Sie sind hier: Conclusio 9/11 (US)
Zurück zu: 9/11 Pentagon
Allgemein: Impressum Kontakt Information

Conclusio 9/11 (english)

Thermynuclear theory according to Dimitri Khalezov (911thology, The Third Truth about 9/11)

The following videolinks will show you that the buildings disintegrated in nearly free fall speed which means, that the lower part spent nearly zero resistance to the upper solid part of the building. Please notice that WTC7 was not even hit by an airplane. Nevertheless the acceleration of WTC7 was in the firsts two seconds of the observation 9,81 m/s⊃2; and this means exactly free fall speed.
To repeat it once more: 9,81 m/s⊃2; means obsolutely zero (=0) resistance.
Here are now the videos created by the physician David Chandler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc (North Tower Exploding)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk (Downward Acceleration of the North Tower)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw (9/11: WTC7 Freefall-David Chandler)

You have to know that the core columns (inner columns) were welded together by four steel plates and each steel plate near the basement of the building had a thickness of 100mm. How could these steel plates get destroyed or even pulverized unless with three or more thermy nuclear bombs, whatever the caliber was (<=150kt) and wherever the boxes were positioned deep in the underground.

It is very difficult to understand all conspiracy theories to be finally able to say which one is the only true theory. I am personally convinced that different methods were used to bring down the WTC buildings. Every theory which I have examined has any mistakes. But what I can say for sure is that the official version has nothing to do with the truth. The official version does not harmonize with the evident facts. Under facts I understand picture proofs from Gound Zero, video documents and statements of testimonies who were heard by the 9/11 Commission but who have been ignored in the final 9/11 Commission Report.
(A good example for picture proofs is the book "Where did the Towers go" from Dr. Judy Wood)
In the following you will see the best theories arranged according to a set order. But I can say from the beginning on, that the conclusion of Dr. Judy Wood is NOT my favoured theory.

Nevertheless, very good examples for facts are pictures of visible fuming at Ground Zero presented by Dr. Judy Wood, which were continuing until 2006. You can see one of these pictures in the chapter Die 9/11 Top Theorien . What could have caused this fuming? If you have read my homepage attentively, who will be now familiar with my personal top theory of the former sowjet secret service officer Dimitri Khalezov. If not, you can switch now to the detailed description of his theory: Die Zero Box

You will also find on my homepage a summary of the DEW-theory of Dr. Judy Wood, who presented in her book "Where did the Towers go" breathtaking documents of the devastation around ground zero: Dustification

First of all I want to debunk some general arguments:
There are for sure good arguments that some of the videos of the approaching airplane flying into the WTC2 were faked. Definitely the CNN Hezarkhani Video, the so-called ghostplane video was faked. There are even some people who are convinced of the Absolut-No-Airplane-Theory. But I am not convinced of this theory. Although the argument of videoediting seems to be very convincing at some other videos, I am convinced that there must have been at least one real BOEING 767 in New York. I even believe that on 9/11 must have existed at least one real Boeing 767 airplane with passengers on board, piloted by anyone, maybe also from outside by remote control. This is what I believe.

It seems that some of the videos presented to us on and after 9/11 were faked. If the CNN video was faked, we can suppose that some other videos were faked too. But the question is, why CNN had it necessary to fake the video and why did they present it to us on TV? Didn´t they have a real video or did they stand under the pressure of the US-Government to fake the video? I don´t know. But what I know for sure is that the No Airplane Theorie is wrong.
I am convinced that on 9/11 must have existed at least one real airplane with passengers on board because they had to bring the coverup-story of the hijacked airplanes believable and with picture proof under the public. If the Absolut-No-Airplane-Theory was rigth, with other words, if the first video of the Naudet brothers (WTC1) was also a fake, then it would have been an uncalculatable risk for the planers for a faster uncovering. The perpetrators needed among the people in New York neutral testimonies, who had seen at least one real Boeing. And this real airplane in the shape of a Boeing 767 with passengers on board was from my point of view the AA11 which hit WTC1. And this impact was documented by the video of the Naudet Brothers.

Indeed we see after the impact of the flight object in the WTC2 building debris coming out from the opposite side of the impactzone (from the north side of the South Tower). The flight object, whatever it was, developed a very heavy impulse and a huge kinetic energy. At the exit zone of WTC2 the windows are for sure the weakest point from which plane debris can exit the building, also in the case that the perimetercolumns have not been destroyed at this side. But the argument of some people like Collin Alexander and Simon Shack, who claim that the FOX chopper5 video was edited, because it seems that the outcoming nose on one single frame of the video has the same shape like the approaching airplane nose, is for sure nonsense. Of course they also know that the breakable nose of an airplane like of a Boeing 767 cannot withstand the impact without getting destroyed. But for Collin Alexander and Simon Shack this "nose in nose out scenario" is a part of the proof for the videoediting of the FOX chopper5 video. Also the suspicious blackouts of this chopper5 video are from my point of view definitely not a convincing argument for a faked video. I believe that interferencies caused these blackouts.
The Absolut-No-Airplane theorists forget in their argumentation that the perpetrators could not fake all about 30 videos of the incoming plane. (You can see a list of all the videos here: No Airplane Theorie ) If this approaching airplane was a real Boeing 767 with passengers on board is another question. But in any of these two airplanes in New York must have been sitting passengers, because it is too difficult to kill all these missing passengers all together in another event than in an aircraft desaster. Or do they believe that they invented about 204 non existing legends and distributed the names onto all four airplanes? I do not believe that. It would have been a high risk for the uncovering. But I have to add: For sure existed legends on the passengerlists because of the fact that for example so many of the passengers of fligth AA77 (Pentagon) had a close relationship to the military industry. This is really very suspicious. I will talk now only about New York (AA11 and UA175) and NOT about Washington (AA77) and NOT about Shanksville (UA93). I will examine this later. The Absolut No Airplane Theory claims that on 9/11 was no airplane at all on 9/11 and this claim is unbelievable. Perhaps other people believe it, but I do not believe that there was no airplane at all.

No Boeing 757 at the Pentagon: TRUE
No Boeing 757 nearby Shanksville: TRUE
No Boeing 767 in New York City: NOT TRUE

Yes, it is true that we see blackouts of some livevideos on september 11th with a fade-out delay of 0,23 seconds in the moment of the impact. This is indead a weakness of some tv presentations which may some people lead onto the wrong trace of a complete videoediting and may lead them to the idea that the planes did not exist at all. But this would mean that the livevideos must have been mastered from a central unit. Indeed only a few people know, that the live videos on tv are broadcasted with a delay of 17 seconds. This is for sure right. But I personally believe in interferences caused by the impact which took influence onto the sensitive electronic of the helicopter flir videosystem. We also do not have to forget, that the World Trade Center housed a vast aray of transmission antennas also for tv-transmission. The impact in WTC2 could have had a negative effect onto the transmission.

Even Dimitri Khalezov believes that there was no airplane at all on 9/11. Nevertheless he has with his thermynuclear-theory the best theory at all because he has for this claim really good arguments.
Fact is that the videocamera which was placed on a nearby building and which was focused on the WTC towers is toddling 12 seconds before the WTC2 collapsed. This gives us a clue onto an artificial earthquake. The officials confirm the registration of an earthquake of 2,1 and 2,3 on the open richtercale in the moment of the collapse of the buildings. But the low seismic impact contradicts the argument of Dimitri Khalezov, that in the case of an explosion of a 150 kt thermy nuclear bomb conducted 77 meters underground, a seismic impact of 5 on the richterscale should have been registered. But this was not the case. Khalezov claims, that the official datas of 2,1 and 2,3 had been altered. I am not able to judge about it, but the thermynuclear-theory of Dimitri Khalezov is really extremely good and from my point of view the best theory at all.

My question is:
Dimitri, what do you think about the use of a lower kaliber than 150 kt, because you claim that 150 kt was only the maximum allowed caliber according to the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, which is a contract between the United States and the former Sovjet Union. The PNE-Treaty was signed in between Moscow and Washington during the time when the Sowjet Union still existed, but Moscow remains Moscow and Washington remains Washington. So the treaty with the upper caliber limit still exists. Any doubts? Me not!

The following is another convincing claim of Dimitri Khalezov:
The term Ground Zero is originally a military term, because the thermynuclear bomb is also called Zero Box. As a nuclear expert Dimitir Khalezov has already been familiar with the term long before 9/11. He was able to proof that the term Ground Zero existed in encyclopedias long before 9/11 as a military term. These definitions were published before 2001. I will show you only one example of many others given in his book "911 thology, The Third Truth about 9/11".

Ground Zero:"The point on the ground vertically beneath or above the point of detonation of an atomic bomb".

This alone is of course not a proof for his theory, but he explained in his book and on his videos very convincing that he knew as a secret service officer long before 9/11 about the emergency nuclear demolition scheme under the WTC. And he explains also very convincing that his former friend and Mossad agent Mike Harari had also known about the emergency nuclear demolition scheme. And he even claims that Mossad agent Mike Harari had a preknowlege about 9/11. This is absolutely believable. I trust him!

But I personally state here at this point that the german secret service had also a preknowledge about 9/11!
I am absolutely sure!

Khalezov has really good arguments for his theory. 50 meters under the basement were installations for thermynuclear devices (He claims under WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7). The basement of WTC1 and WTC2 reached 27 meters under the surface. For a maximal 150 kt bomb it is calculated a placement depth for the zero box of 77 meters below the surface. (50m + 27m = 77m)

Once more: The limitation of the caliber onto 150 kt in tnt equivalent is a consequence of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty. This contract between the USA and the former Sowjet Union respectively between Moscow and Washington existed since 1976.
For this statement Khalezov presents also a prestory: End of the sixties it was a guideline of the Port Authority and of the Department of Housing to be able to destroy these 417 m high rise buildings without causing in the case of an emergency too much destroying influence onto the surrounding buildings. From the experiences of preconducted underground test explosions thermynuclear bombs were at that time an adequate method to fulfil the demands of the authorities. As the detonation of a 150 kt bomb causes a cavity of 100 meters in diameter by changing the rock into plasma (50m radius) , he calculates a placement depth of 77 meters. It is the goal to let the cavity created by the explosion reach slightly into the basement of one building. The cavity is going to get created by vaporazing the rock into plasma. The plasma has the ambition to extend and this could be a very good explanation for the fuming which could be observed until 2006 at Ground Zero. It is an extremely good argument that the visible fuming is explainable by vaporizing gases.

The created cavity is not round but has the shape of an egg, because the vaporizing gas has the ambition to expand into the direction of the lower resistance. This means that the cavity expands more into the direction up to the basement of the building. The shockwafe pulverizes the building withing milliseconds, because the shockwafe runs up the steelcolumns with supersonic speed and creates a breaking point. Within milliseconds the building is going to get transformed into finest powder. This phenomenon is typical for underground nuclear explosions. All material which is within the influence zone of the so-called crushed zone gets pulverised. The characteristicum of the crushed zone is a molecular dissociation of the whole materia.
Other terms:

"Pulverisation" or "molecular dissociation" according to Dimitri Khalezov.
"Dustification" according to Dr. Judy Wood.

Khalezov distinguishes between different zones:
1) Cavity: Directly around the detonation of the zero box.
2) Crushed Zone: Typical is Pulverisation, Dustification, molecular dissociation.
3) Damaged Zone: The zone surrounding the crushed zone is called "damaged zone".
4) Solid Zone: The zone surrounding the damaged zone is called "solid zone".

Now you can imagine that the people at home behind their tv-screens saw a collapse making them believe that the lower part was no longer able to hold the solid upper part of the building. You remember that the official version is the pancake theory, blablabla....
But actually we saw two buildings which disintegrated totaly in midair during the fall, what also Dr. Judy Wood recognized and who gave this phenomenon a totaly new word: Dustification

That the lowest part of the building (Basement area, B-Level) melted completely and that the building within the influence zone of the crushed zone desintegrated totaly is according to Khalezov not the consequence of the burning kerosine of the airplanes, it is not the consequence of the subsequent office burns, it is also not the consequence of the use of superthermite. It is the consequence of the explosion of thermynuclear bombs in a depth of calculated 77 meters. The pulverisation is also called molecular disintegretion.
Dr. Judy Wood, who explains the phenomenon with another theory called "Directed Energy Weapon Technology", called this pulverisation Dustification but she observes as a forensic engeneer the same phenomenon. Compared to Dimitri Khalezov she has a totally different opinion about the used technology.

Dimitri Khalezov is absolutely sure that based on the guideline of the department of buildings respectively according to the PNE Treaty between the United States and Moscow, it was not allowed to exceed the limit of 150 kt in tnt equivalent. The theory of Dimitri Khalezov would explain, why the remaining heap of rubble of the two former 110 floor high buildings had such a low height (100 feet high).

But from the point of view of Dr. Judy Wood the DEW-theory explains this phenomenon better. I want to bring the theory of Dr. Judy Wood in short onto the point. Dr. Judy Wood explains the phenomenon of the dustification with the interference of electromagnetic waves which could have been microwaves within a static field. But she does not explain how the source(s) of the electromagnetic waves was (or were) positioned. She refuses strictly to use the term space beams, although pointing out that the technology is the result of the Strategic Defense Initiative, pushed forward by Ronald Reagan (Star Wars Technology) .
Dr. Judy Wood explains the used technology as follows: "Magnetic electrical gravitic nuclear reactions" turned the buildings into dust.

Back to Dimitri Khalezov:
1) According to the claims of Dimitri Khalezov the lowest part of the building in the basement area melted completely.
2) The middle part got pulverized (crushed zone).
3) The top of the building above the breaking point remained in the moment of the beginning of the collapse solid (solid zone). But he claims that the solid part fell into the created cavity. In the very first moment the upmost part of the building remained solid, but disintegrated also in the moment of free fall.
(Compare with D. Judy Wood:"Dustification in midair")

The theory of Khalezov would explain why the temperatures remained so high for at least six weeks which was described by fireworkers (1500° Fahrenheit for at least six weeks). According to Khalezov a completely cooling down of the area around the zero box lasted about two years. This all could explain why I looked during my visit in 2007 in New York still in a hole wondering why the construction of the new building had not started yet. In 2007 I did not know what the term Ground Zero meant. But as I know it now, I can understand why they waited so long with the construction of the New World Trade Center. The underground had to cool down first and had to get solidified.

The theory of Dimitri Khalezov can also explain the fuming which could be observed at Ground Zero for several years. And the best argument: The theory of Dimitri Khalezov could explain why the analysts found shortly after 9/11 in the extinction water higher levels of the radioactive tritium (Tritium = radioactive hydrogen- isotop) .
You have to know that a thermynuclear bomb is also called clean bomb and is working with the Fission-Fusion principle. The fission process triggers the fusion of Deuterium and Tritium.

So my question is:
Did a small part of the Tritium blow out in the moment of the explosion without reacting?
It could seem plausible.

The level of tritium at WTC6 exceeded the normal level with the factor 55, what also Dr. Judy Wood describes accurately in her book. Khalezov´s scientificaly proofed explanation is, that during the fusion process, which is firstly triggered by the fission process, the natural hydrogenisotopes Deuterium and Tritium are brought to a fusion. Nobody can deny this fact in regard to the base technology. So the question is: Where did the tritium come from?
Did it come from the explosion of a thermynuclear bomb or did it come from a Directed Energy Weapon like Dr. Judy Wood claims?
Unfortunately Dimitri Khalezov and Dr. Judy Wood have totaly different opinions about the dustification or pulverisation and about the origin of the tritium. Indeed the proof that higher levels of tritium were found was brought by Dr. Judy Wood herself in her breathtaking forensic analyse of her book "Where did the Towers go". Dr. Judy Wood gives Dimitri Khalezov literally a through ball for his own thermynuclear theory. But she does not come to the same conclusion of a thermynuclear bomb like Khalezov does. In the higher levels of tritium she sees one proof for the correctness of her Directed Energy Weapon Theory (DEW).
She also points out to the fuming which could be observed for a few years after 9/11. To be exactly it could be observed until 2006. But from HER point of view there is no evidence that after 09/23/01 the temperatures were longer high. This is from my point of view very strange because she seems to ignore the statements of so many fireworkers and testimonies. From my point of view the fuming for such a long time cannot be caused by DEW. It must have had another reason and Khalezov gives a satisfying explanation for the phenomenon. Indeed it could be a sign for the slowly vaporizing gases from the undergound cavity and from the surrounding crushed zone.

And what does Dr. Judy Wood say via "secretary" Dr. Abraham Haffiz Rodriguez?

"The fuming seen at ground zero is linked to chronic degradation of materials, as the particels in the fumes are coming from various remaining building materials that are giving off the fumes. Directed energy is the most consistent explanation for something that can generate ongoing fuming and degradation without high heat".

Really? Doctors can be astonishing!
These were the last explanations of Dr. Abraham Haffiz Rodriguez who is obviously the prolonged arm of Dr. Judy Wood and who seems feeling responsible to support her theory on facebook. After this last statement I got deleted from this Dr. Judy Wood facebook page so that I am no longer able to ask questions. This is the simpliest way to avoid questions. This was his argumentation to delete me:

"You have been removed from this page for continuing rumors and false statements here. Claiming Dr. Judy Wood promotes the idea of "microwave beams from a space satelite" is not true, as she does not promote such theories. Dr Judy Wood presents a large body of evidence which happens to be overwhelmingly conclusive in nature. She does not prevent theories, and she does not promote "microwafe apce beams". Goodbye, ABE".

Yes, this is the socalled intelligence. As Abe has a Dr. title too I am happy that I have not such a title. As I am no longer able to ask questions in this clandestine group I will ask the question on my own homepage:

Dear Dr. Abraham Haffiz Rodriguez and dear Dr. Judy Wood:
Why do you mention on page 450 of your book under the subtitle "Taking the Twist Out of the Twister" a "Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite", "a technology presented at the Space 2000 Conference and Exposition on Engeneering, Construction, Operations and Business in Space" if this technology has nothing to do with 9/11?

My question to Rodriguez was not literally but from the sense as follows:
If Dr. Judy Wood mentions this technology in regard to 9/11 in her book and in regard to the hurricane Erin which was just standing in front of the doors of New York City on 9/11, mentioning that the hurricane was SUSPICIOUSLY not mentioned in any weather forecasts on tv before its supposed arrival in New York, mentioning that the hurricane changed SUSPICIOUSLY its direction exactly after the terrible events in New York. If they were able to use this technology to destroy a hurricane or to change its direction, why didn´t they use this technology to take influence onto the path of the Hurricane Irene in 2012? If it is really true that they abused the hurricane to create a static field around the WTC, what you claim because this was necessary to make the DEW theory working, so why weren´t they able to change the direction of the hurricane Irene more than ten years later?
An incorrect answer is also an answer. Right, Double Dr. Team?

I cannot agree with Dr. Judy Wood`s argument that the long lasting fuming is a consequence of the use of a Directed Energy Weapon Technology. Some people believe that Dr. Judy Wood is a paid shill and is working for the US government. I am personally not convinced that she is really a shill. Fact is that she presents in her book a perfect documentation and irrefutable proofs of very strange phenomenons having taken place around ground zero. The best example are the 1400 toasted cars. So why should she only fire off stun granades? Dr. Judy Wood contributes an excellent help to find out what really happened. Her work is an enormous contribution to uncover the coverup story of the US-Government. The fact that interpretations can be wrong is a logical consequence of the complexity of the subject. I think that also Khalezov makes mistakes.
Dr. Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov agree in the observation of the dustification or pulverisation of the buildings. Indeed the buildings desintegrated totaly and everybody can check this out on youtube. Khalezov insists on his thermynuclear theory. Dr. Judy Wood insists on her Directed Energy Weapon Theory but she does not give an answer where the source of the energy was positioned.

Sorry Dr. Judy Wood..
The explosion of thermynuclear bombs deep underground, independent how many it were and how big the caliber was and independent where they were positioned explains the fuming until 2006 better than your DEW theory.
The question remains what destroyed the WTC6 if according to Khalezov there was no zero box under the building WTC6. But the answer could be self explaining because in the extinction water of WTC6 was found an elevated level of tritium.

In regard to the Hutchisons "Iron Bar Warping", explaining the phenomenon of the Hutchison effect, which is for sure a cold process caused by interferences of microwaves within a created static field, I ask Dr. Judy Wood how it was possible to create such a huge energy to bring each tower with 500.000 tons to fall. The question is:
Where did they position the source of the DEW energy?
If the directed energy weapon did not come from the space it must have come from the ground or at least from inside the building? Rigth?
The sign that we can see the fuming coming until 2006 from the ground shows us that the DEW must have been positioned anywhere in the underground! Rigth?
Was this device positioned deep underground, in or under the B-level?
Give me an answer please!

I do not see that the Hutchison´s Iron Bar Warping continued the fuming much longer than to the moment when the experiment stopped. But at ground zero the visible fuming continued until 2006. Where was the fume hidden for such a long time if not in a cavity deep underground or in a surrounding crushed zone like Khalezov claims?
If the DEW theory is correct, the vapour must have been sent with high pressure into the surrounding area of the B-Level, that this area was able to give off the fumes for such a long time. But the surrounding area was rock and a rock cannot hide the fuming, except the rock got anyway destroyed! Right?
So the conclusion is that you claim that also something must have happened to the rock that it could give off the fumes for such a long time. Because if it was only the material of the building giving off the fumes, the rescue workers would have had a faster access to the source of the fuming and would not have been surprised to observe it until 2006. Right?

So an absolutely clear conclusion is: The workes had no access to the source of the fuming! They had no access to the fuming because it came from DEEP UNDERGROUND. Or do you want to tell me that your DEW was positioned deep undergound? If you are so sure about your DEW theory you should also be able to say where the DEW was positioned.

Dear Dr. Judy Wood:
I state here that your private secretary called ABE does not give me correct answers onto my questions and repeats always in the same stereotypes. He avoided to give me correct answers but never missed to threaten me to delete me from the facebook page what he finally did. This is a fact. Perhaps you can give him some more lessons in your DEW theory if he is not able to give me exact answers.

I have another question:
If the DEW was so strong to destroy 2 x 500.000 tons (WTC1+WTC2) + 250.000 tons of the WTC7, why did DEW not destroy the WTC bathtub? To claim that it was only and alone a cold directed energy weapon is not enough explanation to me. To argue that the cold DEW Technology could explain the "non-destroying" of the bathtub better than the theory of the thermynuclear bomb is for me really a hard stuff to swallow. Is from your point of view the fact of the fuming not enough to realize that it must have something to do with an area deep in the underground where they did not have access to stop it earlier?
Do you really believe that your super-super-DEW had a follow-effect of fuming coming from the underground until 2006? No sorry Dear Dr. Double Team! I respect your work in this book but I do not respect your conclusions, sorry!

Another question to Dr. Judy Wood:
What do you think about the visible explosions documented on videos coming from inside the building? Dr. Judy Wood believes that no bombs, neither conventational nor mininukes nor thermynuclear bombs were used. So please would you be able to explain me the video of the "exploding man" on youtube which shows only one visible explosion and showing a man who gets ejected with high speed rate out of the building. Check it out and explain me the reason.... And don´t tell me the video was faked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8oXH9TdDuc

I have the feeling that Dr. Judy Wood and ABE (The Dr. Double Team) ignore all what does not fit to their DEW-theory. Also in the case that DEW took place here (what is for sure possible because I want to give Dr. Judy Wood a chance) I believe that different methods were used to bring the buildings down. Khalezov is for me a trustworthy person. I believe that he knew a long time before 9/11 that there was an emergency nuclear demolition scheme preplaced under the WTC complex and the explosion of the thermynuclear bombs triggered the reaction of the top secret primerpaint on the steel beems inside the building. This caused the heat, this caused together with the used explosives the destruction of the +1400 cars in the surroundings, because a top secret material which went supercritical was ejected out of the building and destroyed the cars from the rooftop into the inner area of the car.
(Prof. Niels Harrit and Prof. Steven Jones proofed the existance of high reactive red grey chips = primerpaint)

Perhaps you are until now not familiar with the following name. But this will change for sure. Howard T. Lews III. is the son of one of the constructurs of the WTC. And what he says is really very interesting.

Howard T. Lewis III:
"Dr. Ed Ward, MD and co. established the presence of low radioactivity isotopes of two elements which would have been sent super-critical by the high radiation basement device and perhaps other mininukes installed on upper floors. I have known of some „top secret“ material that was included in the primer paint since before it was applied starting in 1968 or 1969. The painters did not know they were spraying on any such thing. But I knew.
The vaporized steel turned dust would have radiated anything it contacted until the introduced paint component exhausted itself of the radioactive potential of highly radioactive isotopes. It is within normal limits of logic to consider this activated dust is what did the radiation burning of surrounding cars’ front halves and not an upstairs nuclear device. Just a thought. I don’t know whether an upstairs nuke existed. I know there was a radioactive primer paint throughout WTC I and II. Not flapping gums and I appreciate the need for expediency and brevity in solving this."
Howard T.Lewis III:"When the demolition system was presewnted as an add on january 1969, something was added to the spray on metal primer. This added substance was ‘top secret’ and it was sprayed on in an electric field, with the two electrodes moved along as the painter and his assistant moved a two or three hose paint pot and sprayer. Dr. Ed Ward, MD says he found two [self censored]in primer samples. These was sent critical/super critical and this vaporized the metal it covered with the help of the other charges. My downloaded copy of the article disappeared off my computer within a few hours. I would just as soon not know what was there in that case. I don’t remember."

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/19/busting-911-myths-nanothermite-big-nukes-and-dews
/?fb_comment_id=fbc_1422109844668308_114209_1422801994599093

B I N G O !!!

This ejected material could have caused the weird fires without any doubt. I have to contradict Dr. Judy Wood: This what we saw was not only DEW technology, if at all. Indeed these fires could not get extinguished by fireworkers what is strange enough. To me it looks more like a unstoppable reaction of a top secret material like Howard T. Lewis III. describes it.

The statement of Dr. Judy Wood, that visible weird fires on 9/11 could have been in the beginning not hot "but might have turned hot, because not everything what glows is hot" is per se correct.
I see burning cars within a huge abount of unburned paper what is really strange. (This is indeed a phenomenon of the Hutchison Effect) I see on a video smoking door handles of cars without any visible fire in the surroundings which is much more strange. I see picture proofs of flipped cars (upside down) in her book. I see picture proofs of fused elements of different metals melted together with concrete to something like a "meteorite". The result of these fused elements can be seen in a museum in New York. All this can be for sure also explainable with DEW and is for sure an absolutely perfect forensic analysis. I wouldn´t have seen these pictures without your help, Dr. Judy Wood. Thank you so much for that!

But sorry I cannot believe that the temperatures UNDER Ground Zero were no longer hot after 09/23/01 and that the fuming was only and alone the consequence of DEW reaction lasting until 2006. This is for me personally not pursuable.
You have to push a long thermometer directly inside the asshole of Ground Zero and you may not rely on datas gained from United States Geological survey analysis of the NASA coming from a satellite perspective. One good example: If you are ill you do not call your doctor to ask about your body temperature. You put a thermometer in your.....(you know)
First of all it has no use to ask the NASA which is observing ground zero from the space because the NASA is far away from Ground Zero but stands very close to the US-Government. Satellites are too far away from ground zero to deliver exact datas about the underground temperature. Don´t you see that?
Perhaps I do not see it because I do not have a doctortitle. But I think you have to dig deeper in the underground to find the truth.
I do not reject Dr. Judy Wood´s theory at all but I believe that Khalezovs theory is much closer to the truth in regard to the destruction of the buildings. But also he makes mistakes. I do not believe that all these toasted 1400 cars were put on fire by policemen, fireworkers or by hired perpetrators of the Government or by whomever.
Dear Dimitri, take a look on the parking areas and see how strange the kind of devastation is. Believe me, you can check it out on your own and I know that you have an absolutely open mind. You have no Dr. title but you are for me much more intelligent than the Dr. Double Team.
In a presentation of Dr. Judy Wood you can see how a door handle of a car began to smoke. And there was not fire nearby. Hot or cold energy, that´s the question....
I think the metal was so hot that the plastic began to fume. I do not know what happened to that specific car afterwards but there are so many other cars which began to burn. At any point of the temperature the car started to burn, going out from materials which were no longer fire resitant. The car paint is also nothing else than plastic. This can be a reason why the visible destruction of the toasted cars is so strange. (Peeleffect)

Everybody can make an experiment like I did unvoluntarily.
In my bathroom I have a heat ventilator above the sink. I have there a soap donator of which the container consists of plastic and the donator consists of metal. This thing was positioned on the sink. When I switched on the heater the metal donator was after a while really hot but this had no influence onto the temperature of the plastic of the container because like everybody knows the metal is the better conductor. If the metal gets hotter and hotter I think the plastic which is in direct contact with the metal will get destroyed first, because the plastic has a lower melting point but is getting influenced by the heat of the metal, because it is linked to the metal by the thread.
It could have the same reason in the case of the doorhandle of the car. If the car is exposed to an enormous heat, the metal is going to get very hot and any plasticparts with a lower heat resistance begin to change their shape first and perhaps get on fire if they are made out of oil products. In the worst case the plastic starts to burn and destroys the whole car. But yes, Dr. Judy Wood, I know. This is exactly what did not happen. Most of the cars did not burn completely, some changed only their shape that it even was not possible to recognize what type of car it was. And some are showing something like a peeleffect. The carpaint peeled away only in one area, then suddenly the reaction seem to have stoped so that a sharp boundary was visible between the destructed area and non destructed area of the car. It is really strange but..... is it really a proof for the use of a cold directed energy weapon?

Lets state that nobody is able to give me an answer onto that question. Perhaps in this case Dr. Judy Wood could have a better explanation. But if it was a thermynuclear bomb like Khalezov claims, the question is in which direction the hole down to the zero box opened? Can several million degrees around the zero box can cause this devastation? I guess it can. It depends on in which direction the hole opened and I do not know how big the hole leading to the underground really was. It could have been very small, because the shockwafe was the reason for the destruction of the buildings and not the size of the hole. But Dr. Judy Wood explains that in the case of such an underground bomb nobody in the Stairwell B could have survived. But indeed 14 people survived in stairwell B close to the ground. Khalezov claims that they were in a dead angle and were therefore not affected by the "stormfront" and that the Zero Box was not positioned directly in the center of WTC1 and WTC2.
I like his argument that the zero box under the WTC7 was directly under the longest wall of the building. WTC7 had the form of a trapez.

Let´s go back to the high rise buildings WTC1 and WTC2. A part of the truth could also be that parts of the building were ejected out by explosives, what Dr. Judy Wood denies. But again and again I could read that on the roofs of surrounding buildings have been found small bone parts. (e.g. Bankers Trust Building) Only those open eye observers who realize the explosive force in the moment of the collapse are convinced that this was not a normal impact of a building caused by pancaking floors. Whatever it was what caused this, the pancake theory is for sure wrong. Dr. Judy Wood says: "My personal integrity as a scientist forbids me to call this a collapse". Absolutely right!

I am personally convinced that also explosives were used which were responsible for the visible cluster and squibs. But also the superthermite theory cannot be denied at all because sulfur was found in an unexplainable amount which is a part of the thermite reaction. (Aluminiumoxide + sulfur + ?? + activation energy = Superthermite) But the superthermite theory standing alone gives not a satisfying explanation where the activation energy came from. For me it is obvious that a superthermite reaction cannot have caused alone the collapse of the buildings within 11,5 seconds. (10 seconds according to the Commission Report) Besides of this superthermite theory you can google the statements of Howard T. Lewis III, who is a son of one of the constructors. He claims that they used a top secret special primer sprayed on in an electric field which was sent automatically critical respectively supercritical after the explosion of the thermy nuclear bomb deep underground and maybe after the explosion of some mininukes within the Corecolumns of the upper floors. The outward ejected red grey chips which were found at ground zero, which were a part of the primerpaint and which existance was proofed by Prof. Niels Harrit and Prof. Steven Jones to be highreactive, could have caused the destruction of the cars in the surroundings, beginning from the rooftop of the cars.
We can state that the superthermite theory alone gives no satisfying answer where the activation energy came from. The thermynuclear bomb in the underground can explain this better. But.....

We see in the moment of the impact detonation levels continuing from the top to the bottom. The question is if the detonation of a thermynuclear device 77 meters under the surface could have caused the reaction of the topsecret primer material sprayed on the perimeter- and corecolumns long before. The answer is "No", because in this case the detonation levels should have been observed from the bottom to the top and not from the top to the bottom like we can see on the video observing the explosions in the moment of the collapse. The reason is because the layers on the steel must have been sent FIRST supercritical in the lower floors of the buildings than in the upper parts because the lower floors were closer to the zero point. But in any case the statement of Howard T. Lewis III gives sense and has a fascination. It could be true but only in combination with other techniques. Thermonuclear + Topsecretprimer + Explosives + DEW could be the solution. To find that out we should ask the responsibles of Controlled Demolition, because this company holds the patent for the thermynuclear demolition of skyscrapers. Of course they will not give us an answer onto our questions because the company works very close together with the government. Perhaps it does no longer exist. And I think it does no longer exist because they also don´t want to hear these kind of questions. Propably they only changed their name.

From my point of view the thermynuclear device had the biggest influence onto the sudden dustification of the buildings. Also the long lasting high temperature must be a consequence of the thermy nuclear bombs. (The long lasting high temperatures are denied by Dr. Judy Wood.) The vertical steel columns which were within the crushed zone, positioned close enough to the zeropoint of the explosion were pulverized in milliseconds after the detonation. (This has nothing to do with the explosion William Rodriguez was talking about.)
Because of the detonation took place in great depth, the radioactive consequences onto the surroundings are more or less negligable except for those who had to work at ground zero in the aftermath and had to inhale the radioactive vaporizing gases without knowing what it was. This means that the workers were not exposed to alpha-beta- or gammarays. They were exposed to the alpha- and betaparticals by inhaling them which could not get measured by the Dosimeter. And this causes the terrible chronical radiation desease.

******************************************************************************

On the sites before I wanted to present you the circumstances around 9/11. Now it is time to try a role allocation. Who did know about this inside job

The issues are so complicated, that it is not possible to explain all that only with a few words. Conclusio 9/11 is a result of reviewing the complete circumstances. The reader will only be able to form his own opinion once he has internalized all the facts. I needed thousands of hours for this, because to understand what happened is one thing, to communicate it to others is the other thing. It is like a puzzle which has not come to an end. It is a neverending story.

In the morning of 9/11 the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) was on the second day of military exercises, scheduled for one week and called „Northern Vigilance„ „Vigilant Guardian„ and "Vigilant Warrior". Also Richard Clarke confirmed in his book Against all Enemies that at least the exercise "Vigilant Warrior" took place on 9/11. Part of one the exercises was the simulation of a terror attack in which the hijacking of airplanes abused by terrorists for flying against buildings should be simulated. Also in the two years before the 9/11 terrorattacks, NORAD had trained such exercises, in which aircrafts were used in simulation for terrorattacks and even the World Trade Center had been part of one of those exercises.

Shortly before 9/11 Vice President Dick Cheney asked Donald Rumsfeld for the permission to take over the control of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) . Up to this time the authority for the shoot-down-procedure was in the responsibility of the generals. This changed on 06/01/2001.

"Dick Cheney ordered Donald Rumsfeld to allow him to take control of NORAD itself and the shoot-down-procedure".
Quelle: 9/11 Coincidences (Part Six)
Also confirmed by flight controller Robin Hordon from Boston Center what you will learn soon....
They changed the procedure from one protocol to another.
Instead of the "slow and fast form of scrambling protocol" only the "slow form of scrambling protocol" was active!

As a proof for this transfer of responsibility onto Cheney (what means "slow form") there exists a written memorandum and also the facts of the 9/11 timeline confirm the responsiblity of Cheney for the shoot down procedure. This change in the responsibility could be an explanation why no general was present in the NMCC until shortly before 10:00. According to the 9/11 Commission Report General Richard Myers entered the NMCC of the Pentagon shortly before 10:00. Up to this time only a Captain called Charles Leidig was Director of Operations. Even Donald Rumsfeld in his ranking postioned over the generals entered the NMCC at about 10:30. This was much too late and I have to add that the NMCC is the most important military Command Center within the Pentagon. All military decisions have to come from their JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff).

I want to remember once more the time of the first impact in WTC1 and the time of the UA93 crash nearby Shanksville.

1) WTC1: 08.46
2) Shanksville: 10:03

Let´s calculate the difference: 77 minutes. This is really a long time and nobody seems to have been responsible for the shoot down procedure. The telephone call between Bush and Cheney took place at 10:18 to confirm the rules of the interceptors. But at that time the UA93 (Shanksville) had allegedly already crashed. Because 10:03 was the official time of the crash.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/F16 ( Quelle des nebenstehenden Bildes )
Statement Nr.1 of Cheney:
At the 9/11 commission Cheney stated, that he immediately called President Bush after he had reached the conference room at 10:00, and arranged the rules for the interceptors. Cheney had proposed, to give the permission to the fighters to shoot down every plane whose pilot was refusing to veer.
(Vincent Bugliosi S. 202 , Anklage wegen Mordes gegen Georg W. Bush)

Statement Nr.1 against Cheney:
Contrary to Cheney´s statement exists a statement of the Chief of Staff Scooter Libby, who gave the statement to protocol that he did not see Cheney make such a telephone call. (V.B. S.203)

Statement Nr.2 against Cheney:
Mrs. Cheney who was also present in the PEOC, did not see Cheney make this phone call either. (V.B. S.203)

Statement Nr.3 against Cheney:
The Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House, Joshua Bolton stated at the 9/11 commission, that he had proposed to the Vice-President to take contact with the President and to confirm the order for the shoot-down-procedure. The telephone call took place at 10:18. This is protocolled. He did not hear that Cheney had already talked about the problem earlier.

Statement Nr. 4 against Cheney:
Ari Fleischer, the spokesman of the White House, did not have an earlier telephone call between Bush and Cheney in his protocol. Fleischer was informed about the authorization of the shoot-down-procedure at 10:20. (Vincent Bugliosi S.203)

Question:
Had it Cheney necessary to ask Bush? Who was Commander in Chief during the absence of Bush in Sarasota Florida?
Answer: As Vice Persident Cheney was at present in the White House in Washington Cheney was automatically Commander in Chief and the telephone call wouldn´t have been necessary. But it is also true that according to a change in the arrangement which took place on 06/01/2001 (June) existed the socalled "slow form of scrambling protocol". This is also a statement of the flight controller Robin Hordon from Boston Center. It was confirmed in a written memorandum. This change of arrangement to the slow form meant that no longer the generals (JCS)were responsible for the shoot down procedure but Dick Cheney himself. But anyway Cheney thought that it would be necessary to get to permission for the shoot down procedure from Georg W. Bush. Very tricky! Because it garanteed to be able to spend more time in inactivity (until 10:18 as we could see).
And by the way: Georg W. Bush seemed to be exluded for a while from the command chain, because it was extremely difficult to get a connection out of the Air Force One to the NMCC and the to PEOC. Bush got so angry about it that he shouted. "What to the hell is going on here"? (You can be sure that this is protocolled like everything has to get protocolled what happens in the Air Force One)

We must ask ourselves, if the United States of America were governed by Georg W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney was indeed the shaddow man behind Bush. He was the real head of the Government and Bush only his puppet. Propably Vincent Bugliosi did not realize, that the permission for the shoot down procedure had transfered on 06/01/2001 from the generals to Dick Cheney. So Cheney had indeed on 9/11 all authority to give the order to intercept supposedly hijacked airplanes. But he did not. He made a telephone call with the President at 10:18. Bugliosi would not write in his book "Anklage gegen Georg W. Bush": „Cheney knew, that such a permission for the shoot down can only be given by the President of the United States„, (S.202. V.B.)
If Bugliosi had known that there existed already a memorandum, giving all the authorities to Cheney he would not have written this. Propably he did not know that.
Cheney wanted to gain more time. He wanted to garantee that the planers of 9/11 could finish their inside job. He wanted to ensure that the legend of the fourth airplane UA93 was on the ground before he took the handset to call the president. There is a logic behind this. The goal was to gain more time. Also the route deviation for the shoot down procedure on 06/01/2001 was a part of the plan.

For me it is the most astonishing and the most perfidious, that the protocolled telephone call between Bush and Cheney took place 15 minutes after the crash of the last of the four hijacked aircrafts and 92 minutes after the first attack onto the WTC. (08:46 to 10:18 = 92 minutes) For how stupid did this government think we are?

Abbildung: F16A Abfangjäger: - Who was responsible for the shoot-down- procedure ? Bush, Cheney oder Rumsfeld ? Cheney und Rumsfeld tragen die Hauptverantwortung für 9/11. War Bush dann nur eine dumme Marionette ?

http://world911truth.org/zero-an-investigation-into-911/ Pos. 55:17
Pos. 46:00

And now it has to get stated, that some people in the control centers of NEADS and (or) NORAD had played a role of the government. To this point fits the fact, that the Cleveland tower was evacuated at about 09:30 and the Airport of Johnstown between 09:40 and 10:00, propably to give other dirty guys of the secret service the possibility to take place on their seats, working for the government and not interested in the truth. Even the military National Reconnaisance Office(NRO) was evacuated and most of the people were sent home. In any case too many testimonies were not accepted because they could tell what they really saw on their radarscreens.
From 08:46 to 10:03 was enough time to demand the interceptors into the right direction. But in fact the interceptors did not even come close to the hijacked airplanes. There are many signs pointing to Cleveland as the airport where flight UA93 made an emergency landing at 10:45 and therefore it was necessary to evacuate the Cleveland Airport completely. In chapter UA93 I calculated the timetable with the help of an experienced pilot of a Boeing 757 and it seems to confirm the theory which has already been stated by LOOSE CHANGE. They claim that UA93 did not crash nearby Shanksville. It propably landed in Cleveland and the passengers were evacuated into the NASA Research Center. This is exactly what LOOSE CHANGE says. If this is really true, UA93 must have been a special Secret Service flight! And it is very suspicious that the Airport of Los Angeles was evacuated too. Los Angeles was the airport where UA93 should normaly land. Do you know why?
What do you think what happens normally if an airplane does not arrive at the supposed time? The relatives go to the airport expecting news and waiting there for their missed ones showing their pain. It would have been very embarrassing for the US Government if the medias had told the people in the world on tv that it was so strange that no relatives were waiting for the missing flight UA93 in Los Angeles. This is only an idea but it COULD fit. Fact is that Los Angeles Airport LAX was evacuated.

There was so much time to activate the interceptors but nothing happened. Imagine! If on all of the 16 Air Force Bases in the North East Air Defense Sector of the United States only one of the F16 fighters is available, it is able to reach every commercial hijacked airplane within 6 to 10 minutes with a speed of 2400 km/h. This is a statement of flight controller Robin Hordon, who accuses that the interceptors were not activated right in time and they were flying first into the warning areas on the Atlantik.

But I reapeat once more:
On this day most of the interceptors were not available because they were involved in exercises like „Nothern Vigilance„ and „Vigilance Guardian„. And I am convinced that all this was arranged long before because it was part of the plan of 9/11. The slow form of scrambling protocol garantueed that the responsibility had gone over to Cheney. And the slow form of scrambling protocol garanteed to waste much more time, because Cheney decided to call Bush what was not necessary because he was automatically Commander in Chief because of the absence of Bush. Do you see the trick? This behaviour contradicts even the War Power Act!

The 9/11 Commission Report is claiming, that the Air Defense was activated too late by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) The FAA is not a military but a civil organisation.
„Air Defense has been notified late by the civil aviation (FAA)"
We see: The 9/11 Commission Report is blaming the civil organisation FAA.
In my humble opinion these old guys who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report and who for sure worked for the government are disqualified, because this book is full of contradictions and because they heard for example William Rodriguez at the Commission, reporting of massive explosions inside the WTC building, but they did not mention him in the final Commission Report with one word, because his statements obviously did not fit into the official version of the government. Not only William Rodiguez but also other people who reported of massive explosions before 08:46 in the B-level (=Sublevel) of WTC were ignored. Explosiones took place also later in the whole North Tower when Rodriguez went up to rescue the people. But the most interesting explosion happened in the B-Level before the impact of the plane in WTC1 at 08:46. The explosion was so heavy that it pushed Rodriguez upward in his seat while still being there in the sublevel. This means that the explosion must have come from underneath the sublevel. Can You explain me, why many other people who reported of explosions had never been heard by the 9/11 Commission. Shame on the government.
This was only one example...

Thinking a little bit around the corner, we can guess that the military Air Defense should be more guilty than the FAA, because those who blame the others are in most of the cases those who want to get out of the responsibility. And also a child can imagine, that the Air Defense had failed, because the change of responsibility according to the "slow form of scrambling protocol" excuses only the generals, but Cheney was responsible and he even wanted to get the confirmation about the shoot down procedure from Bush. This slow form worked really very slowly and needed too much time. That was the trick. The trick was to gain time......
The chain of responsibility on 9/11 was going like this:

1) Flight Controllers at the airports>>>
2) FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)>>>
3) NEADS(North East Air Defense Sector)>>>
4) NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command>>>
5) DOD (Department of Defense), NMCC (normaly with RUMSFELD and his generals of JCS)>>>
6) VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY>>>
7) PRESIDENT BUSH

You will see later, that I am dead right with my CONCLUSIO that they wanted an elongation of the command chain.

Robin Hordon is stating in the following:
Until 06/01/2001 there had been two standard protocols:
1)Slow and fast form of scrambling protocol (order for shoot down procedure comes from the military authorities)
2)Slow form of scrambling protocol (Deviation over Vice President who contacted the President. But the final call was not necessary because Cheney was Commander in Chief.

Robin Hordon:
"Rumsfeld, the Pentagon and the military changed the procedures and instead of having two protocols...they went to one protocol ,the slow..! (Statement of flight controller Robin Hordon)
After 06/01/2001 they changed it back to the two protocols „slow and fast form of scrambling protocol„.

It seems, that the Pentagon wanted to reach a route deviation by changing the procedure into the „slow procedure„ on 9/11, with the inclusion of the Vice-President and even of the President, of course with the ambition to gain more time being able to remain in inactivity. And everybody has to admit that the chain command worked really very slowly on that day. (08:46 WTC1 to 10:18 telephone call Bush Cheney = 92 minutes)

And even the generals were not on their place. The first general called Richard Myers entered the NMCC in the Pentagon shortly before 10:00 (According to the Commission Report)
Rumsfeld was not there because he helped in front of the Pentagon the wounded onto the strechers and nobody in the NMCC knew where he was. (Very tricky)
Even Richard Myers was wondering, why only a Captain called Charles Leidig was "Director of Operations" in the NMCC and no other general was present. (Very tricky to leave the NMCC headless!)
Do you realize now the sense why Cheney and not the generals had the command over the shoot down procedure? They wanted to have a missing link in the command chain!

You will see that in the following:

http://world911truth.org/zero-an-investigation-into-911/ Pos. 59:08

1) In the morning of 9/11 General W. Montague Winfield asked Captain Charles Leidig to take over as Director of the Operations at NMCC (National Military Command Center).
In the morning of 9/11 Captain Charles Leidig took over for an interim time the tasks of the "Director of the Operations at NMCC". He got upgraded to „Rear Admiral, Director of the Operations Sixth Fleet, Naval Force for Europe".
One day after 9/11 Brigadier General and Director of Operations W. Winfield Director of the Operations at the NMCC was upgraded to „Major General„
Well done Wini!

2) Brigardier General David F.Wherley jr. was on 9/11 Commander of Andrews Air Force Base. This is the Air Force Base which is the closest to the Pentagon. But fortunately for the US Government they had no interceptors available (because of the exercise Northern Vigilance. (You remember that they had brought interceptors to Alaska and Kanada) Wherley was upgraded to Major General, Commanding General National Guard, District of Columbia. Well done Wherley!!!

3) Richard B. Myers, Vice Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff was on 9/11 for an interim time on the top of „all the military forces of the Nation, as the Chairman Shelton was out of the County„. But according to the 9/11 Commission Report he entered the NMCC shortly before 10:00 and was wondering, why Rumsfeld was not present but only a Captain called Charles Leidig.

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Dick_Cheney.jpg Public Domain

If You read the chapters Pentagon 9/11 and WTC 9/11 attentive, the conclusion is now obvious:
Dick Cheney job on 9/11 was to prevent an active activation of the Air Defense System. It is interesting to note that during the exercises "Northern Vigilance" in which NORAD was involved, some interceptors were moved to Kanada and Alaska so that in the consequence within the NEADS sector were only 16 jets available. But available means not in constant alarm ability. Only two were in alarm modus. (Offut Air Force Base) This made the situation from the beginning on more complicated and this was only one reason why the Air Defense was in such a disorder. And it is a fact that there was at least one more exercise taking place on 9/11: Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Warrior. Vigilant Warrior es even confirmed by Richard Clarke (Against all Enemies)

Norman Mineta, the Transportation Secretary stated during a hearing at the national 9/11 Commision about the behaviour of Dick Cheney, who had been in the White House bunker in Washington (PEOC)
"During the time, when the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and said to the Vice President "The plane is fifty miles out, the plane is thirty miles out and when he was going down to "the plane is ten miles out", the young man also said to the Vice President "Do the orders still stand?" And The Vice President turned and whipped his head around and said "Of course the order still stands!" Have You heard anything to the contrary. But at that time I did not know what that had meant„.

Conclusio:
„He turned and whipped his head around"...With the statement „of course do the orders still stand„, he pulled himself out of the affair. The order should have normaly been: „Bring the airplanes down." or "shoot the airplanes down". But Norman Mineta did not know how to interpret the reaction of Cheney.

There is another fact, which is substantiating the suspicion that Cheney was an insider of the terrorattack.
Before 9/11 an agent of Afghanistan informed the Egyptian Secret Service, that 20 members of Al Qaida had entered the United States and four of them had the intention to do a pilot training on cesnas.
End of june 2001 the secret service of Egypt gave the information to the CIA. But the CIA did not show any reaction onto the message. The Egyptian President Mubarak even tried to contact the Vice President Dick Cheney, because Mubarak took the threat very seriously. But he had no success. (E. Laurant S.95/96)

But take care:
There are two possibilities. Either al Qaida planned really a terrorattack against the United States or the secret service catching the information was tricked. Because to lay out wrong traces was always a way to fortify a legend.
It could have been like this....
They launched some radio messages or telephone calls with key words which ensured them to get caught by the technical secret service NSA (this works automaticaly) and the loyal agents of the NSA give the information to their bosses. They give the message to the CIA until they are lying in a written form on the desk of the CIA Director Georg Tenet. And Tenet briefes the President about the content of the threats in the so-called presidential briefings. You have to compare with the terror attack Discothek LaBelle in Berlin. Gaddafi was blamed for it, but the former german minister Andreas von Bülow stated in his book that the Mossad stood behind this terror attack. An electronic radio-reflex device was simulating radio messages, which should get interpreted from other secret services to come directly from the libyan embassy what was not true. It worked as a trick which should confirm the involvement of Gaddafi in the terrorattack. But not every secret service was so stupid to believe the official story. The former Massad agent Victor Oststrovsky confirmed this in his book "The Mossad".

Do You realize the sense?
After 9/11, after all these threats, nobody should come onto the idea that it could have been a terrorattack of a handful insiders of the US Government itself. But it is an error to believe that the whole CIA could have been involved in 9/11. The masterminds have to be searched within the rows of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), around Rumsfeld and Cheney. The distinction between the loyal forces (in terms of law) and the criminal forces is the reason why special parts of the CIA like Tenet hold in a meeting the "weapon" directly onto the chest of Condi Rice and Georg W. Bush to force the government to react in regard to the imminent terrorattack and in reagard to all these warnings coming from other countries. But the government did not show any reaction. Nobody should thwart the terrorattack. And this had system!

Abbildung: Richard Cheney, - seit 2001 Vizepräsident der Vereinigten Staaten. Seit dem 1.Juni 2001 hatte er die Kontrolle über NORAD. Damit liegt das Nichtreagieren der Luftverteidigung in seinem Verantwortungsbereich. Er ist eng verflochten mit der Rüstungsindustrie, denn er saß im Aufsichtsrat des Rüstungskonzerns Northrop.

Source on the right side: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Rumsfeld1.jpg Public Domain

Donald Rumsfeld turned out to be a prophet on 9/11: Rumsfeld was on 9/11 at 8 o´clock in the Pentagon to take breakfast.
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html ( Textquelle )
Rumsfeld: "I had said at an 8:00 o'clock breakfast that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department ..."

And once more Rumsfeld turns out to be a prophet shortly before the attack of the Pentagon. This is a statement of Chairman Fox, who sat together with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz at breakfast.

Rumsfeld: „And let me tell You, I've been around the block a few times. There will be another event". He repeated it for emphasis: "There will be another event!"

Rumsfeld meant another event beside the WTC attack! Within minutes the prevision got true. Another airplane crashed into the Pentagon.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020817051201/http://cox.house.gov/html/release.cfm?id=33
But if You read the chapter Pentagon 9/11 accurately you will meanwhile know that it was not a Boeing 757, but a remote controlled flight object of a type of a Global Hawk or something similar which hit the Pentagon. I highlighted the argumentation with enlightening pictures of proof. In addition I want to indicate that not at any time there was a danger for the molecular conglomerat in form of Donald Rumsfeld, whose office was at the opposite side of the Pentagon (300 feet away from the impact zone). Because that part of the Pentagon which was hit by the rocket + drone had been enforced before in a measure of reconstruction finished shortly before 9/11. Important is the reaction of Rumsfeld according to Wolfowitz:

Wolfowitz: "He (Rumsfeld) looked out his window, then rushed out toward the smoke, running down the steps and outside where he could see pieces of metal strewn on the ground. Rumsfeld began helping with the rescue efforts until a security agent urged him to get out of the area. "I'm going inside," he said, and took up his post in the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon war room„.

Even in the Commission Report we can see another contradiction: After Rumsfeld had finished his rescue efforts in front of the Pentagon he went between 10:10 and 10:15 into the ESC (Executive Support Center) and finally at about 10:30 into the NMCC (National Military Command Center).
Here is the proof:
Commission Report Seite 38:
"Two minutes later (=09:46) staff reported that they were still trying to locate Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice Chairman Myers. The Vice Chairman joined the conference shortly before 10:00; the Secretary, shortly before 10:30. The chairman was out of the country."

Abbildung: Donald Rumsfeld - war zum Zeitpunkt des 11. September Verteidigungsminister der Vereinigten Staaten und erweist sich als Prophet: "THERE WILL BE ANOTHER EVENT"! Er war Chef des militärischen Geheimdienstes der USA ( DIA ) . Rumsfeld und Cheney sind die Mastermind des 11.September 2001 !

Source on the picture at the right side: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz US Public Domain

In the following text the reader can realize a hidden verbal attack on Rumsfeld by Wolfowitz.
Paul Wolfowitz ( Deputy Secretary) in an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair on 05/09/2001http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594

(Quelle: US Department of Defense)
Q: ...where were you on September 11th? Were you at the Pentagon when --
Wolfowitz: I was in my office. We'd just had a breakfast with some congressmen in which one of the subjects had been missile defense. And we commented to them that based on what Rumsfeld and I had both seen and worked on the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, that we were probably in for some nasty surprises over the next ten years.

Q: Oh, my gosh.

Wolfowitz: I can't remember, then there was the sort of question of what kind of nasty surprises? I don't remember exactly which ones we came up with. The point was more just that it's in the nature of surprise that you can't predict what it's going to be.

Q: Do you remember then the impact of the plane into the Pentagon? Or had you first heard stories about New York? What was --

Wolfowitz: We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy.

Q: Right.

Wolfowitz: There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind. Rumsfeld did instantly.

Q: Did he really?

Wolfowitz: Yeah. He went charging out and down to the site where the plane had hit, which is what I would have done if I'd had my wits about me, which may or may not have been a smart thing to do. But it was, instead the next thing we heard was that there'd been a bomb and the building had to be evacuated. Everyone started streaming out of the building in a quite orderly way. Congregated on the parade ground basically right in front of the Pentagon which would have been about the worst place to have a crowd of a couple of thousand people in that moment if we'd again had our wits about us. But we were out of the building anyway".

Abbildung: Paul Wolfowitz, - neokonservativer Vordenker, zum Zeitpunkt des 11. September stellvertretender Verteidigungsminister des Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ! War lange Zeit Berater des Rüstungsunternehmens Northrop.

Did you realize the verbal attack? I reapeat it once more.....

„He went charging out and down to the site where the plane had hit, which is what I would have done if I'd had my wits about me, which may or may not have been a smart thing to do".

Behind this sentence you can see a hidden verbal attack against Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz goes in his argumentation the other way round by elevating the reaction of Rumsfeld admitting that his reaction was reasonable, but on the other side constricting it by mentioning, that it „may not have been a smart thing to do".

The second point is the following:
Wolfowitz thought in the first moment that it was an earthquake while Rumsfeld realized at once that it was a terrorattack. This is very astonishing.
Wolfowitz said: "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was".

It seems that it must have been a very important meeting.
After the attack on the WTC nobody seemed to be responsible to do anything and they continued with the meeting. This is a really strange behaviour for a Defense Secretary of the United States and his deputy. Perhaps we can admit (if we close both eyes) that there was no need of action for Rumsfeld, because on the paper the responsibility for NORAD and in the consequences for the shoot down procedure had gone to Dick Cheney (see Memorandum and statement of flight controller Robin Hordon). But questions remain and I am personally quite sure that this was the plan.

According to the flight controller from Boston Center Robin Hordon the standard procedure was reduced on 06/01/2001 (June 2001) to the „slow form scrambling protocol" and this gave the responsibility for the demand of the fighters to the Vice President Cheney. But is Rumsfeld really excused? We should believe every official statement but we do not believe it if we are smart. You can be sure that Rumsfeld had the responsibility for the defense of the United States because he was Defense Minister and because he was on this day physically present in the Pentagon and not anywhere else in the world in vacation. He should have been more interested in that what already had happened in New York. Don´t you think so?
What did he do instead? He helped to carry the wounded onto the stretchers. A strange behaviour! This is even documented on pictures! So there is no excuse for Rumsfeld to play the theatre role of the good guy who has to proof that he has passed his final examination in first aid.

Some sources are stating that already before 9/11 at the Pentagon have been installed Anti-Aircraft-Missile Batteries for an emergency case. Some sources are stating that the missile batteries were installed after 9/11 what I believe meanwhile too. But for sure the airspace was observed on the radar screens in the suburban rooms of the Pentagon. The proof for this claim is the statement of Norman Mineta at the 9/11 Commission. Here is once more the statement of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta at the Commission:

"During the time, when the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man coming in and say to the Vice President ( who was in Washington on that day) "The plane is fifty miles out, the plane is thirty miles out and when he go down to "the plane ist ten miles out" , the young man also said to the Vice President "Does the order still stand?" And The Vice President turned and put his neck around and said "Of course the order is still stand !" Have You heard anything to the contrary. But at that time I did not know what that had meant„.

The flight object which hit the building was for sure not for a long time in the air and I believe that it was a Global Hawk. It had for sure no transponder on board which could identify it as an US-military airplane. (Google "Daniel O´Brien" statement)
http://911review.org/Wget/september11.natca.org/NewsArticles/DaniellOBrien.htm
The flight object Norman Mineta was talking about was an airplane which approached to the Pentagon for a longer time period and was anyway visible on any radarscreens in the Pentagon. If it was not visible for the secret service agents sitting in the cellars of the Pentagon, it was for sure visible for those agents of the Secret Service who got the information in the White House bunker PEOC in Washington and who finally informed the Vice President what Norman Mineta testified. (Mineta: Young man coming in) Because otherwise they would not have talked about it in the PEOC.

Once more:
There were two flight objects. One flight object approaching to the Pentagon came from a longer distance (Mineta: 50 miles out, 30 miles out....10 miles out) and could get tracked on the screens. It must have been at been least visible by primary radar and trackable, otherwise it would not have been mentioned.

And the other one the drone could have started from the Ronald Reagan Airport to its deadly mission in the last moment when AA77 or whatever it was was nearby the Pentagon. It screwed down in a 330° turn and hit finally the Pentagon. The Ronald Reagan Airport is indeed only a riprap away from the Pentagon and the circle described in the Commission Report could fit.
If you do not believe me that this airplane (officially the AA77) made a 330° circle here is the proof in the 9/11 Commission Report. But the problem is that a commercial Boeing 757 cannot make such a 330° with a small radius if it is approaching with a high rate of spped. Can you imagine how long it lasts for a Boeing 757 to finish a 330° circle? It lasts very long what you will soon see!

"At 9:32 controllers at DULLES TERMINAL APPROACH CONTROL observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed. This was later determined to have been Flight 77." (S. 9 Commission Report)

"At 9:34, Ronald Reagon Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles (8,046 km) southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2200 feet (670,56m) , pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon." (S. 9 Commission Report)

These are that facts a Boeing pilot has to accept:
450 Kt / entspricht 833km/h >>>minimaler Flugradius von r=11,67 km [ entspricht 6,3 nautical miles (NM)]
400 Kt / entspricht 741km/h >>>minimaler Flugradius von r = 9,26 km [ entspricht 5,0 nautical miles (NM)]

On my site "Fernsteuerung" I calculated that a Boeing needs for a complete 330° turn 4,3 minutes at a speed of 741 km/h. A radius of 9,26 km means a path distance of 53,1 km (= d x Phi) which the Boeing 757 has to pass at this speed to finish the 330° circle.

The Pentagon was hit at 09:37:46 according to the Commission Report. The time difference is 3 minutes and 46 seconds to 9:34. What I want to say is that the Boeing could not have done all this what is mentioned in the Commission Report in this short time. The most convincing argument is that it cannot fly with at last 852 km/h (see Commission Report impact speed) on sealevel. But the observation cameras show us an airplane approaching the Pentagon in the last about 100 meters absolutely horizontal. The speed of 852 km/h and the horizontal approach banned on the surveillance camera are in combination with other things absolutely impossible. The most important is that you realize that the impact speed of officially 852 km/h is nonsense because it does not go conform with the horizontal approach of the plane! What we saw on the surveillance camera was not feasable for a Boeing 757.

Abbildung: Ein Label, - heißt übersetzt "the database" und ist ein Begriff, der von der CIA geschaffen wurde."It was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with" ( the help of the CIA ) Und Bin Laden war zu jener Zeit der Liebling der CIA, denn man unterstützte ihn im Kampf gegen die Sowjets.

There must have been at least two airplanes. The official AA77 or whatever it was, had to land somewhere, perhaps on the Ronald Reagon Airport where the drone had started shortly before. The exchange of the aircrafts was always a good argument of the truthers. I do not know what it was what they saw on their radarscreens. I personally do believe that the official AA77 disappeared already on the fligth to the east, because first with secondary radar disappeared what is possible by switching of the transponder, but then soon later the primary radar disappeared also what claims the Commission Report.
But it is absolutely nonsense what the Commission Report is stating, that after minutes and 13 seconds the same AA77 reemerged on the radarscreens of Indianapolis Center with primary radar, flying now into the opposite direction to the east. Because a Boeing 757 cannot disappear completely and cannot reemerge later. Once more: A Boeing 757 cannot underfly the radar. But what is the Report telling us on page 25?

"But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center. The reasons are technical, arasing from the way the software proceeded radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying." (Commission Report S.25)

Aha, this is very interesting: The best equiped military air defense all over the world, which I supposed was up to this date the military defense of the United States, had just on 9/11 problems with the software and they want to make us believe that they had a poor radar coverage in that area where the plane was flying. I supposed that this can only take place in countries like Uganda or perhaps in the socalled "Democratic" Republic of Kongo. Sorry folks, what these perpetrators of the Commission Report (grey sacks) tell us here is completely nonsense.

What could be more plausible: The real AA77 has landed already on the way to the east, before the alleged and official change of the direction back to Washington happened, Perhaps the real AA77 plane landed on a secret runway of a secret US military Airforce Base. I do not know where but this would be much more plausible than the official story. But we continue in the wise Commission Report which was written by a handful of wise men with white hair:

"According to the radar reconstruction, American Airlines 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 09:05." (S.25 Commission Report)

If we see the pictures of the surveillance cameras and realize that it approached the Pentagon in a low altitude manner on the last 100 meters, the statement of testimonies who were talking about it makes sense. „A Cruise Missile with wings". Because if that what they saw and what is underlined by the surveillance camera of the Pentagon was not a commercial airplane like a Boeing 757, it must have been something else. And the position of the Ronald Reagan Airport compared to the hitting point makes a 330° circle better explainable.

So once more:
The second flight object which really hit the Pentagon was propably a Global Hawk that could have started from the Ronald Reagan Airport, because only a flight object of that smaller size is able to screw down in a 330° circle what people told and what is also mentioned in the Commission Report. That any flight objects made a 330° circle seems to be a fact, because it was mentioned in the Commission Report. If the narrow 330° circle was also realized on the screens of the Pentagon, the controllers in the cellars of the Pentagon must have been convinced that it could only be a friendly military flight objets which was not supposed to attack the Pentagon. The thinking was: Why should an US military plane attack the US Pentagon? So why should we react to do something against it?

If it had been really a Boeing 757 whose hijackers had switched off the transponder or whose pilots did not talk to the controllers on the ground, then it would have been identified as an aggressive unfriendly flight object and they would have acted. (Perhaps) But obviously the controllers were not sure what it really was. And this said also the controller Damiel O´Brien. The biggest problem was that the highest authorities like Rumsfeld or the generals were not available in the NMCC. Cheney did not want to react what we see in the fact that the telephone call between him and Bush took place not earlier than at 10:18 to confirm the rules of engagement for the interceptors. And also no one gave the pilots of the Langley jets an order what they should do. But of course they also came too late because they were first ordered into the Warning Areas on the Atlantic.
(Langley Jetpilot in Commission Report: "No one told us anything")

It is possible that the controllers in the cellars of the Pentagon got the advice in advance of 9/11 directly from Rumsfeld not to react or more propably that they were told after 9/11 not to talk about what they had seen on the screens. Not to talk about their job is in any case something what is expected from the employees of the Pentagon.

But it is also possible that the flight object which hit the Pentagon was equiped with a US military transponder for camouflage and was therefore seen as a friendly aircraft. But actually I do not believe that. It was just a drone with a missile on board without secondary radar. Without secondary radar means without transponder and without "friend and foe identification". It was only trackable by primary radar.

The IFF-Transponder (= identification friend or foe) is only installed in military airplanes.

Compare what LOOSE CHANGE had researched:
1) „Transportation Statistics" says, that flight AA77 was not scheduled on 9/11( "they were not sceduled to fly on september 11" ) http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7859909765349743827

2) FAA ( Federal Aviation Administraion ) says, that AA77 is listed as „destroyed„ ( Quelle Loose Change Videoposition 1:07:03 ) http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7859909765349743827

You see how contradictive it is. Why?
Something is wrong with the whole official story. At least it has to get confirmed if the aircraft with the flight number AA77 is destroyed or not. The flight number like AA77 will always change after every flight. But the identification codenumber of an airplane can normally never disappear. It is the registration number of the airplane. So after 9/11 the flightnumber AA77 changed into any other number if the plane was still in use. But the identification number remains always the same. I think the plane still existed for a while after 9/11. AA77 was not hijacked. I believe that the pilots were also working for the government like Mr. and Mrs. Olsen do or did.

Mrs. Olsen was supposed to be one of the passengers on board of the plane AA77. Suspicious is that she was a conservative reporter of CNN and her husband Mr. Ted Olsen was working for the Department of Justice. She was alegedly on board of AA77 while he was working that day in the Department of Justice. Very suspicious is the telephone call which took place according to the statement of Ted Olsen between him and his wife. She is the first one mentioning box cutters. There are strange contradictions in the statement of Ted Olsen mentioned in my chapter "9/11 Passagiere" regarding to airphone or mobile phone, regarding to using a credit card or not using a credit card to make the phone call possible, even in regard to being able to make the telephone from the airplane at all.
Gerhard Wisnewski mentioned in one of his books, that an airphone was not available in that special type of a Boeing 757 American Airlines on 9/11. He asked American Airlines and got the confirmation by letter, that they had no airphone available in these airplanes. Whatever you think about it and you can make your own research. I am sure that AA77 was as an airplane with a special mission. The copy of this letter coming from American Airlines is printed in the book of Wisnewski.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freund-Feind-Erkennung

Conclusio:
It was not at all a terrorist called Hanjour flying the American Airlines AA77 into the Pentagon, because the real Boeing 757 had to be seen already because of the missing civil transponder code, respectively by the swittching off of the transponder or because of the pilots refusal to talk with the controllers, or because of de deviation from the asigned flightpath as an unfriendly airplane. They did not want to bring it down and they did not want to come even close to the airplanes with their interceptors because the real and official Boeing pilots had a special mission in regard to the 9/11 Exercises . The real AA77 had to land in Washington or at any other military airport. Perhaps it landed already on the way to the east when according to the Commission Report firstly the secondary radar and then also the primary radar disappeared. The plane had to disappear from the sceens.

Explanations about transponder codes:
A switched-off transponder means only a non-working secondary radar, but the primary radar (the military observers are working with) is always available. So the official story is nonsense. It cannot get explained with software problems or poor radar coverage that the primary radar disappeared like the Commission Reports does explain it. The civil controllers have methods to make an airplane visible and the US military controllers have the best systems to make it visible and the plane remains always at least visible as any green point on the screens. To argue that they did not know where the airplane was sounds in my ears ridiculous and this confirmed also a pilot I personally know. Between 08:46 and 09:38 remained 52 minutes. A long time to activate the air defense. Don´t You think so? As soon as a pilot of a civil aircraft refuses to talk with the controllers on the ground, the aircraft has to get immediately intercepted! Normally! And all these hesitations on 9/11 have the handwriting of the government.

It is sure that a transponder which is switched off by terrorists does not mean automatically that the airplane is invisible, because this would lead the stealth-technology as well as the whole military radarsystems and also the military defense ad absurdum. Flying objects of a special size in special heights are reflecting always radarsignatures, which can get recognized independend of an active or inactive transponder.
http://www.debattierclub.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4306
And we can compare this fact with the statement of Norman Mineta. Controllers and the Secret Service in the Pentagon even realized the exact distance of the airplane to Washington. (50 miles out...30 miles out...10 miles out) But today the officials of the Government want to tell us that they did not see it on the screens because the terrorists had switched off transponder? No way!
By the way:
The statement of Norman Mineta was not mentioned in the Commission Report but you can google the original statement on youtube. So nobody can deny that even the exact distance of the incoming plane was observed.

Norman Mineta was shocked to learn in the Commission Report, that they mentioned the arrival time of Cheney in the PEOC to "shortly before 10:00".
Norman Mineta is an absolutely honest man. I proofed on my homepage that the Commission Report lies as well as Dick Cheney is a liar. Definitely! I even proofed why it was for the perpetrators necessary why they had to push the arrival time of Cheney in the PEOC (bunker) to shortly before 10:00. But therefore you have to learn german... (haha)

It seems to me that the trick was to make the confusion as great as possible. From outside it should seem as if nobody had the responsibility or everybody had slept or came too late of that there were accidentaly gaps in the command chain. Because the most important authorities were not on their places. ELOKA (Elektronische Kampfführung= electronic battle) garanteed that the command chain broke, but the term "electronic battle" means that this was not a coincidence. It was manmade. The Pentagon of course is protected from questions coming from outside. Nobody of the Pentagon will ever tell us what they had really seen on the screens or what they really believe about 9/11. They don´t want to loose their job what is understandable. But the former NSA agent Karen Kwiatkowski (NSA) who worked on 9/11 in the Pentagon has already told us what she realized and this does not at all harmonize with the official story. That what she saw on the lawn was not that what she expected to see after the impact of a huge jetliner. See link on my page or google her name....

Aggregation:
The memorandum communicates the responsibility on 06/01/2001 to Cheney according to the "slow form of scrambling protocol" . Also the 9/11 Commission Report assigns the responsibility for the shoot down procedure to Dick Cheney in Washington because Cheney had confirmed the rules of engagement in a telephone call at 10:18 with President Bush. But not like the Commission Report tells us with the sentence "immediately after he had reached the conference room at about 10:00", to be exactly at 10:18 the phone call took place. After 9/11 the slow and fast form of scrambling protocol got activated again which is the normal standard protocol. Suspicious is also that before 9/11 the second lowest security level was arranged: Threatcon ALPHA
On 9/11 Cheneys reactions at 10:18 came much too late because the last of the four airplanes had alegedly crashed at 10:03 nearby Shanksville (UA93). Do You see now that they wanted to have a story of four crashed airplanes? I believe indeed that the telephone call between Cheney and Bush took place at 10:18 but I do not believe, that the rules of engagement have to get normally confirmed by the President in such an emergency case. This procedure was a consequence of switching from the slow and fast form of scrambling protocol to the slow form of scramling protocol. There must exist normally a standard procedure giving the military alone with their generals (JCS) in the NMCC and in the last consequence the pilots in the jets the final responsibility for the shoot down procedure. Normally! The change of responsiblity was necessary to succeed a deviation in the command chain and to make 9/11 as "successful" as it was from their point of view! Bastards!

Let us see once more what Rumsfeld did in the Pentagon on 9/11.
It is really strange that at 09:30 of 9/11 ..." the supreme commander states an attack on the U.S.A., the Pentagon stays quiet, Rumsfeld goes on with educating Senator Cox, and the Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz judged: "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately." As if interceptors were never deployed, existing or invented. As if air-policing was an unfamiliar word for the DOD and not being a NATO SOP (standard operational procedure).

Compare once more: At 08:46 was the first attack on WTC1.

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in his office inside the Pentagon when the blast happened with no warning. Rumsfeld rushed to the area of the blast and for 15 minutes helped load the wounded onto stretchers. He then retreated to the National Military Command Center where senior military leaders pondered the question: What now?"

He helped after the hit to load the wounded onto stretchers. This sentence shows his bad conscience if at all, because it was not only an innocent prediction he had stated shortly before the attack onto the Pentagon. He knew exactly that an attack of a special sort should take place and took place at 09:37. Wherefrom he should have known that not another attack onto the Pentagon had to be expected, comparable to the second attack onto the World Trade Center? He knew exactly that nothing else would happen to the Pentagon and that it was not necessary to go into the bunker NMCC. That event he had waited for was over, at least for the Pentagon. Shanksville still had to follow...

President Bush:
Bush is (like already mentioned) in a primary school in Sarasota Florida listening to children reading fairytales in a classroom. Once more at this point the timetable of events:

08:46: Attack North Tower WTC1

08:55: The security adviser Condoleeza Rice informs the President in a telephone call that an airplane had hit the building WTC1. (Source: Vincent Bugliosi, S.197, Anklage wegen Mordes gegen Georg W. Bush)

09:03:Attack South Tower WTC2

09:04: Bush is starting his visit at the school in Sarasota, Florida.

09:07: His Chief of Staff Andrew Card enters the classroom and whispers into his ear the information that a second aircraft had hit WTC2.

09:12: Bush is leaving the classroom (Source: Vincent Bugliosi, S.197, Anklage wegen Mordes gegen Georg W. Bush)Other sources are stating 09:15 as the time that Bush is leaving the classroom.

09:37: Pentagon attack

Before, at 09:30, Bush gives a press conference. This is an excerpt of the press conference:

Bush: "Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country. I have spoken to the Vice President, to the Governor of New York, to the Director of the FBI, and have ordered that the full resources of the federal government go to help the victims and their families, and to conduct a full-scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act. Terrorism against our nation will not stand. And now if you would join me in a moment of silence. May God bless the victims, their families, and America. Thank you very much".

Do You realize something? The religion is going to get abused to gain time. A president who finds in this situation time to remain in a moment of silence. This is unbelievable but it is a fact! If You did not realize it until now you are stupid. The hesitation of the President, the hesitation of the Vicepresident in Washington to take the initiative had as well as Bushs postponed activity in the classroom the reason to give Bush an alibi. The whole presence in the classroom was a conscious timeout of politics organized by his masterminds. But I am not sure if he really had a preknowledge that this event would take place on exactly that date. For me he is only a puppet and others behind him were his masterminds telling him what he has to do.

Abbildung: Georg W. Bush, - am 11. September 2001 war für ihn das perfekte Alibi organisiert !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0oW2SamZYY&feature=related Quelle embedded video NWO Part 2 of 20
In a section of the video, published on Youtube, taken three months after 9/11, President Bush said:
(I have to translate it now free, because the video is deleted)

Bush: „I was sitting outside of the classroom, prepared to go in and I saw an airplane which hit the building, You know, the television was obviously switched on, I was accustomed to fly by myself and I thought, what a terrible pilot, and I said, that it must have been a terrible accident„.

In this video as well as in the book of Andreas von Retyi is mentioned a contradiction:
...."I saw an airplane which hit the building".....

Which plane? The first one or the second one? The second one cannot be possible because he got the information about the second hit in the classroom by his Chief of Staff Andrew Card. So it must have been the first one. But one moment please! The video of the first hit was not available on a tv screen on 9/11.

Andreas von Retyi: „According to Bush´s statement, obviously a TV set had been switched on in the vestibule of the classroom. But even if there had been a TV set, Bush could never have seen those pictures of the attack. Because on 9/11 no pictures of the first impact were broadcasted. The Naudet Video was available not until the day after 9/11. Bush must have got these pictures on another way if it was really the video and not the telephone call he got from Rice getting informed about the first attack like Bugliosi stated. The chances are very good that he got the pictures in his perfectly equipped limousine. In no case they could have come from the public medias. Whatever the source was, it must have been already available to him after the first attack, before anyone else could imagine that this was really a terror attack. We call this definitely pre-cog„. (Source freely translated of „Die Terrorflüge, Andreas von Retyi, Kopp Verlag)

Let us assume that Bush had a gap in his memory, when he hold this speech. It is well known, that Bush gets things mixed up from time to time . We can conclude this out of an interview with the former Chief of Staff in the White House Andrew Card. Because from the point of view of Andrew Card it took place like this:

SPIEGEL interview with Andrew Card S. 138 („Mut zur Einsamkeit)
„When we were standing beside the director of the school and waited, that the door of the classroom opened, came a co-worker of the National Security Council and said to us: „Mr. President, it seems that a small two engine aircraft had hit the World Trade Center. My first thought was: „What a terrible accident„.„

When the President had begun with the reading lesson, the Chief of Staff was outside of the classroom. The President had begun to read fairytales with the children.

Andrew Card:
„The co-worker of the national security Council came to me and said: „It was not a small propeller-driven aircraft, it was a commercial jet„. I though of the passengers and their agony, but until that point I did not thought of a terror attack. Already the co-worker came again and said: „A second jet has just hit the second tower„. My first thought was: The President has to get informed about that. My second thought was: How tell it to him? Meanwhile I was bringing my thoughts into the right order, I opened the door of the classroom, went next to the President, bended down to him and whispered him my both sentences: „A second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack„.........I stepped aside and waited, perhaps 30 seconds, before I left the room once more.
(SPIEGEL interview with Andrew Card S. 138 „Mut zur Einsamkeit)

It is interesting that Andrew Card embezzles in this interview the fact that Bush gives after leaving the classroom an interview at 09:30. But this is propably because Andrew Card had to solve now a lot of logistic problems and did not realize what Bush did.

Andrew Card:
„I had now a lot to do with logistic problems„.
He (Card) had to contact the emergency room of the White House (an information center for all kind of emergencies) He had to look after the Secret Service to escort Bush to the airport.
Card: „It was difficult, to locate all the people we needed„.

Aha, it was difficult like everything on that day...

On the question which one had been the first official act of Bush after he had left the classroom, Andrew Card said to SPIEGEL:

„After he had left the classroom Bush contacted a lot of people: First the National Security Advicer Condolleeza Rice, then the Vice President Dick Cheney and at last Robert Mueller, who was for 10 days the new FBI-Director. We were on the way to the runway when the phone calls took place. It was more difficult to reach the Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, because also the Pentagon had got a goal of an attacking aircraft and he had just left his office."

It was at 09:37 that the Pentagon was hit.

Some of these telephone calls took place, when Bush was already on the way to the airport, where the Air Force One was standing by to bring him first to the Air Force Base in Louisiana. From there it went further to the Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska until he returned during the late afternoon to Washington. But it is very suspicious that the communication out of the Air Force One did not work what made Bush really very angry.
Who was it who cut the connections out of this high tech airplane Air Force One?
Who was it who cut the communication from NEADS to the Langley jets that they were sent to the Warning Areas instead to Washington D.C.? (See 9/11 ELOKA )
Who was it who cut the communication from the FAA to the NMCC? 9/11 ELOKA
A clue: Why did they airborne the E4-B airplanes, the so-called flying Pentagons? (Doomsday planes)
These are all facts ! Learn how the Deputy Director Monte Belger of the FAA was deeply frustrated about the poor communication on that day. Without any doubt the interruptions were mastered.

But also with Bush something is wrong. From my point of view it was not a coincidence that there were so many frictions. Politicians like Bush do not have such a bad memory that they do not remember all details of their actions and of their cognition especially on such a memorable day like 9/11. In the case of Bush it must have a special reason for his memory loss. He mixed up what he already has known before he had entered the classroom and what he was told to say by those who had written his screen-play for 9/11. To distinguish between that what he should say and that what he should not say is indeed difficult for a mediocre politician like Bush. But perhaps it is also his part of the role to confuse the public with an incredible amount of contradicitons.

I am sure that Bush (in a reduced form), that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice (in full scale) are a part of the criminal team being responsible for 9/11. Not only by displaying their ignorance and hesitation in the weeks before and during the day of 9/11. The ignorance and hesitation was the strategy to pioneer the basement for a terrorattack in order to create afterwards the believable legend of Osama bin Laden with his Al Qaida as a mastermind for 9/11. This all what happened that day and also before 9/11 should prepare the ground for a war against terrorism which should bring the United States the accelerated supremacy onto the strategic resources of the world situated in the Near and Middle East. The most important goal was to get access to the oil resources in Iraq. You remember the lies at the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? All that was a terrible lie! (see Colin Powell at United Nations)

I remind you once more of the PNAC study (Project of a New American Century). This study is the basement for 9/11. And by the way the study ends with a treasonable and most important sentence „if there is not an accelerating event like Pearl Harbor".

The only person I do not suspect to be a part of this inside job is Paul Wolfowitz, although knowing that he was also a member of the thinktank working for the PNAC-study. Wolfowitz got after his retirement in february 2001 from his job as Deputy Defense Secretary the President of the „Weltbank". I think it was not necessary to involve Wolfowitz as a Deputy Defense Secretary in this inside job. Only an elected group of criminal people were involved in this inside job. Therefore is his hidden verbal attack on Rumsfeld in the interview explainable. If he was indeed a part of the plan he plays his role very good.

Also Condolleeza Rice played her role in this dirty job. She was it in her function as National Security Adviser who wiped off the threats of an imminent terror attack and she was the person who took care that the CIA played after 9/11 the play of the government. This is not particular because the CIA belongs as part of the executive to the government. But Rice was it who feeded the public after 9/11 with a new edition of the secret NIE-report (National Intelligence Estimate), which turned the original content of the obtained results of the CIA into a completely another direction. Meanwhile the CIA was convinced, that Saddam Hussein did not support Al-Qaida, exactly this was stated afterwards in the NIE-report which was presented to the public. Very clearly I have in my ears and in my mind the invocations of Saddan Husseins weapons of mass distruction in form of chemical and biological weapons which are threatening the western „domocracies". She herself was it who painted pictures of mushroom clouds into the air if the United States would not engage in Iraq pre-emptively. The base of this allegation was this NIE report which was presented to the public on 10/04/2002. But this publically presented form of the report had nothing to do with the original secret NIE-report.

According to Vincent Bugliosi (Anklage wegen Mordes gegen Georg W. Bush), Condolleeza Rice operated against the democratic senator Bob Graham and chairman of the Secret Service Committee who was shocked about the published NIE report.

Bob Graham: „The non secret version which we got from the CIA did not contain what I had demanded. They gave me a document which was only propaganda, a cry of war coming from deap throat without moderating information. It is out of any discussion, Rice let Tenet know that the Bush Government wanted to have a report with a clear evaluation of the situation." (Source: Vincent Bugliosi, Anklage wegen Mordes gegen Georg W. Bush, S.119)

Condolleeza Rice was on 9/11 still National Security Adviser was later Minister of Foreign Affairs. Propably she would not get this promotion if she would not had been.....
„You have to be a motherfucker, that the President showes you the joystick of power".

Are You proud to live in a „democracy" and therefore in the sureness, that everybody has the chance to get a better position because he or she had proved with lies? Go on dreaming of democracy stupid!
If Rice has fucked to the top in the original word of the meaning is not sure. But I think she did not f... herself to the top.

In the book of Bob Woodward, (State of Denial, Leugnen der Wirklichkeit) is reported about the meeting in the White House with the boss of the Anti Terror Department Cofer Black, the CIA Director Georg Tenet and Condolleeza Rice. This meeting took place at 06/10/01 and Condolleeza Rice was vividly warned of a terror attack straight ahead on the ground of the United States. At that time before 9/11 she was still National Security Adviser.

And CIA Director Tenet as well as Richard Clarke were not sucessful to convince her.
„We did all except of firing off the weapon which was pointed onto her head„, is citing Woodward the principal witness Cofer Black. CIA director Tenet wanted to shake her, but she wiped off the warnings from the table. (free translation from SPIEGEL)

And also Richard Clarke states in his book the terrible ignorance of Rice and the Bush-Administration. You can read the book Against all Enemies of Clarke and you can check out also the statement of the former CIA-Asset Susan Lindauer who said exactly the same about the government.....

Susan Lindauer
August 2001:
"And then in August of 2001 we went into high activity mood. I can tell you the exact day. On August 2nd
was the senate nomination hearings for Robert Mueller, he was gonna be the FBI Director and I was on the phone with my CIA handler Richard Fuisz and I said „There is not one single terrorism investigation this man hasn´t thrown . He threw the Oklahoma City bombing investigation , he threw Lockerby and I said: „This man should not be the FBI director when this next attack occurs and Richard Fuisz said:
„O my God, what is if there is not FBI director when this happens?"
I said:
„Do you think that it is soon, do you think the attack is imminent?"
He said:
„O yeah, it is absolutely just in the next couple of weeks!"
"God, Richard I will go back to New York right now and I pump the Iraqis and I see if they got anything from Bagdad if they have any news for us."
And he said:
"Oh my god , Susan, don´t go back to New York City, it´s too dangerous. We are expecting a miniature Thermy Nuclear Device."

!!!!!!! A T H E R M Y N U C L E A R D E V I C E !!!!!!

Why did Rice and all the other shitheads not react onto the warnings of the loyal forces within the secret service? It had system!

Why did Rice answer onto a question at a hearing to 9/11 if she knew that „a numerous young arabian men were absolving flight courses„ with the words: „I did not know that!" ( V.B. S188)
Because it had system to admit nothing.

Why did Rice answer onto the question, „Did they tell You, that the U.S.Marshal Program had changed in a way, that inbound-flights should get no longer protected by sky marshalls" with the words „They did not tell it to me." (V.B. S.188) Because it had system to deny it.

Why is Rice acting the fool although her predecessor, the National Security Adviser Sandy Berger had adviced at his office-surrender to the problem Nr.1: „The terrorism in general and Al-Qaida in particular" ( V.B. S.191)
Because it had system to mime the fool! All that had system!

And I am wondering why the german newsmagazine „DER SPIEGEL" wants to know, „that she did not had knowledge of the special secret service of the Pentagon, whose job it was to deliver pretenses for war preparings". (DER SPIEGEL 44/08, Seite 120)
All that had system!

This fawning courtier was as dump as a post. This special secret service the SPIEGEL is talking about here is a special secret service within the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). And please never mix the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) with the DIA. The warnings, the CIA gave to the government could disburden the CIA so that we can suppose that the CIA had not a dominant role in the inside preparations for 9/11.

Abbildung: Condoleezza Rice - zum Zeitpunkt des 11. September Sicherheitsberaterin des Präsidenten. Für den Autor Vincent Bugliosi war sie die "Hofschranze".

Source on the right side: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:John_Ashcroft.jpg&filetimestamp=20061217050736
public domain

And there is still this minister of justice called John Ashcroft, who applied for the household of his Ministery of Justice.
„He wanted to increase the funds for 68 projects of the minstery of justice but nothing of which had to do with terror defense. More worse he rejected a petition of the FBI requesting 65 million dollars for 149 new clerks in the division of terror defense. He also suggested to reduce the funds from 109 to 44 millions ( 65 millions difference), that would have been granted the federal states and the minicipal governments for the extension of their terrorism defense". (Vincent Bugliosi S. 193 , Anklage wegen Mordes gegen Georg W. Bush )

Don´t You realize until now the system that was created for the preparation of the 9/11 attack? It was the goal to shut down the systems first, that nothing and nobody can thwart the attacks. After the attacks they were able to accelerate them with highest capacity and without any contradictions from the senate and the House of Representatives! All this theatre was only camouflage. And to all that fits perfectly the fact that the government had on 9/11 only security level DEFCON ALPHA, (=Threatcon Alpha) which is the second lowest level of terror threatening after DEFCON NORMAL.

In the heads of the above mentioned thinktank was developed the PNAC Study (Project for a New American Century), written down and signed in september 2000. This agenda was supported by neo-conservative representatives of the Bush-Admistration and has the name „Rebuiding Americas Defenses". The agenda says that it is the goal to change the role of the Untited States into a dominant role of tomorrow. It ends with the following sentence „It will be a long process, if there is not a catastrophic and catalyzing event taking place like Pearl Harbor".

Picture Source Jeb Bush:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Bushjeb17042007.jpg Source: Agencia Brasil
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/br/ ( Lizenz )
http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/media/imagens/2007/04/17/1859fp212.jpg/view ( Originalquelle )

Abbildung: John Ashcroft - Attorney General , Justizminister am 11. September 2001

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3JmXQ-z8S4&mode=related&search=
The following is an excerpt of Michael Meacher (Labour Party, british minister of environment from Mai 1997 to Juni 2003):
„The project was controlled by Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and by Jeb Bush, the younger brother of the president and by Lewis Libby, Cheney´s former chief of staff. It is dealing with the control of the oil in the Middle East and it is announced, that America is targeting to reach the world predominance, military and economically. And the essential quintessence is going to cringe you: „If we are on the way to change America in a dominant world power, then it will be a long process, if there will not be a a catastrophic and catalyzing event like Pearl Harbor".

This is no joke. The comparison with Pearl Harbor exists indeed in the agenda! I believe that a similar catastrophic and catalyzing event took place on 9/11. This agenda is the key to uncover 9/11.

Conclusio:
After all of my research I am convinced today that there was only one real commercial airplane with passengers on board that crashed. It was the airplane which crashed into the WTC1. But at the beginning of my research I thought that indeed Mohammed Atta had indeed hijacked the plane, like it was repeated again and again by the US government and by the sychronized mainstream-medias of the world. I assumed that there was only one real hijacked airplane (WTC1, Mohammed Atta) and the other aircrafts were only doubles, military jets or missiles (see chapter Pentagon WTC and flight UA93).
Then I was convinced after endless hours of research that the jet that hit the WTC1 was a real commercial aircraft and that the original pilots were tricked because they lost the possibility to control their own airplane. Andreas von Bülow describes in his book „Die CIA und der 11. September" very enlightening the possibility to get the control over an aircraft from outside. If You compare the pictures of the WTC2 attack (UA175) were you see that the plane was not symmetric at the down-side and that it had a cavity under its fuselage, you must be convinced that it had not been a commercial airplane. It was a remote controlled military airplane very similar to a commercial jet. If this remote control worked with a military jet at the south tower (WTC2) looking very similar to a Boeing 767, it could also have worked with the Boeing 767 at the north tower (WTC1). It is a fact, that about 600 jets of american airliners have got an equipment for an outside remote control. (Project "Home Run", developed by DARPA Fernsteuerung ) The european airlines have all dismantled this equipment after they were sold to Europe. Boeing is the producer of this equipment. You know that Boeing is one of the biggest military producers. It is comprehensible if Boeing representatives do not want to discuss about the video documents of the WTC2 crash.

Let us think now only theoretically that Mohammed Atta perhaps did not even was a passenger on board of the aircraft which hit WTC1. Then he must have been either on flight AA77 (Pentagon) or UA93 (Shanksville). Shanksville´s UA93 (Boeing 757) made an emergency landing anywhere, perhaps in Cleveland and the passengers were evacuated into the NASA Research Center. This could be true what LOOSE CHANGE researched that UA93 landed there. But if he was in UA93 they must have killed him anyway. I think he was really a passenger in AA11 which hit the WTC1.

The Pentagon was hit first by a rocket and shortly afterwards by a drone which had carried the rocket itself. The real commercial airplane AA77 landed anywhere on a secret runway, perhaps already on the way to the east when the secondardy and the primary radar disappeared completely for the first time. The other possibility is that it landed in Washington when the drone startet. But then the exchange did not very well because even the primary radar was lost for 8 minutes and 46 seconds)

UA175 which hit the WTC2 was a dummy without passengers. The question is if it is really possible to create an official legend turning the whole truth all around?

The official story says that Atta boarded the AA11 in Boston. (WTC1 attack)
The official story says that AA77 startet in Washington.(Pentagonattack)
The official story says that UA93 started in Newark nearby New York. (Shanksville crash)

I think these stories could be true. Atta was really on board of AA11 coming from Boston. But what had happened to Atta and the other supposed highjackers if they really were on AA11 (WTC1) and what happened to all the passengers sitting in this flight AA11? Was he really the terrorpilot?
I want to mention at this point that there were alltogether only about 204 passengers in all four airplanes. You have to admit that 204 passengers also can fit also in one Boeing 757 or in one Boeing 767. And now I anticipate a point I have discussed already in the chapter UA93. According to LOOSE CHANGE and fitting to my calculations with the support of an experienced Boeing 757 pilot it could be possible that one Boeing 757, flight UA93 (that allegedly crashed nearby Shanksville), made an emergency landing at 10:45 in Cleveland what different official sources claimed on that day. The passengers could get all evacuated in the NASA Research Center. I do not know what they were told but definitely UA93 did not crash in Shanksville. So were are the passengers? Are they dead or alive if they made an emergency landing in Cleveland. It did not crash in Shanksville for sure. But were are they then?

The newest argument is that Mohammed Atta (AA11) was an agent working for a secret service believing to be a part of a military exercise scheduled on 9/11. True or not true, I also do not know this. But I know that he was well known to the secret services long before 9/11. He was a part of the secret project called "Able Danger". You can google this name!
Which reason had the bank draft from the pakistanian chief of the secret service to Atta. It seems to give an entanglement or the try to convince the public into an entanglement of the CIA director Tenet in 9/11, because it is a fact that Tenet visited the chief of the pakistanian secret service six days before 9/11. Is it a coincidence? And then finally after this visit....

„The chief of the pakistanian secret service made some days before 9/11 a bankdraft of 100000 Dollars to Florida over an intermediary of the terrormilieu, Ahmed Umar Sheik, a close friend of Osama Bin Laden„. (Source: Andreas von Bülow. S.74 (Die CIA und der 11. September)

Did the money really went to Mohammed Atta like they want to tell us, perhaps as a wage for his participation at the military exercise? Was Mohammed Atta in believe to be a part of the exercise „Nothern Vigilance" and „Vigilance Guardian" and supposed to play a role as an agent of any secret service in these military exercises?
9/11 was really well prepared and we have to think about what all could be possible. It is a puzzle and this puzzle has to get completed. Able Danger is and was before 9/11 a part of the game.

I tend to think that Atta is dead and that he was really on the AA11 and all the other about 204 passengers and crew members are dead. Because in the case of an inside job every confidant would be a danger for the maintainance of the 9/11 lie, respectively a danger for those who really stand behind the 9/11 attack.
To repeat it again: I think a special secret service within the DIA was from my point of view the mastermind for 9/11! (Freemasons)

So it is more logical to believe that Atta was indeed in AA11 (WTC1), but not sitting in the cockpit. I am sure that the plane was controlled from outside because we see a suspicious flash on the Naudet video documenting the first attack. The flash was an explosion at the building shortly before the impact of the plane. This had two reasons:
It should enable the airplane to enter the building more easily and should destroy the traces of the remote control device positioned inside the building. All possibilities have to get thought about.

But now we have to treat with another argument:
A reporter of THE SUN called Robert Stevens, who wanted to submit prooves that Mohammed Atta from the flightschool in Lantana had not been the hijacker who was exhibited to the public by the medias, and Stevens payed his courage with his life. (see Anthrax chapter on my homepage). So entitled doubts should be appropriate who was this Atta really. Therefore we must look once more onto the attacks of the World Trade Center.

The appearence of the flash of the video of the Naudet brothers, proceeding to the impact of AA11 ( WTC1) into the North Tower is argueing for a separate event. I suppose that this flash is an explosion coming from inside the building. This is logical because we know that explosions were also responsible for the collapse of the building later. Different colors of the explosion clouds, squibs, cluster, explosions appearing like cascades from above to the bottom, statements of testimonies, for example William Rodriguez and many fireworkers who were talking about explosions, like „BAMM,BAMM,BAMM". Explosions were responsible for the destruction of the windows in the Lobby and for the downfall of the marble plates in the lobby. This could not have caused only by the kerosine in the top of the building. Imagine: How can this happen if an airplane hits the building on the top? The petrol alone cannot be the reason, because not one of the 99 elevators reached from the top to the bottom. Take a look at the chapter „WTC 9/11" and please read the speech of William Rodriguez if you are not convinced about the explosions going on in the building WTC1.
Source of the following pictures:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4YsLnIFEr4
( "Theories and bizarre Events on 9/11" )

Abbildung: John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, - war zum Zeitpunkt der Präsidentschaftswahlen Gouverneur von Florida und versprach in Anbetracht einer denkbar knappen Wahlentscheidung 2000, seinem Bruder "Florida zu liefern" ! ( Bildquelle sekundär: Wikipedia, Bildquelle primär: Agenicia Brasil, Fabio Pozzebom )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk&mode=related&search=
9/11 Coincidences ( Part Three )
(Source right side)

I change now the word „conspiracy theory" into „conspiracy". Those who have already read the preceding texts attentive will be able to comprehend this. With a systematic I tried to put the cart before the horse. In the chapter „Pentagon" I hope that I was able to make believable that it was a rocket of a Global Hawk or something like that which hit the Pentagon. Then I focused onto WTC, beginning with the attack and not ending with the collapse of the buildings.
Now we go once more back to the beginning of the mystery story with the following video. Also at this video my instinct says. Something is going wrong here. See on Your own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io
Missile hits World Trade Center
(Picture source)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk
9/11 Coincidences ( Part Three )
(Picture source)

Abbildung: Zum Nachdenken: - WTC war mit einem Sicherheitssystem von STRATESEC ausgestattet, deren Direktor bis 2000 Marvin Bush war. Wirt D. Walker III. , ein Verwandter Bushs hatte bis 2002 einen hochrangigen Posten bei STRATESEC. ( Bildquelle: www.youtube.com "9/11 Coincidences ( Part Three )"

The following text assumes, that You have read the preciding text carefully!

Think at this point simply and this is the try to get a solution:
CIA is not alike CIA and DIA is not alike DIA. Did some loyal people within the secret services know what was going on there, did they know that some collegues planned this terror attack and could not react to avoid it but decided to take a camera to do document it?
It could be as follows: The loyal forces within the secret service (DIA or CIA) had no possibility to take influence onto the criminal plan but decided to document it on a video with the intention to blame at any time in the future the Bush government for taht what they had done on 9/11. Like I have already explained in another chapter of my homepage, loyal forces in the CIA (=Georg Tenet) tried to convince Condolleeza Rice in an urgently called meeting, that a terrorattack was planed to get executed in the United States (alegedly by moslemic fundamentalists). „We did everything except of firing off the weapon that was pointed onto her head„.
But Condolleeza Rice wiped the warnings off the table, because the catalyzing event to bring the United States the accelerated supremacy onto the strategic resources of the world, hidden under the ground with its oil resources in the Near and Middle East should nobody cross. I remind you once more on the PNAC study ( = Project of a New American Century).
The loyal forces within the CIA who had got the information of the planed terrorattack of their own government, asked the european secret services for assistance. Don´t forget, that the camera team that filmed the first attack (and by the way also the second) was a franco-canadian team of journatists. (Jules and Gideon Naudet, DGSA, french secret service perhaps). I explained already at another chapter of my homepage the correlation between media representatives and secret services. (chapter Medien)
However I want to raise concerns over something else which makes them suspicious:
The Naudet brothers threatened proceedings to the LOOSE CHANGE film makers in the case that they would use the video for their own movie. Therefore the question is allowed if these Naudet brothers are really as clean as they behave. I have my doubts. If somebody is willing to engage himself in the enlightenment of one of the most terrible terror attacks of the past century, he would never put forward finiancial interest. He would always try to contribute his part to the enlightenment.
I believe that the Naudet brothers were actively working for the US Secret service and were insiders of 9/11 and their video could be also the solution for 9/11. It was not an accident that they filmed the approach of the two airplanes (WTC1+WTC2). It could be possible that this is the video which Bush had seen in his limousine on the way to the school in Sarasota Florida. He did not see it on the tv-screen in front of the classroom because this one and only existing video was not available for the public on 9/11. This could be the reason why Bush mixed up something. He changed in his mind what he already had seen before and what he should say, for not to get under suspicion to be part of the plan. He is not only too stupid to remember what he should say and what he should not say. The curiosity could be a doom for him. He could not admit that he had already seen the video in his car.

Conclusio:
The flash in the South Tower (UA175, WTC2) was a real flash, caused by a detonation of an explosive device inside the building. The most clearly sign is the picture above, „flash South Tower Picture 1„, or better see the whole video to be convinced.

Das magische Auge ! Detailausschnitt Blitz Südturm ! ( Bildquelle: www.youtube.com:
"Missile hits World Trade Center")

Abbildung: Das magische Auge ! - Detailausschnitt Blitz Südturm ! ( Bildquelle: www.youtube.com: "Missile hits World Trade Center")

It is not a lie that the towers were hit by a Boeing and that they were real airplanes of Boeing but it was the military version that hit the South Tower. But the airplane at the North Tower was propably indeed a commercial Boeing 767 and I think it had passengers on board. For the flash at the North Tower ( WTC1) several possibilites are imaginable:

What I do NOT believe:
The flash was inserted later by image editing, because the distance of the cameraman to the WTC1 building is relatively big and this fact could have helped the faker of the video material. But this argument is from my point of view not very reasonable although the thought that all this should heat on conspiracy theories it is worth to get considered. Conspiracy theories should get heated on to acitivate those people to think about what happened. And where do these people normally start with their investigation? Normaly at the first video of the attack on WTC1!

What I do NOT believe:
The flash was caused by the plane itself for whatever reason. (Explosion on board?) But this does not seem to be true because all can realize that the flash is a preceding event.

What I do NOT believe:
The flash was a light reflection. But on the other hand too many explosions and squibs are visible also later in the moment of the collapse and also before. And I know a testimony talking about huge explosions. Go on and see on youtube and search for „Explosions at WTC".

WHAT I DO BELIEVE:
Also the speaker of the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io is indicating to the flash as a separate event, to an explosion outside or inside the building. This is what I believe too. It is a real explosion inside the building which should happen synchonized with the impact of the first plane but got activated a little bit too early by the electronic control center from anywhere in the building of WTC7. The explosion went off a millisecond too early so that it could be seen on the video. But one thing has to be clear. To ensure the total demolition of the sender, the explosion had to go off shortly before the impact of the plane which was flying on the conducting ray of this equipment. The impact of the plane supported the destruction of the sender and should destroy all traces that could lead to that proof that it was radiocontrolled. To support this argument are existing two video proofs which COULD endorse such a theory.

I think, an judicial accusation of Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney is only a question of time. But we can never know in this so called „democracy". The assassination of John F. Kennedy is not enlightened until now. Do You remember the video taken with a Super 8 camera of Zapruder? The same case: There is this guy standing elevated on a small wall and goes on filming the convoy of cars meanwhile other outstanding observers run away or take at least cover when they heard the shots. Was this man deaf that he could remain so relaxed and kept his camera straight onto the presidential car? Read the book of Marita Lorenz and see her movie. It is enlightening. Kennedy was killed by the CIA, Frank Sturgis was one of the CIA agents who played the main role in this dirty job. They needed Lee Harvey Oswald only to keep on the legend that the russian secret service stood behind the assassination. His legend was perfectly staged and he seemed only to be a victim that could get hanged. With Oswald´s death everything seemed to be clear. But that the former CIA agent Marita Lorenz mentions that Jack Ruby, who killed Oswald also worked for the CIA does not get mentioned in the medias until now. Read the book and You will believe her.
Not what we hear on tv and what we can read in the newspapers is true, because these newspapers are all under control of the secret services and the corporates ( = Korporatokratie = coming from „Corp.„)
We are all victims of what we are not able to filter out on our own. This is really difficult. And it is no coincidence, that Marita Lorenz explains the reason for the assassination of Kennedy. The US military should had lost a lot of money because he did not want a war in Vietnam. The same case like 9/11. The military industry is the incitement. Always the money.

Normaly I should have started my examination with WTC because it was the first attack. But I did not. I decided to take another way. I put the cart before the horse because I realized at first differences with the version that was presented to the public with the Pentagon attack. Afterwards it was only a logical consequence to get granular on the WTC-attacks. The hoaxes refering to the Pentagon attack were for me more flashiness. But then with my examinations of the WTC, I do not know if I had dug deeper if I would not have found the video of the first impact with the mysterious flash. I do not know, if I would had come to the idea to search for more proofs of explosions at and inside the buildings going on after the attacks. A facebook friend then gave me the link to William Rodriguez, „The last Man out„ , who speaks of a massive explosion in the B-Level before the impact of the plane in the WTC1 at 08:46. But to get all this, You have to make your own research. In the beginning it is always difficult to search for something if you do not know what you have to search for. Afterwards all seems to be very easy and clear.
For 99,9% of the people it is easier to humor the mainstream-medias. They prefer to take over the opinion which is the common opinion of all people. People do not like to swim against the mainstream. It is for them too exhausting to begin an own thinking.But to try to start the attempt to gain them for other arguments is extremely hard, in particular if we have governments, secret services and sychronized organs (medias) as antagonists which are all under the influence of the big corporations. So it is explainable that someone who I supposed to be intelligent said to me: „No, I do not believe it and I do not want to think about it!„.
Every stupid person is also intelligent and every intelligent person is also stupid!

But it is unambiguously:
There are too many video proofs indicating that the World Trade Center was brought down with a controlled demolition. I remember once more the fact, that WTC6 exploded at the utmost 60 seconds after the impact of the airplane in the South Tower and that WTC7 collapsed within 7 seconds and 7 hours after the collapsing of the North Tower although it was not hit by an airplane. And the financial investor Silverstein, who had leased the WTC under a new contract shortly before 9/11 with an insurance that was for the first time with the inclosure of terror attacks. If You do not see it until now You are really a stupid! But Khalezov told me that Silverstein is innocent and his arguments were very convincing. He got a warning not to be in the building on 9/11 as well as his children but he is not an insider. Definitely! Look at his slip of a tongue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
he should have say: „Pull them„ and not „pull it„
That was his mistake!

Abbildung: Das magische Auge ! - Detailausschnitt Blitz Nordturm ! ( Bildquelle: www.youtube.com: "Missile hits World Trade Center )

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Adolf_Hitler_in_Yugoslavia_crop.JPG Public Domain

If you did not realize the reality until now You are a hopeless ignorant. It was an inside job and this minority which is growing to a majority is telling the truth. I am convinced that it was an inside job. I have also learnt what is an „operation under false flag". The following text is taken from the movie „Terrorstrom" by Alex Jones.

What is the meaning of an operation under false flag? The definition is according to the Enzyklopedie:
„Secret operation, which are accomplished by goverments, concerns and other organisations which should seem as if they are accomplished by other groups. The term is taken from a military concept, to use identifications of other countries."
There are many variants of operations under false flag. The most popular variant is to execute a terror attack and to blame afterwards the political adversary. One of the most famous operations under false flag took place on 02/27/33 and came from Adolf Hitler. Nazi-documents, found after the Second World War and statements of testimonies during the „Nürnberger Prozesse„ uncovered what many historicans had already assumed long before. Hermann Göring had set the Reichstag on fire. The Nazis presented Marinis Vanderlubbe as a scapegoat, a young mentally disabled man, who rolled around in the street behind of the Reichstag when they found them. They blamed him for this in a show trial and fated him to die. He was beheaded on 01/10/34. Hitler abused the crisis to create laws, which are similar to the Patriot Act...„
_HYPERLINK

"http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Adolf_Hitler_in_Yugoslavia_crop.JPG"__http://de.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Bild:Adolf_Hitler_in_Yugoslavia_crop.JPG_

( Quelle des nebenstehenden Bildes , Detailausschnitt )

Abbildung: Adolf Hitler: - Als Operation unter falscher Flagge ( =false flag operations ) initiierte sein Gör...ing den Reichstagsbrand. ( Bildquelle Wikipedia, Public Domain, Source: USHMM, Teilausschnitt )

Also as an operation under false flag can be seen the preparation of the invasion into Poland by the faschistic Germany.

„Hitler got to a dictator and had his eye onto the world. In march 1939 Hitler had already captured Tschechoslovakia and Austria. Hitler wanted to enlarge his country to eastern Europe and wanted to annex Poland but did not want to be seen as an agressor. Hitler needed a pretense to attack Poland. Heinrich Himmler created a plan called „Operation Himmler„. On 08/31/39 they took a prisoner from a concentration camp, put him in a polish uniform, brought him to Gleiwitz at the border of Germany and Poland and executed him there. The scenery should act as a polish attack onto a german radio station. The picture of the supposed polish soldier went through the medias. Hitler had his pretense to attack Poland and the nightmare of the Second World War had begun".

For the day of 9/01/1939, the day of the attack onto Poland and therefore the beginning of the Second World War, the whole press was instructed to be prepared for special editions. Therein was written:
„Poland has shot us this night for the first time on our own territory also with its regualar troups. Since 05:45 it is shot back„.

These are only two examples of operations under false flag. The history books are full of it. But why, we should ask, people give them their head?
In the most cases these operations under false flag serve to prepare wars. Or they serve like in the case of the „Reichstagsbrand" (set on fire of the Reichstag) to create new laws.

(Quelle: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung)
And which laws did create Georg W. Bush after 9/11?USA Patriot-Act

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

With the Patriot Act passing in October 2001, the minister of inner Affairs John Ashcroft and the US Government had achieved massive instruments for the fight against terrorism. The most important measures are: Better control of money laundering by restriction of the banking secrecy. Arrest of immigrants up to 7 days for inquiry without declaration of any reasons. Common use of results of investigations of security authorties without regard of existing protecion of data privacy. Possibility of data transmission from foreign secret services to the investigation authorities. Collected requests for wire tapping of telecommunication and the control of e-mails.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimatschutzministerium ( Quelle des nebenstehenden Bildes )

Homeland Security Act: November 2002. With this law President Bush created a new powerful department for homeland security and inner security (Department of Homeland Security) concentrating 22 departments under one roof. Central targets is the foreclosure of the United States against inner and outer hazards (Homeland Security) as well as keeping away threats from the international periphery.
A central task of the department is the accumulation and assimilation of information as well as the delivery and opening up for development of new surveillance- and information technologies, forensic technologies, measures for protection against weapons of mass destruction and the development of new weapons, to make for example terrorists incapable of action. _HYPERLINK

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/13/13613/1.html"__http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/
13/13613/1.html_

( Quelle für obigen Ausschnitt )
With more than 183000 employees (2004) the department got to the third biggest employer of the US-Government.
In the Department of Homeland Security some of the institutions were put together that had been before independant, for example the security check at the airports, the costums, the coast guards and the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). But instead of intentions before, CIA and FBI did not get under its control

Abbildung: Homeland Security Advisory System: - Überlegen Sie sich, auf welcher Stufe die Bush-Regierung einzuordnen ist!

In mai 2007 Georg W. Bush signed the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD51) also known as the Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD20) and it was discussed heavily.
http://funfire.de/lustige/bilder-3532-bush-hitler.html ( Quelle des nebenstehenden Bildes. Laut Impressum "Freeware")

Quelle des folgenden Textes.
http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/3815370/
The following text has no relation to the source on the right side.
Zitat:
Excerpt:
„In this directive Georg W. Bush explained, that the president in the case of an extreme emergency is instructed, to lead the activities for the continuance of a constitutional government. The directive is defining a catastrophic emergency case as follows: A catastrophic emergency case calls each event, that are causing a massive loss of human life, material damage or demolition, affecting the population, the infrastructure, the environnement, the economy or other functions of the government of the United States, independant where such an event is taking place.....“
„......The formulation of this directive is disturbing, because it is not determined, that the president in such a case is working together with other organs of the governmental power. (Judicative and Legislative) Instead it is definitely stated, that there will be a collaboration between the three powers coordinated by the president. If the president is coordinating such a collaboration, this makes him to the responsible in all three sectors“. ....
....„The formulation of this directive are making the president in case of a such catastrophy de facto to a dictator....“
.....„This directive is obviously unconstitutionally, because all of the three sectors executive, legislative and judicative should be equal side by side.....“
„....an efficient constitutionally government contents the separation of three equitable powers from each other. But this directive is determining, that the executive has the power to coordinate the other powers.....“

Abbildung: Ohne Worte ! -

Quelle des nebenstehenden Bildes: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:John_Ashcroft.jpg Public Domain

Conclusio:
„After 9/11 the United States channeled financial public means in the financing of the military-industrial complex, social programs got cut, public budgets got reorganized and taxes were channeled in the rearmament of the police-and national security system. The struggle against terrorism was used as a base of legitimation to undermine the legal system and to destroy the constitutional state“.
Quelle: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/12/12576/1.html

Normaly it should had been the task of the foreign countries, to liberate the United States from this dictator called Georg W. Bush and to bring the truth about 9/11 as soon as possible to the public. Who is it possible, that democracies are calling themselves democracies, if a governmental lie, a governmental intrigue, an operation under false flag gets supported for so many years?

How the mindset of Germany is, we can see when we read the statement of the „Bundesanwaltschaft“ to the complaint of a lawyer from Berlin against Donald Rumsfeld.

Abbildung: John Ashcroft, - war von 2001 bis 2005 Justizminister der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika !

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Kr%C3%A4he_65%28loz%29.JPG cc-a-sa3.0

"Donald Rumsfeld, the former Defense Secretary does not need to have fear of preliminary proceedings in Germany because of torturing prisoners in the iraqian prison Abu Ghaib and in the prison camp Guantanamo in Cuba. This is the task of the therefor appointed justice of the United States. In november 2006 a lawyer from Berlin had passed in preliminary proceedings against Donald Rumsfeld and other US-officials at the Bundesanwaltschaft. "(Source: Memminger Zeitung)

If Donald Rumsfeld would had entered Germany after his retirement as a Defense Secretary and before this decision of the Bundesanwaltschaft, so he should have had to expect to get arrested and he would not have been able to count onto his immunity. (content Source DER SPIEGEL)

Abbildung: Schwarze Krähen im Gleichschritt : - Das Verhältnis der Bundesanwaltschaft zu Donald ( Duck ) Rumsfeld läßt sich am besten mit den Worten beschreiben: " Die eine Krähe hackt der anderen Krähe kein Auge aus" !

Quelle des nebenstehenden Bildes: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Mohamed_Atta.jpg Public Domain

I remain to my opinion. We cannot speak of a democracy, if it is possible to governments to hide the truth about 9/11 so many years from the public, if they did not publish until now all the videos of the surveillance cameras of the Pentagon attack what could give us clarity.
A journalist called Robert Stevens had to die, because he tried to proove with pictures, that the supposed hijacker Mohammed Atta (WTC1), who visited a flight school in Lantana was not the Atta, who got indenticated as the terror pilot. Stevens died of an agressive form of anthrax variant as he received an infected letter. No wonder if nobody in the United States dares to open his mouth. Because they all know, that they were living under Bush in a perfect hidden dictatorship.
A journalist called Daniel Hopsicker investigated in Venice Florida the place that came into the headlines of the newspapers as a trainingscamp for terrorpilots and he debunked, that Atta indeed had licences as a pilot from different countries. But he also met testimonies, who would have been able to make statements at the 9/11 commission, but they were never heard. Mrs. Keller, who lived together with Mohammed Atta, was told by the FBI after 9/11/2001, better to moove house quickly and to keep quiet, what she did until she got interviewed by Hopsicker one year later. Obviously her statement would not have fit to the picture of the icecold islamist, the government wanted to sell to the public. Because Mrs. Keller was a dessous-model.
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/16/16796/1.html
The people are standing under mind control. The governments can tell us what they want and most of the people believe what they tell us. Only a few people are able to connect some other points together like I did on my homepage. This is something what normaly everybody should do. But they are too lazy or too stupid and the dirty secret services are destroying the lifes of those who know too much about the truth. This is the socalled democracy which does in fact not exist. The americans are being living in a hidden dictatorship led by Georg W. Bush or better by Cheney and now by Obama.

Abbildung: Mohammed Atta, - der angebliche Anführer der Terroranschläge vom 11. September 2001. Angeblich sass Atta im ersten Flugzeug (AA11), welches um 08:46 das WTC1 traf. Die Frage ist nur: Wo saß er wirklich? ......"Hallo Mr. Atta, wie geht es Ihnen? Ich hoffe, dass man gut auf Sie aufpasst. Ich würde mich freuen, Sie einmal kennenzulernen!" Warum sage ich das? Weil ich heute davon überzeugt bin, dass Atta lebt! Die Wahrscheinlichkeit liegt bei 95%!

THE REMOTE CONTROL IN THE TECHNICS:

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:VC10FlightDeck.jpg Publci Domain

And now we come to a point where I want to bring forward an argument of Andreas von Bülow written in his book „Die CIA und der 11.September„.
„According to estimations in more that 600 airplanes the computer-controlled guidance with backdoor for circuit-entering of the radio control is installed. The american government did until now remain silent to the assumptions described here. A greater european airline took the acquaintance of the radio control possibility as a reason, to remove and to substitute the factory provided flight control computer from their float. The author of the remote control theory under the headline „Home Run„ does not want to mention the name of the european airline, because he has fear to get claimed of compensation for damages. But he adds sneaking, if he would have the joice, he would fly in 2001 the route from Atlanta to Singapur via New York, Frankfurt am Main and Kuala Lumpur with the following airplanes:
From Atlanta to John F-Kennedy in New York he would fly propably with a Boeing 737, from there with a Boeing 777 to Frankfurt am Main. There he would decide to take an Airbus A340 to Kuala Lumpur and the last part of the journey he would make in a DC9 or a Fokker100. About the joice of routes and the jettypes of the airlines one could guess with some efforts which airline he means.

I am convinced, that the Boeing 767 of the American Airlines, crashing into the North Tower as well as the Boeing that had hit the South Tower and looked very similar to a United Airlines, were radio controlled from the rooms of WTC7 and by an emitter located in the buildings and all that was managed by the DIA.

Abbildung: Wo - befand sich die Steuerung des Cockpits? Die Steuerung des Cockpits kann nachweislich bei ca. 600 Maschinen von außen erfolgen Auch Andreas von Bülow vertritt die Ansicht, dass die Maschinen von außen gesteuert wurden ( Siehe: Die führende Rolle des WTC 7 )

And now to the Pentagon marking or whatever it was. Possible that it is a coincidence that this line on the lawn shows exactly the way of the airplane.
zuflog.

Interesting for me is, that those guys who wrote this articles on Wikipedia refered to reports of NIST. (National Institut of Standard and Technology) But they do not mention with one word to which organisation NIST belongs. It is not an independent organisation. It belongs to the US-Department of Commerce and so their explanation why the towers fell is worthless. These guys are too stupid to see the truth. They don´t want to see it and of course Wikipedia is influenced by the government. It is redacted! Silverstein said „pull it„, but he should have said „pull them„. Did he mean the „fireworkers„ or did he mean with „it„, the building WTC7?

Quelle: Verschwörungstheorien zum 11. September 2001 Wikipedia
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verschw%C3%B6rungstheorien_zum_11._September_2001
here you can compare
Interesting for me is, that those guys who wrote this articles on Wikipedia refered to reports of NIST. (National Institut of Standard and Technology) But they do not mention with one word to which organisation NIST belongs. It is not an independent organisation. It belongs to the US-Department of Commerce and so their explanation why the towers fell is worthless. These guys are too stupid to see the truth. They don´t want to see it and of course Wikipedia is influenced by the government. It is redacted! Silverstein said „pull it„, but he should have said „pull them„. Did he mean the „fireworkers„ or did he mean with „it„, the building WTC7?

9/11 Shanksville
See the cloud of smoke and compare it with the clouds you see after bombings in Afghanistan. It is very similar. A pilot of a Boeing 757 I asked personally about the calculated amount of kerosine estimated that 19 tons should have remained in the wings of the airplane in the moment of the crash. So do You really believe, that 19 tons of kerosine disappear after a second?

AIR DEFENSE:
Ridiculous is the comment about the non-reaction of the air defense according to the 9/11 commission report: „The handbooks were not configured to attacks coming from the inland„. AHA, very interesting. They first have to read the handbooks, this is really very interesting. The expected the thread coming from the east, from Russia or Germany or what? Ah yes true. Mohammend Atta an Co. had studied in Germany.
But in oktober 2000 and march 2001 emergency exercises were simulated in the Pentagon and pictures from that time show larger parts of airplane debris lying around in the inner yard of the Pentagon. So they were not so innocent like they want to tell us. These were of course not real plane parts. The pictures were taken from the exercise Mass casuality exercise and show the Pentagon model in a lower scale. But they use the pictures on tv again and again to make the people believe that the pictures were taken after 9/11.
I thought that in any case it is the task of the air defense to take care that all airplanes remain in their admitted corridor. If not, the consequence should be the shot down procedure! Was this word „shot down procedure" invented after 9/11? For sure not! To read this Wikipedia shit is really crazy. It is an impertinence.
Transponder: Also ridiculous is it to argue, that an airplane with swithed off transponder cannot get tracked. Read again what I wrote about primary and secondary radar! A switched off transponder means no secondary radar but primary radar remains visible in any case! Why should the military spend millions of dollars in the stealth technology if airplanes could get invisible for radar even with a Boeing 757?

These are only some arguments but it comes better. In 2006 , when I wrote this text for my homepage I found on Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verschw%C3%B6rungstheorien_zum_11._September_2001 the following text. This textpart disappeared completely. This means, that Wikipedia is redacted by the governments. Typical for dictatorships. But now I want to translate the mission german text into english. That text was really very good and it is worth to mention it:

„Most of the sceptics assume that the airplanes were remote controlled. According to their theories the control has to go out from a ground station (propably WTC7) and accordingly taken over by C-130 airplanes, or the passenger jets had been changed by uncrewed doubles. Already in 1988 the NASA executed 14 remote controlled flights with a BOEING 707, undergoing in the end in a crash test. For the variant of the exchange speaks according to the conspiracy theorist the fact, that at least three of the four aircrafts changed during the flight their transpondercode, but none of the aircrafts indicated an emergency or hijacking case. While body parts and also a passport of the supposed hijackers of AA11 were found in the debris of the WTC Complex, the blackboxes of the airplanes that crashed into the Twin Towers were according to the authorities never discovered. This is for the skeptics noncredible. A fireworker and a voluntary helper stated in 2003, they had found 3 of the 4 blackboxes and handed it over to the authorities. The aircontrollers of the Washington Dulles Airport supposed, that flight AA77 (Pentagon) was because of its agility and speed a fighter. Hani Hanjour is supposed to be one of the Kamikaze pilots of flight AA77. His former flight instructor on the other side does not trust him to fly a propeller aircraft like a Cesna. Also the flight routes are suspicious, because the hijackers would have needed too much time and the area would have offered them only less orientation points.
The secret blueprint „Operation Northwoods„ is serving to conspiracy theorists as an example for the thinkable specific use of a remote controlled airplane in military circles of the USA. In 1962 the chairman of the United General Staff porposed to the Secretary of Defense, to execute assassinations within the United States and to stage abroad military incidents, to blame the Castro Regime in Cuba for it, to herald an invasion of the island. To this belonged also the exchange of a passenger jet with an uncrewed military jet south of Florida. After that, the military airplane should take over the place of the civil aircraft on the radar screens, should send out a recorded emergency call per radio, to suggest the attack of an unfriendly jet and should get blow up soon after„.

(End of the former Wikipedia translation which now is unfortunately deleted=redacted)

Do You believe now what I believe finally and once more repeated?
On 9/11 there was only one commercial jet with passengers on board. It was the airplane that hit WTC1 and one or more airplanes were remote controlled.

An aircraft Boeing 767 ( flight AA11) hit the North Tower (WTC1) of the World Trade Center. It was controlled from WTC7 by Rumsfeld´s special DIA secret service. AA11 (WTC1) and UA175 (WTC2) startet both from Boston with destination to Los Angeles. This is the official version. AA11 startet for sure from Boston with destination to Los Angeles. But the legend of the passengers were distributed onto the other airplanes. The authorities had to tell the relatives of the AA11 flight only that the passengers had taken not the American Airlines flight AA11 from Boston to LA, but that they had taken a United Airlines fligth UA175 from Boston to LA. This is really easy. Into the South Tower crashed also a something like a Boeing 767 (UA175). But it was an airplane of a different kind. It was very similar to a Boeing 767 but got changed to fly like a cruise missile and no passenges were on board. It was not a lie if they tell us that it was a Boeing. "Trafen sich zwei Boeings im WTC" . One Boeing hit the North Tower, the other one hit the South Tower. Boeing is constructing also missiles. Airplane with code N612UA (on 9/11 = UA175) was according to FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) a long time after 9/11 listed as valid.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=1659812406812735870
So my theory could fit that the airplane that hit the WTC2 was another missileplane.

It was a Global Hawk that hit the Pentagon. But where are the passengers of AA77 like Barbara Olsen? According to FAA the airplane AA77 is destroyed but according to Transportation Statistics AA77 it was not even scheduled on 9/11. It got not destroyed at the Pentagon what we can see when we see the video. So the second statement could be true that it was not scheduled on 9/11. But any other airplane existed approaching to the Pentagon which had the similar size of a Boeing 757. It must have been landed anywhere. Perhaps on the Ronald Reagan Airport from which the drone startet in the same moment when AA77 landed in Washington. I do not know. Fact is: In all four airplanes had only been 204 passengers. They fit also in one airplane, right? Flight UA93 could give us here the solution, because I believe that flight UA93 (Shanksville) made indeed an emergency landing in Cleveland and the passengers were evacuated in the NASA Research Center. It has its reason that the tower of Cleveland got evacuated. They wanted to get rid of the testimonies who observed what really happened. UA93 was a special flight of the secret service. The pilot worked for the Government and the perhaps the passengers were also working for the government. If all passengers died in AA11 (WTC1), then UA175 (WTC2), AA77 (Pentagon), UA93 (Shanksville) must have been landed and evacuated or must have been not scheduled that day. You have to admit that 204 passengers are not very much for four airplanes. I believe they had all passengers in one airplane! http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/shankesville/shanksville.htm

Abbildung: Puff und weg ! - Eine Rauchwolke ist alles, was von der Boeing 757 , Flug UA93 , vom Absturz bei Shanksville übrigbleibt. Merkwürdig, dass die von einem Boeing-Piloten errechneten 19 Tonnen Kerosin so schnell verpuffen können. http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/shankesville/shanksville.htm

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/index2.htm

This is my conclusion:
There was no Boeing 757 that crashed nearby Shanksville (UA93). The alleged heroic fights onboard of the airplane are nothing more than an instrumentalizing to adjust the people onto a heroic war and the story was invented because the United States always need their heros. If there was a fourth airplane, it should had get shot down, what we can expect after such a long time had passed from 08:46 to 10:03.
At least at the second impact in the WTC2 the airdefense must have got activated, because at least after the second attack it had to be clear, that the situation was extremely serious. At 09:45 (see chapter UA93) all airplanes got the instruction to go down at the nearest airport. At this time the UA93 was supposed to be already in the hand of the hijackers. It crashed finally at 10:03 nearby Shanksville. At 10:18 is documented the first phone call from Cheney to Bush to talk about the instructions for the interceptors. This waste of time until they contacted each other had all system. This was the agreement to confuse all. Nobody seemed to have the responsibity. It had all system.
The Cleveland airport including the tower was evacuated to allow the rats of the secret service to take place instead of the normal flight controllers. To reach that, the UA93 went up to gain height to be able to go afterwards sharp down so that on the ground they got an arguement for the evacuation of the Cleveland Airport believing that it would crash into the airport. This was really the official explanation:
Because they feared that this UA93 or (and) another Delta airliner which was at that time also supposed to be hijacked could hit the airport. (See my calculations in chapter UA93 which makes a landing in Cleveland possible at 10:45 after it had been nearby Shanksville )

Once more:
Impact North Tower: 08:46 AA11
Impact South Tower: 09:03 UA175
Impact Pentagon: 09:43 AA77
Crash Shanksville: 10:03 UA93

Did You ever see parts of the airline that allegedly crashed nearby Shanksville like we know that from other airplane crashs, for example Lockerby? They want to tell us that the aircraft crashed with such a high speed that it nearly disappeared. Can the speed so high, that the petrol disappears and only a small smoke cloud remains visible which was documented by Val McClatchey? It appeared only as one dark could, ascending only in the moment of the crash and no smoke of burning petrol hidden in the moisted earth comes after the crash. I do not believe this complete official story. It was a bomb to enlarge the already existing gap of the former coal shaft in the underground and this bomb or whatever it was created a round crater. (See chapter 9/11 Shanksville )
The coroner moved off very soon because there was not much to see.
Source: Gerhard Wisnewski:
„Also there one found less remains, and much more surprising was that the body parts had no more blood in their bodies, like the appropriate coroner Wally Miller declared. What indicates, that it had been old, afterwards places body parts.„

Mayor of Shanksville Ernie Stull: „No airplane„!..... Completely destroyed„

but see it on Your own to read between the lines.
Denny Roddy: „Airplane debirs? Nothing that I could identify„.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMX7NuuTbpU

The argument, that was supporting the theory of a terrorattack in Shanksville and the others hijackings, was the statement of the relatives, that they got telephone calls via mobile phones and airphones coming from the hijacked airplanes. Who dares to contradict, because they had lost their relatives and nobody wants to hurt them in their pain?

Abbildung: Shanksville, - Wenig Rauch um Nichts ! ( Quelle:www.wtc-terrorattack.com)

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Cutter.jpg&filetimestamp=20051031164442
cc-a-sa 2.5

For me it is the question, how believable are the statments of the actual telephone calls. A question which is not only interesting for the passengers of UA93 but also for all other passengers in the other airplanes if they really existed. Barbara Olsen (AA77) succeeded to talk two times with her husband via airphone. She is it according to the official story, who gave the first information that the hijackers had knifes, plastic knifes or box cutters. And also after the last crash in Shanksville we got the information that in other airplanes had been found plastic knifes. This is for sure information that should support the boxcutter-theory. For sure the knifes were placed there later by agents of the secret service. It is the same like the passport of a supposed hijacker of flight AA11 hitting the WTC. They want to tell us the uncredable story that they found this passport anywhere in the streets of New York nearby WTC and were able to identify the person as a hijacker. This is no joke! I ask You: What happens to a passport if the hijacker is in the cockpit, or let me say anywhere in the aircraft that hits a building. Does the passport get wings and learns to fly? Damned!

Back to Barbara Olsen. Who is Mrs Olsen who gave the first information about the boxcutters?
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/9/9561/1.html

She supposed to sit in the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. She was journalist and advocate, conservative commentator for CNN and her husband was a high judicial officer. (Federal Prosecutor General)
This relation should make you perplex. Once more you can read the chapter „Medien„ where I give good arguments for the existing relation between medias and secret services.

Bülow is writing in his book on page 117:
„Ted Olsen informed CNN, his wife had told him, all passengers including crew members were horded in the rear part of the airplane by armed hijackers. As weapons she had only mentioned knifes and boxcutters. She told her husband that she had the impression that nobody on board has the responsibility and begged her husband, to inform the pilot what he should do„.

Bülow mentions that it is not possible to make telephone calls on the account of the called person without reading in the credit card. But if she had borrowed the credit card of another passenger, she could have used the telephone for an unlimited time. The amount is getting charged on the credit card generally. But Ted Olsen stated in the „London Telegraph„, that his wife had called „collect„ to make the phone call on charge of the Department of Justice. This is simply not possible (03/05/02)
Source: Andreas von Bülow, S. 120

Ted Olsen is a liar and I can imagine that his wife is living anywhere on this world with a new identity and financially supported by the secret service DIA. Perhaps they should start a "wanted" poster on all airports of this world and perhaps of all passengers who lost their lifes on 9/11. But for sure people came to death in AA11 but I think her husband should know in which airplane his wife was sitting. Did she die in AA11 and her husband got the order to tell the story the Government wanted to hear? I do not like the combination CNN and Federal Prosecutor General. This is for me suspicious!

But to take part in this dirty play is a lot of talent as an actor is necessary. I can suppose that a man like Ted Olsen is able to play his role. He is accustomed to play a role in his position. He has to be always more clever than his adversaries he has to judge about. This is his job. If he were not be able to do that, he would not have got into this position.
And I repeat that for sure all of the 204 people are dead. But if they were all in AA11 (WTC1) and died there, all of the others officially mentioned have to be alive. For example the passengers of UA93 (Shanksville) or the passengers of AA77 (Pentagon). Dropouts exist all over the world. And supported by the government they do not need to have fear, unless they open their mouth to tell the truth. The way into a life with a new identity must have been prepared by the secret service and the Government. I think it is the easiest problem to let people simply disappear anyhow. Perhaps the remained at home do really believe that their relatives came to death. Everything is possible in the country of the unlimited possiblities. Only such an idea or reality? Mohammed Atta (AA11, WTC1) is for sure dead. This is also saying his father, a laywer in Kairo, who allegedly got one day (or three days after 9/11, depends of source) a phone call of his son. He supposed that his son was kidnapped or killed.

Abbildung: "Kartonschneidemesser", "box cutter" ? - Ich soll glauben, dass damit vier Flugzeuge einschließlich des gesamten WTC Komplexes zerstört wurden? Es könnte ja eigentlich fast lustig sein, wenn es nicht so traurig wäre. Traurig ist in erste Linie das abgrundtiefe Verbrechertum geheimdienstmäßig gesteuerter Politik! Rumsfeld spricht am 9.10.2001 gegenüber Dan Rather in der Sendung CBS News sogar von Plastikmessern. Und Fox News am 16.11.2001 spricht ebenfalls von Plastikmessern. Für wie blöd haltet ihr Drecks Politiker mich eigentlich?

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Hanjourh.jpg US Public Domain
Propably many people in the United States realized the real background of 9/11, but only a few tried to speak what the really saw, what they heard (explosions) and what they thought. Do You remember Tom Daschle? He was at that time majorityleader of the democrates in the US-senat and was one of those who got a letter with a special message and a special content. The letters contained a message of agressive Anthrax spores, perilous on the way of inhalation.
Besides of Daschle was onother letter with an agressive variant or Anthrax which was sent to the democratic delegate Patrick Leavy. Neither in this nor in the other case the envelope was opened by one of the above mentioned people. In the case of Daschle the letter was opened by a co-worker and in the case of Leavy it was assured in a confiscated postbag. The letters to the senators contained a highly refined dry powder, consisting of about one gram pure spores, which was categorized as weaponized. The FBI demented the denomination „weaponized„ according to the Washington Post in september 2006.
Altogether 22 persons got infected by this attacks, 11 persons by the perilous way of inhalation. 5 people died as a consequence of the inhalation. Among the victims was a reporter of „THE SUN„, called Robert Stevens. His chief Michael Irish had rented an appartment to two of the hijackers and was a former member of the CIVIL AIR PATROL in Lantana, where Mohammed Atta took flight instructions in august 2001.
Stevens stated that Atta who visited the flight school was another person than the person who was identified as the hijacker Atta. He wanted to proof this with pictures. (Former Source)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verschw%C3%B6rungstheorien_zum_11._September_2001

Why do all these articles disappear? Because they are wrong or because they do not fit to the official story? We know all that people died of Anthrax. So anything must be true at this story.

Der Inhalt der Briefe an die Senatoren Daschle und Leahy lautete:
09-11-01
YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
YOU DIE NOW.
ARE YOU AFRAID?
DEATH TO AMERICA.
DEATH TO ISRAEL.
ALLAH IS GREAT. "
Ende Zitate aus Quelle Wikipedia: Anthrax Anschläge 2001
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax-Anschl%C3%A4ge_2001

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Penicillin_strukturen.png
GNU Lizenz für freie Dokumentation

If you are reading the following sentences, you have to think 180° around the corner to make a conclusion about the sender. Not fanatic moslem extremists, but american extremists of the secret service are standing behind the anthrax attacks. This work bears the hand writing of the desinformation department of any secret service and Irvins is only one victim under many others who had worked at the wrong time at the wrong place.

Abbildung: Strukturformel des Penicillins. - Sind die Typen von der CIA sogar zu blöd, dieses Wort richtig zu schreiben ? Bush hätte es so geschrieben: Penny-cilin. Aber mit Kleingeld gibt er sich nicht ab. ( Bildquelle Wikipedia, GNU-Lizenz )

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Milzbrand.jpg Public Domain

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax-Anschl%C3%A4ge_2001 ( Textquelle )
In july 2007 the chemist Bruce Irvins committed suicide, who was an employee at the US-Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Deseases (Fort Detrick) and was accused by the FBI to stand as single delinquent behind the Anthrax attack. When the attorney Jeffrey Taylor is going to speak to the press reporters and announced, that from the point of view of the Government Bush with the suicide of Irvin the enlightenment of the Anthrax attacks is completed, all alarm bells were ringing in my head. Even more because he demonstratively slammed the folder which was lying in front of him on his desk. For me it looked like he wanted to say:
Forget it now!
FBI-investigator Joseph Persichini:
„An acribic examination brought us to the conclusion that Dr. Bruce Ivens is responsible for the death, the suffer and the fear, that came above our country with the sending of the Anthray letters in 2001„.

And I got right because years passed by and what happened under the presidentialship of Obama.
Is the Obama Government now the reason that they thought a second time about what they said before? Because in the edition 11/09 is reported, that doubts appeared about the origin of the Anthrax-spores.
„The chemical fingerprint does not fit definitely to the Anthrax material of the supposed deliniquent Bruce Irvins„.
The US-material scientist Josph Michael of Sandia National Laboratories in new Mexico is reporting that the material contained spurs of silicium, oxygen, iron and tin. But these elements had not been found in this test tube (Code RMR-1029) to which the chemist Irvins had access. Irvins had always denied to be responsible for the attacks. „Admittedly seven further samples, six coming from Fort Detrick and one from a laboratory in Utah, contained the suspicous material„. ( SPIEGEL 11/09)

Abbildung: Milzbrandinfektion, - der dunkle Schatten der CIA ! ( Bildquelle Wikipedia Public Domain )

Anthrax letters with less dangerous content received also the NEW YORK POST and the NBC in New York:
They contained the following wording:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax-Anschl%C3%A4ge_2001
09-11-01
THIS IS NEXT
TAKE PENACILIN [sic] NOW
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO ISRAEL
ALLAH IS GREAT

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanjour Bildrechte: Gemeinfrei

There was one statement that at once after the hijacking of the aircrafts the transponder were switched off by the terrorist and the position of the airplanes could no longer get tracked. They were switched off, yes, but who had been the person who switched off the transponder? Terrorists or pilots working for the government in a special mission?

„In the modern flying it is worked with secondary-radar, and most of them are equipped with primary radar. Meanwhile with the primary radar ( MODE C) the controller gets secured information about direction, height and distance of the targets, the secondary radar still delivers further informations like recognition, identification and also height of the flight object. Most important advantage of the secondary radar (active) to the primary radar (passive) is the larger range as well as the possibility of the identification (flight number for example). The secondary radar is sending out a signal, that gets received by the transponder of the airplane which now sends out an active answer. If the transponder howewer is switched off or broken, so the secondary radar is not able to work and the flight object does not get recognized. Therefore most of the secondary radars are working in correspondence with a primary radar.„

So far so good.
But if the terrorists switched off the transponder, the primary radar is still working. How does that fit together with the explanation of the controllers that the airplane could not longer get tracked.

It is sure that a transponder which got switched off by terrorists does not mean automatically that the airplane is unvisible,„because this would lead the stealth-technology as well as the military radarsystems ad absurdum. Objects of a special size, in special heights are reflecting radarsignaturs, which can get recognized independent of an active or inactive transponder„.
http://www.debattierclub.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4306

Did the terrorists use a stealth bombers or did they fly in a low altitude flight across the United States?
Ah, exactly this must have succeeded the terrorpilot Hani Hanjour approaching the Pentagon with his Boeing 757 on the last about 100 meters. You can see his professional low altitude flight on the video of chapter „Pentagon 9/11„.
RESPECT !

The question remains: How did Hanjour really loose his life on 9/11? I don´t know but for sure not in the Pentagon! And I am only sure that he is dead.

Abbildung: Hani Hanjour - flog im Tiefflug über Washington direkt in das Pentagon. Da hatte selbst das Radar keine Chance ! Im Tiefflug hatte er zwar Probleme mit der Orientierung, aber dafür waren die Wegweiser der Autobahn umso besser lesbar.( Bildquelle Wikipedia, Public Domain )

Without any doubt there were people who knew much more in the forefront of the attacks. This we can recognize if we see the tradevolume at the Chicago Board Options Exchange where options of 1400 big companies are dealed. These dealings are very speculative bettings onto the market price on particular shares. We distinguish between:

CALL-Options: This is a „buy„ stock warrant. This warrant certifies the right to buy a special amout of shares of a special corporation at a previously determined date or within a special timerange to an exercise price that is previously determined.

PUT-Options: This is a „sell„ stock warrant. This warrant certifies the right to sell a special amout of shares of a special corporation at a previously determined date or within a special timerange to an exercise price that is previously determined.


In every option-contract are packed together about 100 shares. These kind of dealings are bettings onto the prospecive development of a corporation and are leading in 85% of the cases to the totaly loss of the adopted money of private investors. But professionals are using the derivative dealings like an ensurance for an existing share deposit and liquidate the position after a short time. The calculation of the necessary amount of options for hedging a deposit is calculated with a special formula depending of the amount of shares the investor has in his deposit.
If a big investor for example has in his deposit shares of s special corporation and the investor is expecting that an innerpolitical or a global political decision or event could lead to a disavowal of the share price of the corporation in which he has invested his money, so he buys PUT-Options if he is thinking that the share price of the underlying corporation will go down. With this deal he avoids to sell his shares he has in his deposit. With an accuring event these Put Options react with an enormous leverage effect on the underlying course of the basis instrument (in this case the share). While the share price is decreasing, the PUT-options are ensuring with their x-times higher leverage with an upward movement of the price (in the opposite direction than the share itself) a gain of money and are compensating the loss of the price of the underlying share.

And exactly such PUT-options were bought before 9/11/2001 in an above-average amount, also if we do not hear about the dealings in the mainstream medias. The truth we do not find out from newspapers, the truth we can read in books written by insiders.

The source is taken from Eric Laurant, under reference of a 38 year old deputy chairman of one of the most notable banks of the world who perspiciously is begging not to be mentioned with his name, because her fears dammage to his bank and for himself. Discretion is in this branch the highest command.

Excerpt 1: Eric Laurent S.46,
Between september 6th and 7th had been bought 4744 sell options ( PUT) on the shares of United Airlines, while on the other side had only been 396 buy options (CALL) in the same period of time. On september 10th, one day before the attack, 4516 put-options onto American Airlines were bought, but only 748 Call-Options onto shares of American Airlines. This volume is 25 times higher than the other transactions normally onto these two shares. And these purchases are not justified by special news on the stock exchange.
When the american market opened again on september 17th, the shares of United Airlines had lost 42%.
The propable gain for the insider were nearly 5 million Dollars.
The shares of American Airlines lost 39%. In this case supposed gain were at least 4 million dollars„.

Additionally I want to mention, that an airplane of American Airlines hit the Northtower and the Pentagon and an airplane of United Airlines hit the Southtower of WTC. (allegedly)

Excerpt 2: Andreas von Bülow „Die CIA und der 11. September„, S.64:
Already ten days after the terror attacks the Israeli Herzliya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism had stated the following insiderdeals in reference to 9/11:
United Airlines: 4744 shares sold, compared with a normal average of 396;
American Airlines: 4515 shares sold, compared to 748.
Both transactions had been eleven - respectively six times higher than the usual normal size.

Shares of Morgan Stanley Dean Winter, the bank that had allocated 22 floors of the World Trade Center, were sold in a size of 2157 shares in three days before the attack, compared to 27 before september 6th.
On 9/11 the shares of Morgan Stanley went down from 48,9 to 42,5 dollars so that the investor gained at least 1,2 million dollars. Flight UA175 hit the South Tower between the 78th and the 84th floor. The bank of Morgan Stanley Winter had rented rooms from the 88th floor to the 110th floor.

Of Merril Lynch, the company that had also rented 22 floors in WTC, had been sold 12215 shares in 4 days before the attack, compared to normaly 252 per day the time before.

Although the transactions had been determined, the names of those insiders have been never announced until now. Also the list of the 38 companies which dealed with shares and options of the companies, which suffered unter a dammage caused by 9/11 is not published until now. The german Bundesbank in Frankfurt/M. also assumed in their examinations that massive inside tradings had taken place. In some reports are mentioned advices, that it had been high co-operators of the Bush-Administration who had places appropriate orders.
But until now the publicity is waiting for the results of FBI and of FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network =Special Secret Service of the Federal Finance Administration).„

I remember very well that in the medias was speculated, if the „multimillionaire„ Osama bin Laden, who was immediately blamed to be responsible for the terrorattacks, could have taken financial profit with this dealings. But if we read the statements of the finance minister Paul O`Neill at the bank commission of the US-senate, we could arrive at the conclusion that the american authorities did not have any interest to enlighten the most terrible terror attack in the history of the United States. Because if they are really convinced that bin Laden stood behind these transactions, everybody should be interested to prove it.
Laurent wrote in his book:
„Before the true source can be identified, one has to investigate throughout ten maskfirms„.
This is obviously for the minister, the federal agencies and the complete Bush-Administration a not manageable task„.

Bildquelle rechte Seite: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tenet Public Domain

For me personally it is out of any question that it was an american government mafia who lead the airplanes into the towers. Respective to the above mentioned insider dealings we now must ask the question, if it had really been people around Muhammed Atta who conducted the airplane of American Airlines (AA11) into the North Tower. Because only the fact, that increased trading activities with PUT-options had taken place, which also had been realized by ingenuous retailers should have alarmed the supervisors. „The CIA is observing the activities in realtime and is using special programs, based on a software with the code-name „PROMIS„. (Eric Laurent S.61)
The following disburdens once more the CIA:
No doubt, that the CIA realized straight before the attacks high purchases of US-bonds. This was revealed on 10/02/2001 by the WALL STREET JOURNAL.
„The transactions must have been the vertiginous sum of about 5 billion dollars....these bonds with a duration of 5 years are the best type of investment in view of a possible world wide crisis, especially if the Untited States are affected. And they often rise in the case, if the investors suddenly are leaving high risky investments at the stock exchange market„. (Eric Laurent S.53)

These uncoverings disburden indeed those parts of the CIA, who gave the informations to the public. But this does not mean that all CIA agents are inculpable. I have mentioned already before that CIA director Georg Tenet seems to be someone who tried to awake the goverment to force them to get active, but the government didn´t want to do anything. Whatelse could he do than nearly shaking the National Security Advisor Condeleeze Rice to get active? But she wiped the warnings of an imminent terror attack off the table.
„We did everything except of firing off the weapon that was pointed onto her head„.
I indeed believe that Tenet is innocent although he is a friend of Bush. But Bush was also only a puppy for those who planed the attack. He should only do his job, to give his signature to all papers they gave him and the others behind him arranged his business. The less he knows, the less he can babble. But the question remains, when Bush got the first information about the first attack on WTC1? Already in his car? Has he already seen the video in the car?
You remember: He was bubbling false statements when he was asked when he had got the first information. The video of the first attack was not available on 9/11. But he said that he saw it on a television screen before he entered the classroom.
The system was to hide the plans against those who stood in the middle of the publicity. Every wrong word could uncover the plan. Did You ever see in interview of Dick Cheney in tv? I did not.
Cheney was supposed to be the man of decisions behind Bush. Bush was only his elongated arm. This is a common estimation of the relation between Bush and Cheney.
Rumsfeld had with the budget of the DIA the money to arrange all that. He had the connections to the military industry to arrange the terror attack. I am convinced. And the special secret service within the DIA is also not an imagination. This secret service exists. With the budget and the knowhow of the DIA they were able the arrange 9/11. Rumsfeld and Cheney tricked Tenet´s CIA and Tenet himself who stood there like the biggest idiots on earth! The reaction of the FBI that confiscated the videos of the Pentagon attack had been only an order coming from above. The FBI agents had to do what they had to do and that was coming from above when the machinery of 9/11 got activated. The FBI is as an institution not guilty!

But it is not out of the question, that any CIA or FBI agents knew what would happen on 9/11. Those who have seen the confiscated videos of the Pentagon attack know for sure what really happened. It is their task not to talk about it and afterwards they cannot get blamed for something what they did not know before. It is the machinery, it is the system they have to obey and afterwards they could change the terrible facts.

Refering to the insider dealings emerge two names.
Mayo A.Shattuck III.:
The director of the „Bank Alex Brown„, going together in a merger with „Banker´s Trust„ in 1997, and was absorbed in 1999 by the „Deutsche Bank„. Shortly after 9/11 Shattuck quited his lucrative job.
„According to the official explanation the director of Alex Brown wants to spend more time with his family and this would not be compatible with his duties, calling him two times of the year to Germany„. (Eric Laurent S.62)

Buzzy Krongard:
He got in 1991, at the same time when Shattuck took over the chairmanship of Alex Brown, General Director of „Alex Brown„. After the merger with Bankers Trust he got deputy chairman of Bankers Trust and changed afterwards to the CIA. With his title of managing director he was since 03/16/2001 the number three after Georg Tenet. Krongard got just charge of the „task to discover irregularities on the financial markets„. (Eric Laurent, S.64)
Shattuck and Krongard had been a „unseparable couple. The Bank (Alex Brown) owes its boom their collaboration„. (Eric Laurent, S.64)

Treasonable is not only the retirement of Shattuck from his position of director of the bank shortly before 9/11 but also the fact, that of all things „some„ (Eric Laurent, S.64) purchases of Put-Options were executed before the attacks.
Disburdening for Krongard could get the fact, that he admitted in his function of a CIA-responsible the filtering of treasonable trading activities and the transmission of the informations about insider dealings of US-Treasuries to the public.

But the behaviour of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) is strange:
„The SEC which is normaly merciless going ahead against peculators is in this case peculiar impassive, although it would have been competent. All the same the SEC director Richard Walker who was responsible for the security of the markets was praised in october 2001 on the occasion of his retirement in a communique for his „quickened enthusiasm and his self-abandonment„„. (Eric Laurent S.67)

„The incorruptible Richard Walker, who was responsible for the non-enlightened and outrageous fraud by insiders respective to 9/11, has meanwhile taken over a high-lucrative consulting position at the German Bank,this bank, which is controlling Alex Brown„.(Eric Laurent, S.68)

The suspicion having got insider information about an imminent terror attack is also hardened by the fact that

„2,5 million dollars of speculation gains, that were executed before 9/11 with shares of United Airlines are not yet demanded„.
(Eric Laurent S.61)

Without indication to any person at this point it should be mentioned:
Anybody had got here cold feet!

Conclusio:
If the number three of the CIA Buzzy Krongard knows something about the insider dealings, then the number one Georg Tenet should also has to be informed about that. This is a superficial reflection of the imminent terror attack. If Tenet was really informed about the insider dealings before 9/11, we have to go deaper, because he tried to convince Bush and Rice, that a terror attack with airplanes used as weapons was imminent. But what can he do if the government does not react? Can only the President elevate the security level? Only the government can do this but not Tenet alone. Exactly the opposite happened like I have already explained on this site.
It was Tenet who decided to pass Bush on 08/06/2001 a warning of the british secret service in form of a presidential briefing (PDB) to Georg W.Bush onto his ranch in Crawford Texas. Content of the warning was that „the United States have to be aware of several hijackings of aircrafts by groups of Al-Qaida„.
The headline of the PDB was saying:
„Bin Laden determined to hit within the United States„(Eric Laurent S.94)

In 2004 Tenet stated under oath at the 9/11 commission, that „he did neither see nor speak to Bush in august 2001„. This was a false statement because he did!
Because 3 years later he wrote in his own book that he had seeked Bush out in august 2001.

„Some time after Tenet´s distressing statement at the 9/11 commision the CIA declared, Tenet had met Bush in august 2001 two times: Once on his ranch on august 17th (about two weeks after the memo dated on 08/06) and the second time in Washington on august 31th„.
(Vincent Bugliosi, Anklage wegen Mordes gegen Georg W.Bush, S.328)

When Tenet is really innocent, why did he give a wrong statement? To protect Bush only because he is his friend? Krongard should have to inform Tenet immediately about the suspicious insider dealings with the shares of United Airlines and American Airlines before 9/11. All lights should have blinking red.

It is very astonishing:
The secret services all over the world seem to be aware of the danger of an imminent terror attack. Also the antiterror coordinator in the White House Richard Clarke was indicating again and again to an imminent terror attack. But the Bush administration did not react. When Condolleeza Rice took over the control of the National Security Council, she downgrades Clarke and puts him cold. (Laurent S.97).
The White House tried to avoid that Condolleeza Rice has to appear at the 9/11 committee to make a statement about her role on and before 9/11. Finally on 03/30/2004 the White House accepted the public demand and allowed to give the permission way to her statement at the Commission. I remember very well how she was stammering while she looked up to the court and had to answer their questions. She told them that the warnings had not been detailed enough to react. I hope that it will not be the last time that she had to appear on a court. She was lying.

Abbildung: George Tenet, - CIA Direktor von 1997 bis 2004, ich denke heute dass er mehr oder weniger unschuldig ist !!

Bildquelle rechte Seite : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Scheich_Mohammed Public Domain
If the terror attacks were planned and executed by some insiders of the government, what I believe after thousands of hours of investigation for this homepage, we should now deepen the way of thinking around the corner:
We all know that the secret services have desinformation departments aiming to spread false information. The addressees should fall for their line. It was planned from the beginning on to make islamic fundamentalists responsible for the attacks. Adequate radio messages were sent off to underline this theory. The secret services of the world should hear them and give the warnings to the CIA. Bush or let us say better Rumsfeld and Cheney were happy about the work of their secret services NSA and CIA, but in secret they laughed up their sleeve because the CIA did not know where the terrorists would hit the United States. Rumsfeld and Cheney at least knew, that this was a part of the plan which now seemed to work well. Correspondingly getting sharp onto the bad islamic terrorists who allegedly hijacked four airplanes, it was after 9/11 easy to join the public in a military proceeding against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Because also the work of the tecnical secret service NSA was very efficient by filtering out all these threats and these threats were possibly let out in reality by any US agents. And later the US government got confrontated with the criticism that they did not react appropriate to the threats. I believe that the US-Administration ignored the warnings consciously because nobody should thwart the plan. But these attacks were not executed by islamic fundamentalists but by the government of the United States itsself. The warnings were a part of the gamesmanship. The bearer of the warnings like Tenet were only the marionets who were not conscious of their roles.
But can´t we put this past to Georg Tenet to play this role consciously? Was he aware to play a role because he could not do anything else than to give the warnings to the president not to get later under suspicion of cognisance? I do not believe that. What for an enourmous disgrace is now linked with the CIA and with the name Georg Tenet! (Statement Tenet on 9/11:„If this had been them then grace us God„! He meant the pilots of the flight schools) tranlation propably incorrect but the sense is the same.

Was Tenet informed about the plan?
In the morning of 9/11 Tenet sat together with Senator Boren in a restaurant nearby the White House when he was informed about the terror attacks in NY.

"Tenet made several telephone calls and finally said to Senator Boren: You know, this is without any doubt the signature of Bin Laden".

But at this point I have to admit that I also thought of Bin Laden in the first moment when I got the information that a second airplane hit the building. I was working in the company on 9/11 and some newsmagazines like Der Spiegel were often writing about Bin Laden and his terrorgoals long before 9/11.

„Richard Clarke, the chief of the Terror Defense gives..... a description of the events and is reporting of a telephone call with the CIA-director:

„Georg Tenet was the next in the row. He did not leave any doubt of his suspicion, that Al-Qaida had committed these outrages and he had already spoken with important collegues all over the world and talked to allies for a counterstrike„.„
(Eric Laurent, S.182)

And what was the reaction of the president?
„Subsequently Clarke is reporting about the first emergency meeting some hours later with the US President: „I wish, that You understand, that we are in war and we will remain in war, until the case is accomplished. All other things are unimportant. All budgets for warfare are getting supplied„. (Eric Laurent, S.182)

I have to admit at this point that I also thought of Osama bin Laden in the first moment when I got the information about the terror attacks. Most of us are reading newspapers and everybody knows that Bin Laden was not an unwritten piece of paper already before 9/11.

But I am convinced:
CIA is not = CIA, DIA is not = CIA, we have to analyze all persons separately.
The airplanes were controlled from outside the cockpit by a small minority of agents and a small group of insiders. Perhaps a small group of people who got wind of the criminal intention of the government could only look at that what happened with bonded hands. They were only insiders without any power. Most of the people within the CIA were tricked and believe until now that islamic fundamentalists stood behind the terror attack if they were not able to think around the corner and if it is not their job to think farer than it is allowed to them to think. They do not realize until now that it was an intrigue of the Government of the United States. Even young and intelligent citizens of New York are up to this day convinced that it had been islamic fundamentalists who were standing behind the terror attack. But when I asked a couple in Italy who lived in NY City I wondered afterwards about their reaction. I had the feeling that they were frozen to ice in the first moment of my question. It was a couple and the girl starred like having fear in this moment. They have fear of what? Another testimony told very open what she had seen. She had realized massive explosions coming from WTC.
Why is it not possible to open the eyes of all people all over the world about what really happened. The official story is not true, but I think that I am quite close to the truth. I do not say that this what I wrote here is the truth. But it is the right way. The people of this world are not too stupid to realize the truth, but they need to have an open mind, they may not close their eyes in consideration of the fact, that nothing fits together in the official story. The truth can be very cruel and the people are sometimes too busy with their own routine. Who can resent them that they do not want to deal with questions, becasue they are not able to take on any influence on political decisions.

One of the reasons that I got convinced that we have to distinguish between the roles of the people and organisations is the following sentence:
„Usually one should assume, that persons would avoid to make attentive onto themselves and therefore in the end to get under suspicion of murder and treason. Maybe members of the american apparatus were lead into a pitfall, to dispose the interest of the public as much as the law enforcement agency onto the persons heading the CIA with the purpose to hide the actual trace to the delinquent„.
(Andreas von Bülow, Die CIA und der 11. September, S.64)

And also:
Disburdening for Krongard could get the fact that he admitted in his function as CIA-responsible the filtering of treasonable trading activities, the transmission of the informations about insider dealings about US-Treasuries to the public.

One dark shadow is falling also onto the NSA (National Security Agency):
„The telephone recordings of the NSA, refering to activities of insider traders were deleted by the legal department against heavy protest„. ( Andreas von Bülow, S.63)

Which person within the Bush government gave the order to the legal department to delete these evidences? The CIA had lost its power. The power of the CIA had been reduced calculated already in the time before 9/11. Rumsfeld´s DIA was the most powerful secret service on 9/11 and therefore we have to search for the responsibilities for 9/11 within the Pentagon. Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld could have given the order to delete it.
That s it

Abbildung: Khalid Sheich Mohammed, - Die Ermittler sehen in ihm den Chefplaner der Anschläge des 11.September 2001. Sein Neffe Ramsi Jussef hatte sechs Jahre zuvor bereits versucht, das WTC mit einem in der Tiefgarage abgestellten LKW, der mit Sprengstoff beladen war, zu zerstören. Die Idee der Schulung von Piloten, die Flugzeuge in Gebäude stürzen lassen sollten, stammt von ihm ( S. 295 Lawrence Wright ).......Der SPIEGEL schreibt in seiner Ausgabe 26/09, dass die speziellen Verhörtechniken der Amerikaner zu zahlreichen Falschaussagen von Gefangenen geführt hätten. Aus jetzt freigegebenen Dokumenten geht hervor, Chalid Scheich Mohammed einfach Geschichten erfunden haben soll. "Als man ihn nach dem Aufenthaltsort von al-Qaida Chef Osama bin Laden fragte, habe er geantwortet, dazu wisse er nichts. Dann habe man ihn gefoltert," daraufhin habe ich dann gesagt, er ist in dieser Gegend. Er habe auch Leute , die er gar nicht kenne, als al-Qaida Mitglieder bezeichnet, um der Folter zu entgehen...."( Aus Abschriften von Anhörungen, die vor Militärtribunalen in Guantanamo im Jahre 2007 stattfanden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io&NR=1
Missile hits World Trade Center
Northtower (First Attack)

Propably the key for the clearing of 9/11 is hidden already in the first sequences of this video. Who are these men, a policeman and a fireworker. The last mentioned seems to be bored of his work. Much more interesting is for me the question: Who is this person, who is standing behind the video camera and who is filming at first sight such an uninteresting scenery? During the approach of the airplane the camera is swinging like self-evident in the direction of the airplane and finally into the direction of the North Tower until the airplane hits the building. To film something which is from the first point of view not important for the documentary of the fireworkers daily work does not seem to bother them. Could it be possible that knew what would happen afterwards.
The video was taken by the journalists Jules and Gideon Naudet, making a documentary about the fireworkers of New York Ciry.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Naudet
The first question is: Was this video really taken accidentaly?
The second question is: Was this the video which Bush saw in his limousine driving to the school in the early morning of 9/11? Of course there is no proof that he saw any video in his car. But I remind you that he stated that he had seen a plane hitting the first tower before he entered the classroom. This statement is definitely a lie!
So where did he see which video?

I have no intention to blame the police officer or the fireworker for something if they are innocent. And I believe that they are innocent. Because it is out of my imagination that anybody, neither the policeman, nor the fireworker, nor any institution like CIA or DIA could have been interested to document a selfmade terrorattack and to publish it in the following time. Or should I think once more about it? I am not sure! Additionaly a videodocumented terrorattack on which the people can see in a closer inspection a mysterious flash at the building, which can be evaluated as a separate event and leads to the conclusion that an explosion inside or outside of the building happened shortly before the impact should make attentive. This flash is suspicious. If any secret service would be the instructing party for this video, they would direct the suspicion automatically onto the CIA, because the CIA gets always blamed for something what is going wrong in the United States. Because the CIA is the most famous secret service which are telling us also the letters in capital. CIA stands for „Central Intelligence Agency". But I told You before that the CIA had lost its former importance at the expense of the DIA and that the DIA had access to huge financial support. Much more that the CIA. (See chapter DIA contra CIA)

In the comments to this video on www.youtube.com some people claim, that it could also be a matter of light refections and not a flash originated by an explosion. I have doubts. To my mind it could actually have been a real commercial airplane Boeing 767 (AA11), because only under this circumstances the theory of four airplanes could sustain in the public for such a long time up to this date. If only ONE commercial airplane proves to be a fact, then the theory of the others three aircrafts could be sold better to the public. And they needed testimonies that anything hit the buildings, whatever it was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io
Missile hits World Trade Center

Abbildung: Boeing 767, - zivile Ausführung ( Bildquelle: www.youtube.com "Missile hits World Trade Center" )

South Tower (WTC2) , Second impact:
(The following fits only if the video did not get faked!)
In the second part of the video, which is documenting the attack onto the Southtower, for me it is not only the special piece of equipment under the fuselage suspicious, but first and foremost the fact that the whole bottom side has a cavity in the middle along the length of the airplane. If the special piece of equipment is a variant of the running gear like a pilot is mentioning in the accompanying comments, it remains in any case very astonishing that it is not symmetric on the downside. But which kind of aircraft has such a peculiar cavity? The cavity is on the video sequence visible until the moment of the impact. Supposed it was not intregrated afterwards with a manipulation of the picture I consider that it is less propable that someone of CNN makes the effort to integrate every single picture of the sequence, only to heat on conspiracy theories. Of course it is easy to do this. Ace Baker and Simon Shack showed us how it could have worked to make a videoediting.
But let us asume that this video was not faked what I do not know for sure.

The flashs on the North Tower and the South Tower could get integrated easier into the video because they are visible only on a few frames. Against that speaks the following fact:
First of all, that before the destruction of the buildings in both buildings are many visible flashs documentated and also acoustically detonations can be heard. As a proof you can find on Youtube statements of testimonies and acustic video documents. Start Your own research! The controlled demolition is from my point of view standing out of any discussion. So also an explosion shortly before the impact of the plane could make sense.

The plane which hit the South Tower was filmed from four different positions of video cameras. On four videos the flash is visible. I think it is much more complicated to fake three videos to let the flashs seem ongoing synchronic. It assumes that one person had manipulated all original videos taken from three different positions and by three different sources. Yes all is possible but if they were altered the question remains, why they were altered? Because once more: The video which they present us on tv shows also a flash shortly before the impact of AA11. And we all want to trust the tv, don´t we?

The non-explosion of the wings outside of the building of WTC2 (Südturm) and the flash before the impact makes it more propably that it was a converted Boeing that got used as a cruise missile or that the videos were faked. Boeing is experienced in producing weapons and Boeing representatives are refusing to discuss the strange down-side of the plane, what is very suspicious. The inspection of the impact of the plane into the North Tower does not allow the conclusion, how the wings reacted in the moment of the impact because the distance is too far to see that exactly. You can see only in slow motion a suspicious flash before the impact. It is not possible to say if the wings exploded in the moment of the impact outside or inside of the building. But all videos ( WTC1+WTC2) want to show us that there were going on flashs in the area of the tip of the nose before the impact, if they are not faked videos.
I do not know how wings full of petrol normally react in the moment of an impact. We have to calculate the amount of petrol. According to the official version both Boeings had started in Boston and on the way to Los Angeles. The distance for this flight is 4198 km. This is not a short fligth. We have to assume that the airplanes had the amount of about 24 tons of kerosine on board (including „alternate"). But it is clear that no airplane flies without kerosine, also in the case that one or both airplanes had been missiles. And I suppose that the kerosine is always in the wings also in the case that it is a missile which is very similar to a commercial airliner. I believe the AA11 was a real commercial airplane with passengers on board and the UA175 was a missile without passengers.

Was the special piece of equipment on the downside the tank for the kerosine (not believable) or was it the receiver for the radio transmitter. Could it be possible that the main operators were sitting in the WTC7, a building which collapsed seven hours after the collapse of the North Tower. And the most strange thing is that the WTC7 collapsed without getting hit by an airplane. (Andreas von Bülow says CIA is responsible, I say DIA is responsible, both organisation had offices in the WTC7). The WTC7 collapsed in a manner which is so typical for controlled demolition. Not many people are talking about WTC7, but this building is also very important and perhaps could deliver the best proof for an inside job.
Every commercial airplane is flying along a conducting ray and perhaps the flash shortly before the impact was the explosion that should destroy all traces that could lead the inspectors or anyone at Ground Zero to the conviction that the airplanes were conducted from outside. Therefore the demolition of WTC7 could have been necessary because there was the control unit for the thermynuclear bomb and because the place where the operators were sitting leading the whole 9/11 operation. They destroyed the WTC7 to blur traces!

Do you have another explanation for the flash at WTC1?
Another explanation for the flashs before the impact of the planes are for me not seizable. If it was a picture manipulation on youtube, so why is the flash also visible on TV documentations? The tv guys should normaly use the original source, don´t they? (Ok, CNN did not)
The flash appeared without any doubt shortly before the plane hits the building what we can see in slow motion. Why should the government heat on conspiracy theories if it is their intention to avoid exactly this? Why didn´t they delete the flash? Why should they add a flash if there was not a real flash?
Conclusio: The flash at WTC1 must have been real.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io
Missile hits World Trade Center

Here You see, that the flash appears, before the plane hits the building WTC1. This could be caused by the radio controlled or automatic destruction of the emitter hidden in the building. It was necessary to destroy the emitter to blur the traces. It is interesting that anywhere on youtube exists a video of 9/11 where you can see and hear a woman saying: "That was not a commercial airplane!" Right after the impact in WTC2.

Abbildung: Militärische Ausführung = " Missile" - ( Bildquelle: Youtube: Missile hits World Trade Center )Aber mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit handelt es sich bei dem Bild um eine Fälschung.

Ungewöhnlicher Blitz am Südturm Bild 1

Flash at the South Tower.
Here You see also that the flash appears, before the plane hits the building WTC2. This could be caused by the radio controlled or automatic destruction of the emitter hidden in the building. It was necessary to destroy the emitter to blur the traces. It is interesting, that anywhere on youtube exists a video of 9/11 and you see and hear a woman saying: "That was not a commercial airplane!"