow motion:
Next let’s consider the Pentagon. Something appears to have penetrated the first three of the Pentagon’s five concrete rings. The holes look too circular to have likely been from pre-planted bombs, and are too large to represent a missile’s body; they’re closer to fuselage size, but an ordinary plane should have crumpled at the first concrete ring, which was heavily reinforced with steel and Kevlar.
And let’s not forget Shanksville’s smoking hole, where (unlike innumerable other airplane crashes), no bodies were seen, and only tiny bits of debris:
Sitting in with the Bad Guys
I found the best way to start analyzing this was to put myself in the shoes of 9/11’s architects. Suppose you were a black op specialist, code-named Druid, an evil sort of James Bond, and you were assigned to plan a compartmentalized detail of 9/11 by your boss, Mr. E. I’ll write the conversation in English, though it was very probably in a foreign language:
Mr. E: We have a new job for you, the biggest ever. There can be no failures with this. On September 11, 2001, four passenger planes are going to be hijacked. Simultaneously. Boeing 757s and 767s. In any case, nothing smaller than a 757. We are going to need unmanned planes built that can be put in the air and take the place of the originals, which will be diverted.
Druid: Sounds like Operation Northwoods.
Mr. E: There’s a copy of Operation Northwoods in the folder in front of you, in case it’s helpful. But this, of course, has nothing to do with Cuba. Your replicas are to be crashed into major American landmarks in broad daylight, with lots of destruction on impact. The public will be told the “hijackers” were on a suicide mission.
Druid: What are the targets?
Mr. E: The two towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House.
Druid: (slightly stunned silence)
Mr. E: Is there some problem?
Druid: I don’t think so. But if I’m going to take on this job, I do have to know: Am I assassinating the President of the United States?
Mr. E: Certainly not. Both he and the Vice President will be safely diverted.
Druid: But NORAD. . .
Mr. E: You needn’t worry about interception by NORAD. Nor the restricted airspace over DC. That will be handled in another department. What we want from you is, planes going completely inside these buildings, then blown up. Obliterated, so they’ll be impossible to compare to the originals. Not even a big enough piece to look for a tail number on, do you understand?
Druid: . . . Well, I hate to have to tell you this, Mr. E. I think the White House is a pretty soft target, but these other ones you’re talking about—airliners aren’t likely to pierce them. They might fall apart, right on contact.
Mr. E: We’re fully aware of that, Druid. It’s YOUR specialty and it’s YOUR problem. Fix it. That’s what we’re paying you those big bucks for. We want planes into the buildings. Possibly at precise coordinates.
Druid: Why is that?
Mr. E: There may be certain objectives within these targets that will be desirable to destroy. Also, there may be explosives planted within these targets that your drones will need to aim for to maximize their impact. That is still being worked on. In the meantime, we want to hear from your team on the potential for the drones themselves creating explosions. And this detail is very important: we want fires, hot, very hot, for the World Trade Center.
Druid: If you could give me some idea of why, I think I could better address that.
Mr. E: They’re going to collapse the World Trade Center towers about an hour later.
Druid: Good god. How?
Mr. E: Something will happen in the basement. That’s as much as you need to know. But the public will be told it’s from your fires melting the steel. That’s why they have to be extremely hot.
Druid: And supposing the New York City Fire Department puts them out before your hour or whatever is up?
Mr. E: At 80 stories? Ludicrous. Other questions?
Druid: Well, I’ll need to know which airline or airlines, of course, so I can replicate their logos and markings.
Mr. E: You’ll get that information later. There will be more than one airline. You’ll need to have extra replicas on standby, at least two. If any of the original planes is cancelled or significantly delayed, well, another one will get hijacked from the same airport. But very probably from a different airline, because it will require the same time and destination.
Druid: So you’ll even have backup hijackers.
Mr. E: Failure is not an option.
Druid: I take it, then, that my budget has no ceiling.
Mr. E: Two trillion is going to go missing from the American DOD. Other questions?
Druid: You realize that, for what you’re asking of me, it would require perfect weather.
Mr. E: You will have it.
Druid: No wonder they call you the Prince.
Mr. E: Other questions.
Druid: What happens to the original planes?
Mr. E: That’s on a need to know basis, and you don’t need to know. They’ll never be seen again. Just be sure your substitutes aren’t either.
So you sit down with your black op colleagues, and after explaining the situation, the conversation goes something like this.
Druid: OK. We all agree that we can’t guarantee these results using conventional planes. So I think a good place to start is: What CAN fly into buildings?
Black op #2: Cruise missiles. Or other missiles that take out hard targets.
Black op #3: They did it many times during the Gulf War.
Druid: Check. So let me ask this. What enables them to penetrate? What’s a missile got that a jetliner hasn’t got?
Black op #2: Let’s see . . . hard nose . . . exploding warhead . . .
Black op #3: High velocity. . . tiny wings, so minimal G-forces.
Druid: Anything else? . . . OK. So suppose we do this. We modify a plane into a missile. Almost everything you just said a Boeing doesn’t have—well, it’s going to have. We replace that wimpy fiberglass nose with the same components as a missile nose.
Black op #2: Nose job. Don’t remind me of my ex!
Druid: Then we replace the skin over it. SO, to the naked eye it’s still a regular nosecone. No one, not even techies from Boeing, would ever spot the difference. Behind the nose we pack explosives, same as a missile.
Black op #3: Better not be in proportion, or you’re gonna blow up the whole target.
Druid: No, just enough to do the job. And the nose will have to explode after penetration. We don’t want any pain-in-the-ass bystanders taking pictures of it. All right, gentlemen. Hardened nose, check, we’ll get the material through black budget; the entire thing will have to be built in in our own skunkworks. A job like this, well, obviously nothing can be contracted out. Now explosives are no problem; we’ve got a whole candy store to pick from. But this high heat. Any suggestions? They want something that’ll generate lots of fire, smoke and heat.
Black op #3: I’d use good-old fashioned napalm bombs. They want hot, napalm burns around . . . [works laptop] 5000 degrees. That’s twice the melting point of steel, if that’s what they’re thinking of. And it’ll keep on burning ‘til they’re ready for whatever they’re going to do. Plus, napalm is basically gelatinized kerosene, so they could always explain it away as jet fuel from the plane.
Black op #2: Those poor bastards inside.
Druid: I’ll forget I heard that. You know what would happen to you if it got back to Mr. E.
Black op #2: I’m sorry. It won’t happen again.
Let’s morph back out of our imaginary dialogue. When the 9/11 planes hit the buildings, they penetrated. Why didn’t the fuselage of “Flight 175” crumple, as it should have, when it smacked the South Tower? Because the fuselage was simply following the hard nose into the building—as my North Tower eyewitness said, “the entire plane entered the building as if it was a hangar.”
This would also account for the Pentagon’s round holes. The nose, just as hard as a missile’s, but same size and shape as a fuselage nose, penetrated that far. This might even explain “Pinocchio’s nose” at the World Trade Center—if it could traverse three of the Pentagon’s concrete rings, I suppose it might be able to penetrate the breadth of a Twin Tower. If you look at the footage of the nose emerging, the object casts a shadow in angles that could catch it:
The body of “Flight 175” hit off-center and appears to have missed the core columns in the middle of the Tower.
For those with time for a 1-hour video, there is an interesting recorded debate regarding the Pentagon between experts Barbara Honegger and Wayne Coste. Coste believes there was damage and debris consistent with some type of aircraft hitting the Pentagon, although he definitely agrees it could not have been Flight 77:
When I first heard about this debate, I, being a veteran 9/11 Truther, was somewhat irritated to hear of Coste’s position. However, listening objectively, I felt his points were reasonable, and that there’s little denying that something wider than a missile struck the Pentagon‘s first floor (note the broad damage at the extreme bottom of the photograph, taken before the building collapse):
By the way, Coste does not argue that the object dove, leveled off, and then flew parallel to the ground (which would have diminished its speed), but rather that it flew at a steady downward angle until it impacted the first floor.
A drone with a missile-hardened nose, packed with explosives, would also account for the Shanksville hole. The nose, traveling at around 570 mph (the official speed given), burrowed into the ground, just as the Pentagon drone burrowed through three concrete rings, and just as the World Trade Center drones penetrated the exterior frames. Why was so little aircraft wreckage seen at Shanksville? Because after the nose penetrated, the explosives behind it detonated in a massive fireball, obliterating the drone. There were also fireballs at the Pentagon and Twin Towers, of course.
I believe one can safely conjecture that the explosives inside these drones were intended not only to damage the target, but to demolish the drones themselves, so much that they would become virtually impossible to identify. I think this is the true reason for the dearth of plane wreckage at all locations, rather than there being “no planes at all.” But the explosions could only occur after penetration of the target; the perpetrators could not allow, for example, a tell-tell fuselage to be left on the Pentagon lawn.
It is Jon Carlson who, rightly or wrongly, makes the case that napalm was used on 9/11, noting that, in addition to its 5000 degree heat (which might account for the people who jumped), napalm’s signature orange color matches that of the 9/11 impact explosions. It might also help explain the victims with burning flesh—napalm adheres. It is absolutely not my intention to insist napalm was used, or to suggest this was the only explosive or weapon used that day, but I think Carlson’s idea merits consideration.
Of course, this scenario still leaves some unresolved problems. How did they get the drones to achieve speeds impossible for jetliners at low altitude? I found the solution begins by looking into something I had not given due attention before. Besides the “pod” under Flight 175, footage reveals a diagonal pipe-like structure visible at the tail, as in this shot by Carmen Taylor:
In 2016 and 2017, I attended live PowerPoints by famed 9/11 blogger-lecturer Christopher Bollyn. He mentioned the possibility that what struck the Twin Towers were 767 refueling tankers. The idea didn’t register with me; I didn’t study it and stayed behind the learning curve.
First, let’s acknowledge that 767s have indeed been converted into these tankers. A perfect example is the Boeing KC-767. Here is a picture of one:
Next let’s recall the Twin Tower witnesses who reported seeing a military plane:
I am going to embed about 6 minutes of the YouTube video “9/11 False Flag Conspiracy,” which links 767 tankers, as well as flight termination pods, to Dov Zakheim, who was comptroller of the Pentagon on 9/11, the day after Donald Rumsfeld notoriously announced that the Defense Department was missing $2.3 trillion. Zakheim was also former CEO of System Planning Corporation’s (SPC) International Division.
Why would 9/11’s planners choose a military 767 tanker over a regular Boeing 767? First, the tanker is about the same size and thus could fill in as a “ringer.” Second, even if we discard the idea of napalm and other potential explosives, a tanker is normally filled with fuel instead of passengers, so it generates much more fire and destruction on impact. Third, military-grade 767s fly faster than their civilian counterparts: for example, according to Wikipedia, the KC-767 has a max cruising speed of 570 mph1 versus 533 for a regular 767. Fourth, tankers are built tougher because they may face combat situations. If you look at Boeing’s description of the KC-46A Pegasus Tanker and scroll down to the plane’s graphic, it describes it as having “cockpit armor,” “EMP hardening,” “fuel tank ballistic protection,” and “hi resolution stereoscopic boom cameras.” The Pegasus, of course, was not in use on 9/11, but exemplifies the added robustness and technology that goes into these tankers.
I am not suggesting that a KC-767 was used on 9/11. Although more rugged than its civilian counterpart, it still could not likely have managed the speed and penetration seen in “Flight 175.” which, like all four 9/11 drones, would have been custom-modified for the crime, using a virtually unlimited budget. I do not believe it is possible to find the 9/11 drones by looking online at publicly discussed aircraft; they were unique implements for a one-of-a-kind crime, and their precise specs would only be known to their designers.
But let’s at least explore some possible explanations for enhanced speed, penetration, guidance, and the “pod,” and then who likely revamped these aircraft.
According to famed pilot John Lear, son of Lear Jet designer Bill Lear, the object that hit the South Tower was traveling 127 mph above a 767’s low-altitude design limits.2 Lear describes many factors that would have made this speed unattainable.
Before writing this post, I exchanged several new emails with Pilot A, whom I had not communicated with since last year. He remarked:
I’ve been speaking to a colleague who has done some air testing on the A300 [Airbus’s competitor to the Boeing 767] and it turns out the aircraft can achieve speeds about 10-15% higher than the book figures, which have a built-in safety margin. So we might be able to explain how the Boeings flew so fast on the film.
In other words, jetliners can travel faster than their max book speed. The value in the manual helps ensure a pilot doesn’t play cowboy, but it’s like your car’s fuel gauge: “Empty” doesn’t literally mean empty. I asked Pilot A for further elaboration. He said:
I spoke to my colleague who recently was a crew member on an air test including a high speed component and tested the A300 up to 360 kts which is only 7.5% higher than the legal limit of 335 kts, but the observer/data recording person (3rd member in the jump seat) who was independent said that the A300 can easily get up to 400 kts (about 20% increase). At FL300, along with a high thrust setting they put the aircraft in no more than a 5 degree nose down attitude and quickly achieved this speed. On the B767, which has a limit of 360 kts, if it could be flown 20% faster then this would equate to 430 kts or close to 500 mph. This may help to explain the high speed, but the aircraft would still be difficult to control.
Few commercial pilots have ever pushed a Boeing 767 to its limits because it is impermissible to try. If, as Pilot A suggests, Boeing 767s can exceed their book limits by as much as 20 percent, and if, in fact, “Flight 175” was modeled on a tanker like the KC-767 (which can fly more than 30 mph faster than a civilian 767) we are starting to approach the speed range of whatever struck the South Tower.
Also, though the plane was essentially on a level course when it struck the Tower, it had descended from altitude before beginning its final approach. The momentum of residual gravity from the descent should have boosted speed without adding much strain on the engines. Pilot A commented in his last email to me: “The engines, regardless of type, do not have the thrust capability alone to push the B767 up to 550 mph, but with a descent it is possible.”
Speaking of engines, the perps may have wanted the drone refitted with a powerful one capable of maximum speed. Pilots for 9/11 Truth identified the engine remnant found on Murray Street as coming from a 747 (a “jumbo jet,” the largest craft produced by Boeing):
However, this may (or may not) be a moot point, since a 747 carries four of these engines to achieve its thrust, and the plane that struck the South Tower only had two.
Some have argued that aircraft engines could not tolerate the speeds at which “Flight 175” traveled without burning out. However, Pilot A believed this would not be a problem for the relatively brief approach to the South Tower:
The JT9 is a powerful engine like the General Electric CF6-80 C2 we have on our [Airbus] machines. They’re fitted with FADEC [Full Authority Digital Engine Control] which protects the engine from over-boost, pressure etc., and increases efficiency but when the FADEC fails or is switched off, then as pilots we have to be careful not to over-boost/cook the engines. With this in mind, though, you can get quite a lot of extra thrust from the engines when you’re not especially worried about its health and longevity! At maximum normal take-off thrust with the FADEC operating for instance ― which we rarely do as most take-offs are done on a reduced thrust setting called flex temp take-off ― is allowed for up to 5 minutes. This 5 minutes limit though which the engine manufacturer has stipulated can be exceeded in a single engine scenario and then it becomes 10 minutes! But I’ve read stories of guys sitting at max take-off thrust for over 20 minutes before significant damage starts to occur. So with the FADEC disabled or turned off (2 guarded switches on the overhead panel) it is possible to exceed the design thrust and temperature limits of the engine and get significant extra thrust, in other words get more bang for your buck. How much I don’t know, and am not about to find out with experimentation as I like being employed!
In addition to modeling the nosecone after a missile’s nose (as suggested in the imaginary dialogue), and adding military armor (which would have maintained better fuselage integrity at high speed), could the drones’ designers have substituted other materials for aluminum in parts of the crafts? The best way to break steel is with something stronger than steel. Titanium is both stronger than steel and lighter than aluminum. Boeing engines are made primarily from titanium, which is one reason these engines survive crashes better than other components. Planes can in fact be constructed almost entirely from titanium, which is precisely what Lockheed did with the SR-71 it built for the Air Force.
It is not my intention to assert that the 9/11 drones were made from titanium— building a titanium 767 from scratch would present extreme challenges. Perhaps even more importantly, titanium is difficult to destroy. This would have made the drones hard to obliterate after penetration, and I’m not aware of evidence that significant titanium fragments were discovered at the 9/11 crash sites.
Nevertheless, in addition to a rigid nose, I think it worth considering if the architects utilized an alloy of titanium, Kevlar, or some other hardening substance as the leading edge of the wings and tails to ensure full penetration.
Remote-controlled aircraft are nothing new. The United States and England had both successfully developed radio-controlled planes by the 1930s. Operation Northwoods, as we have already noted, called for using a remote-controlled drone to instigate war with Cuba in 1962. In “A Brief History of Drones,“ Kashyap Vyas writes: “Even though the U.S. was able to achieve a breakthrough in mass-manufacturing and supplying drones for the military, UAVs were often considered unreliable and expensive. This perspective however changed in 1982 when Israel forces used unmanned aircrafts to gain victory over Syrian Air Force with minimal losses.”3 Today, U.S. armed forces alone have over 11,000 unmanned drones,4 and from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, drone operators strike targets with precision on the other side of the world.
So the thought of using unmanned drones on 9/11 is hardly the stuff of science fiction. As previously discussed with Pilot A, it would not be possible to remotely hijack a Boeing 757 or 767 because (unlike the newer fly-by-wire 777s), their basic flight operation was manual rather than computer-driven. However, if we are talking about a 757 or 767 which has been thoroughly prepped at a secret location, that is a different story. Its equipment could be fully integrated with remote control, flight path programming, and military-grade GPS, making it comparable to a cruise missile in its accuracy.
Laser guidance can direct a weapon into a precise target, which adds interest to this footage of a laser light on the South Tower just before being struck by “Flight 175” (lasers emit an infrared beam that is invisible to the naked eye, but which digital cameras can detect):
What about the infamous pod seen underneath flight 175? It flashed right before impact, as seen in photography from multiple angles. There was also a flash just before Flight 11 hit the North (first) Tower, in the only known footage, the Naudet Brothers video:
Some have argued that the pod may have been a missile, perhaps intended to set off planted explosives in the Twin Towers and/or open a gash for the plane. This might be correct; however, there is only a slight fraction of a second between the flash and plane’s impact, and no exhaust fumes are visible behind the pod to suggest it was a launching missile.
I believe a better explanation is the one offered in the previously mentioned video “9/11 False Flag Conspiracy”: that the pod was probably a flight termination module from Dov Zakheim’s Systems Planning Corporation:
The U.S. Air Force has been sending up drones for decades for target practice. These drones often have the capacity to self-destruct; otherwise, if missed by the military, they might accidently crash in populated areas. The self-destructive capability of drones was acknowledged by the Pentagon in Operation Northwoods, written nearly 50 years before 9/11.
9/11’s architects would have wanted the drones to explode so that no remaining wreckage could be compared to the original hijacked aircraft. If indeed the pod on “Flight 175’s” undercarriage was a self-destruction system, it would make sense that it flashed right before entry. They wouldn’t want building impact to shear the pod off before it could ignite the drone’s explosives, nor could they allow the drone to be photographed exploding before it reached the Tower.
Where Were the Drones Prepared?
In answer to this question, my immediate thought was Area 51, where Lockheed Martin secretly developed the U-2 spy plane, the SR-71 Blackbird, and the F-117 Nighthawk “stealth fighter.” However, as dark as the “Military Industrial Complex” has become, I have doubts that it would develop something for use against their own command centers (the Pentagon and White House), especially given the number of American engineers who would have been involved in research and development—sworn to secrecy or not.
In 9/11 Simplified, I stated:
I believe that, when it comes to resolving the mystery of how 9/11 was executed, the Truth Movement suffers from a major [misnomer]:
9/11 was an inside job.
I believe a far more correct rendering is:
9/11 was an outside job, done by Israeli operatives, but with consent and cooperation at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
To understand this, it may be helpful to compare Israel’s vicious 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. It is well understood that President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara fully cooperated, by twice recalling U.S. fighters that the Sixth Fleet had sent to rescue the Liberty, and later by ordering a cover-up. However, at the physical operational level, the attack was carried out by Israelis, not by Americans in an “inside job.”
After the Twin Towers’ implosion, it was dancing Israelis who were spotted and arrested—not dancing Navy Seals, dancing Lockheed engineers, or dancing CIA agents. In the post, I made the case that both the nuclear demolition of the Twin Towers and the (yes, real) hijackings of the original airliners were carried out by Israeli operatives.
But what about drones? My first inclination was these would exceed Israeli capabilities to produce, or to launch within the United States, until I recently read, for the first time, Christopher Bollyn’s outstanding post “The Planes of 9-11.” I strongly recommend reading Chris’s entire article, but here are key excerpts, which I quote extensively with his permission:
A little-known and privately-held aircraft leasing company created by the Israeli military intelligence is connected to the Mossad-run airport security and passenger screening company at the center of the “false flag” terror network of 9-11. . . .
If the planes that were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center were, in fact, not United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11, but remotely-controlled tankers painted to look like civilian aircraft, who could have produced such disguised planes and inserted them into the NORAD anti-terrorism exercise that was taking place in the airspace of the East Coast on the morning of 9/11?
Given the evidence of Israeli prior knowledge, the obvious questions arise: Did the Israelis have the means to carry off such a complex operation? And if they had the means, is there a link between their capability and the events of 9-11? The answer to both questions is yes.
The Israeli military and its intelligence agencies have long had the capability to convert and disguise large-body aircraft in the United States, and their companies that do this kind of work are connected to International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), the Israeli airport security company that is a prime suspect in the “false flag” terrorism. ICTS was a key defendant in the 9-11 litigation until Judge Hellerstein allowed them to be dismissed from the case in May 2011.
The Israeli military has spawned several aircraft leasing and maintenance companies in the United States since the late 1960s. There is, in fact, a network of Israeli-controlled aviation companies operating in the United States which were all started by Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), now known as Israel Aerospace Industries. Israel Aircraft Industries is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Defense Ministry, which produces and maintains planes and missiles.
One of the Israeli military’s aviation companies spawned in the United States is or was an aircraft leasing company named ATASCO, which began operating in the United States in the early 1970s. I began investigating ATASCO in August 2006. As a matter of fact, I spoke with Shalom Yoran, the Israeli chairman of this now defunct Israeli company, about six hours before three undercover police arrived at my house and, without cause or provocation, TASERed me and broke my elbow in front of my family on August 15, 2006. . . .
Shalom Yoran has an extremely suspicious and unusual profile for an Israeli immigrant to the United States. He was in the original Israeli air force of 1948 and is a founder and former head of Israel Aircraft Industries. Yoran was instrumental in building the IAI into an internationally recognized company and the largest industry in Israel. . . .
Before Yoran emigrated to the United States, which is very unusual for Israelis of his age and with his high-level military background, he had spent the previous ten years as senior vice president of IAI and as president of IAI’s parent company, Bedek. Israelis like Yoran don’t usually come to America as immigrants – they are sent there on a mission. . . .
Today, Bedek is the senior group of Israel Aerospace Industries and specializes in aircraft operation, conversion, maintenance, and overhaul. In 1975, when Yoran “left” Bedek and IAI at the unusually young retirement age of fifty, the corporation had 22,000 employees, of which 4,000 worked in the Bedek Division. In reality, Yoran didn’t leave Bedek and IAI at all; he was sent by the Israeli military to the United States to manage one of their most important operations – ATASCO. . . .
His 2003 biography on the website of Tel Aviv University (TAU) has a similar tale: “At the age of fifty, Shalom Yoran retired from the Israel Aircraft Industries. In 1978 he moved to the U.S. where he became chairman of ATASCO USA – a private aircraft trading and service company. ATASCO bought and leased airplanes to major airlines around the world. The company also had an aircraft maintenance and modification plant in Smyrna, Tennessee.
“Shalom Yoran continues to be chairman of ATASCO USA,” the 2003 TAU entry noted. How could an Israeli be appointed to be president or chairman of an “American” company, unless that company were actually an Israeli company disguised as an American company? And why would an Israeli company doing business in the United States want to disguise the fact that it is Israeli-owned in the first place?
THE ATASCO-BEDEK CONNECTION
ATASCO USA was, of course, created and owned by the Israeli military and connected to the Mossad, but this information is not easily found. There has only been one article that I have found that mentions what ATASCO has been doing for the past 36 years in the United States, since it was first created by the Israeli Defense Ministry in 1971. That article, entitled “Ugandan Plane Deal Believed Key to Israeli Spy Operation,” was published in the Washington Post of September 11, 1978.
This investigative article, which involved an international team of journalists that included an Israeli, focused on the “mysterious Israeli tycoon and the Mossad, Israeli’s intelligence service,” and how they had provided the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin with two Boeing 707 jetliners as part of an Israeli effort to spy on Libya. The “big winner” and tycoon in this Mossad spying operation was Shaul Nehemia Eisenberg (1921-1997), “the reclusive Israeli entrepreneur at its center.” [Chris Bollyn next block-quotes the 1978 Washington Post article, which I am distinguishing with quotation marks and italics:]
“The chief Eisenberg firm in these deals was Aircraft Trading and Services Inc., or Atasco. Headquartered in Asia House, Eisenberg’s luxury building in Tel Aviv, Atasco also has branches in the ‘Eisenberg Building’ in New York and in London.
Atasco was put together in 1971 by executives of Israeli Aircraft Industries, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Israeli Defense Ministry that makes planes and missiles.
Eisenberg got into Atasco as an equal partner with Israeli Aircraft for $500,000 in cash. After the 1973 Middle East War, Israeli Aircraft, staggered by scandals, sold its share in Atasco to Eisenberg, leaving him its sole owner. . . .
At its Israeli hangars, currently jammed with 707s bearing obscure markings, Atasco remodels the interiors to suit customers, and paints on their proud colors – Iran Air, Tarom of Romania, Uganda Airlines.
In May 1976, Atasco sold the 707 that was once Pan Am’s ‘Clipper Jupiter’ to a firm in Zurich, which dealt it on to Amin.
Intelligence sources say that the head of this Zurich firm is a 15-year veteran of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and the firm is an agency ‘laundry.’ It exists, these sources say, to pass on Mossad funds for deals in which the Israeli secret service is interested.”. . .
Gerald L. Gitner, an aviation executive with Pan Am, TWA, and a host of smaller airlines, was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ATASCO USA, Inc. . . . Gitner reportedly stayed with ATASCO from October 1986 through December 1989. . . . Gitner later served on the board of directors of another Mossad-run company, ICTS, which was one of the key defendants in the 9/11 litigation. Along with a handful of senior Israeli Mossad veterans, Gitner was a director of ICTS from at least 1997 through 2005. Most significantly, he was a director of the Israeli parent company which was responsible for airline security and passenger screening at Boston’s Logan Airport on 9-11.
International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) International, N.V. is the Mossad-run company that owns Huntleigh USA, the airline security company that oversaw the passenger screening operations at Boston’s Logan Airport on September 11, 2001. How would Gitner be a director or CEO of a Mossad-run company like ATASCO or ICTS if he were not working for the Mossad? . . .
IAI is “a world leader in aircraft conversion and modernization programs, unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), communication programs and defense electronics,” according to the company’s website. Shalom Yoran’s company, Bedek Aviation Group, reportedly converted its first Boeing 767 from a passenger to cargo jet in early 2000. The converted passenger jet was the first of eleven 767s to be converted for Airborne-Express, according to the Jerusalem Post of April 4, 2000. “Bedek is one of the world’s leaders in plane conversions,” the Israeli newspaper reported.
In early 2001, Bedek delivered a refurbished Boeing 707 refueling tanker for the Israeli air force, according to the Jerusalem Post of February 22, 2001. “The number of [Israeli] refueling tankers is classified,” the Post reported. “The first 707 air refueling tanker converted for the Air Force was delivered twenty years ago.” This Israeli report indicates that Bedek has been converting Boeing aircraft into tankers since the early 1980s.5
So there we have it. ISRAEL AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES (IAI)
- was heavily linked to Mossad and to the Israeli-owned firm that controlled security at the 9/11 airports;
- had facilities for large aircraft modification in the United States;
- built unmanned drones;
- purchased existing Boeings, then converted them into tankers and otherwise remodeled them.
9/11 wasn’t just the crime of the century, it was arguably the crime of the millennium. An extraordinary crime required extraordinary planning and spending. No conventional civilian Boeings would have been used for it. And I think, for many of us in the Truth Movement (myself included), we have tried to analyze the “plane strikes” based on the characteristics of ordinary planes. Since no ordinary planes could achieve the results of 9/11, some of us made the “either or” mistake, and discarded planes in favor of “no planes at all,” “holograms,” or “CGI added after the fact.”
I do believe that jetliners, modified in the types of ways this post has suggested, could resolve the observed phenomena, including the “impossible” penetration of the second tower (even the “nose out”), the entry gashes in both Towers, the holes in the Pentagon rings and Shanksville soil, and the presence of aircraft wreckage (but in scant amounts untraced to the original aircraft).
A drone, unlike the original jetliner, would also allow for the pod visible on the undersurface of “Flight 175.”
Drones also resolve a tricky Pentagon-related issue. Although the lawn in front of the impact location remained pristine, five light poles were knocked over. Defenders of the official story maintain that Flight 77, piloted by Hani Hanjour, did this. Truthers, especially advocates of the missile theory, have argued that the poles must have been toppled artificially to support the government’s narrative. They note that the poles should have shorn off a Boeing’s wings, or at least damaged them enough to leak fuel on the lawn (a Boeing’s wings carry fuel). High-velocity hardened wings, however, could probably have broken the poles (same as they partially broke steel at the Twin Towers), and perhaps the wings carried no fuel, as the drone was modified and on a short trip.
There remains the question of where these drones took off. Many commentators have noted the strange simultaneous convergence of Flights 11 and 175 over Stewart Airport, a former Air Force base that had become America’s first privatized airport in 2000. Some think this convergence represented the ideal time and place to launch drones. The drones could have been kept in secure hangars until the day of operation.
The drones that pursued Flights 77 and 93 may have originated from other bases. It is interesting that 77 changed course near Tri State Airport6 and 93 turned around near Cleveland’s Hopkins Airport.
As to other 9/11 controversies, such as the Towers’ demolition and fate of the original planes and passengers, including Flight 93, I refer my readers to the articles named at the top of this post.
I believe the case can now be made that, at virtually all operational levels, the execution of 9/11—hijackings, drone strikes, and demolition of the Twin Towers—can be credibly attributed to Israelis. This is not to deny that they may have received assistance from rogue elements of the U.S. military, especially if the E4B—the mysterious white “doomsday” plane seen above both the World Trade Center and Washington—was an accomplice and not just an observer.
Feel free to send any comments, observations, or criticisms to me via this website’s contact form.
- “Boeing KC-767,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767.
- John Lear, “Ghostplane,” July 16, 2009, http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-lears-no-plane-affadavit-no-boeing.html.
- Kashyap Vyas, “A Brief History of Drones: The Remote Controlled Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs),” January 2, 2018, https://interestingengineering.com/a-brief-history-of-drones-the-remote-controlled-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uavs.
- Christopher Bollyn, “The Planes of 9-11,” http://www.bollyn.com/the-planes-of-9-11-2.
- Rachel Adkins, “Officials Remember Flight 77 Flying over Ashland on 9/11,” The Daily Independent, Sep 9, 2016, http://www.dailyindependent.com/news/officials-remember-flight-flying-over-ashland-on/article_e43d2856-76d3-11e6-8333-2b43e4ffd383.html/.