Conspiracy Times –   9/11 + 11/22 = Conspiracy2 (part 2)
November 22, 1963 and September 11, 2001 is a generation apart, but the events in Dallas and New York have a lot in common, and also underline the changed political and social climate, whereby the world has learned to love the word “Conspiracy”.
by Philip Coppens


The Pennsylvania crash At 8h42, Flight 93 took off from Newark International Airport, 41 minutes after its scheduled departure time. At 9h16, the FAA informed NORAD that the flight may have been hijacked. Several communications with air traffic controllers indicate that Flight 93 was hijacked at around 9h27. At 9h30, the transponder signal ceased. At about this time, the plane apparently reversed direction and began flying toward the capital.

United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, short of its alleged target, the Capital. The widespread debris field from the crash, together with eyewitness reports, strongly suggest that the jetliner was shot down by a missile fired by a pursuing jet, even though the official statement is that passengers were able to overpower the hijack the plane and bring it down, in an area with no other loss of life then their own.

The crash site comprised a central debris field and several smaller debris fields some distance away. One of the engines was found over half a mile away from the main field. Other debris fields were found 2, 3, and 8 miles away. This evidence is virtually impossible to reconcile with the official story.

An article in Popular Mechanics attempts to explain the far-flung debris by suggesting that the engine “tumbl[ed] across the ground” and that the light debris was “blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash.” Such scenarios are impossible given the nature of the crash, wherein the plane dove into the soft ground from a nearly vertical trajectory. This is evident in the deep impact crater whose shape mimics the cross-section of the aircraft, and by the agreement among eyewitness that the plane dropped from the sky in a vertical fashion. One of the most memorable aspects of this flight are the numerous calls allegedly made from passengers of Flight 93 to their family and loved ones. Nearly all of these calls were supposedly made from cell phones, and were relatively short. The exception was the supposed call from passenger Todd Beamer on an Airfone, which was routed to Verizon supervisor Lisa Jefferson. Jefferson interviewed Beamer in detail in a conversation that would last from 9h45 until his famous last words before leading a passenger revolt: “Let’s Roll.” One phone conversations is evidence of a missile striking the plane. The AP reported that at 9h58 a frantic passenger called from a bathroom and told operator Glenn Cramer that he had seen an explosion and smoke, and that the plane was “going down”. Investigators believe the passenger was Edward Felt.

Eyewitness testimony from people on the ground normally involves a white jet in pursuit of the jetliner, peculiar engine sounds before the crash, sounds of explosions before the plane fell from the sky and the appearance that the plane suddenly dropped vertically, suggestive of an explosion in the air, rather than “flying” the plane into the ground.

Further evidence that Flight 93 was shot down was provided by an apparent slip-up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in an interview with Brigadier General James Marks aired on December 24, 2004: “I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples’ heads on television to intimidate, to frighten — indeed the word ‘terrorized’ is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behaviou, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.” There are several independent lines of evidence that establish that Flight 93 crashed at 10h06 in Shanksville, PA. These include seismic signals recorded by seismic observatories at Solder’s Delight, Md, and Millersville, Pa., which pegged the impact time at 10h06’05”, with an error margin of five seconds. A report from Cleveland Air Traffic Control states that they had lost radar contact with Flight 93 at 10h06. Reports by witnesses on the ground reports of the plane flying low and erratically around 10h05.

Despite this extensive body of credible evidence establishing Flight 93’s impact time at 10h06, NORAD and the 9/11 Commission asserted that the impact was at 10h03. It may be a small difference, but a difference nevertheless. Why? NORAD provides no evidence to back up its claim; the Commission provided a long footnote to justify its use of 10h03. Why didn’t fighter planes intercept the hijackers? Normally, fighter planes would immediately have been scrambled to New York. When they finally were, they were from an airbase 150 miles away, rather than a much closer one in New Jersey. All the while the local TV channels were smoothly getting eye-in-the-sky helicopters into the air over the World Trade Centre. At best, it shows that the routine mobilizations stand in stark contrast to the apparent impotence and indecisiveness of the $350-billion-a-year US military. Yet, for all the shortcomings of the Federal Aviation Authority and the US Air Force that day, no-one was ever fired or reprimanded.

One explanation for this paralysis is that there was an air defence exercise going on in US airspace that same day, codenamed Vigilant Guardian. The air traffic controllers were confused by this, thinking the planes disappearing from their screens might be part of the exercise. When the first evidence came that hijackings were taking place, traffic control officials wasted valuable time wondering whether or not this was part of the Vigilant Guardian exercise.

In the case of Flight 93, there was sufficient time even for the “late” fighter planes, to intercept and shoot down. Though this is indeed what may have happened, the official line may have been reworked, so that the victims inside the plane were given a more heroic fate – that somehow, they had been able to “defeat” the terrorists… which is indeed far more heroic than being blown out of the sky by your own people, however required that may have been under the circumstances, in an effort to stop further bloodshed. The delay in take-off (very much like the problems on the Northern Line in London’s 7/7 bombings) may have stopped even more loss of life. Another problem here is those very phone calls from the planes. As I personally experienced while flying into Berlin once, I had accidentally left my mobile phone on. I realised my oversight when we were on final approach to the airport, and the mobile phone got a signal again – making the well-known sound. Experts agree that it is impossible to make a mobile phone call above 8,000 feet – let alone four times that altitude, as the jet passengers are alleged to have done. So how were these calls on which so much of the 9/11 narrative has been built ever made? Could they possibly have been invented? Fabricated? It is a fact that these phone calls are mystery, but at the same time have been used by everyone to back up the established view of hijackers taking control of the plane, without explaining their mysterious origins. Prior knowledge ? In the Kennedy assassination, “evidence” of conspiracy was collated by describing suspicious behaviour of people. For example, Richard Nixon was believed to be “involved”, merely because he was in Dallas the previous day and left the same morning that Kennedy landed. We can only wonder whether Nixon – if he was the man behind the crime – would not preferred to have stayed away from Dallas at that time. In his case, it is clear that the same people gathering to meet Kennedy, had also arranged certain meetings with him – the ex-vice-president and potential future president of the US – which would perfectly explain his presence and time of departure.

With 9/11, there were rumours that a group of Pentagon officials was warned to avoid the targets. Newsweek reported: “Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent. On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.”

A number of business leaders who would normally have been in the World Trade Center, were instead at a meeting hosted by Warren Buffett at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska, the Air Force where president Bush would be flown to until the all clear was given for his return to Washington. That group included Anne Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust Inc., a company that occupied five floors on or above the 90th floor of the South Tower.

One person who admitted that prior warnings of the attack were given was San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, saying he had received a warning from what he described as his airport security late Monday evening, just hours before the attack.

The author Salman Rushdie, who is under the continuous police protection, was prevented from flying on September 11, as was Ariel Sharon, who was scheduled to give an address to Israeli support groups in New York City. It is, of course, well-known that throughout August, various government officials were warning about such terrorist attacks. It is also featured in Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. Even though the top echelons of the government did not react to it (either because did not they want to or because of inexperience – or in the case of Bush “holidays”) does not mean the rest of the nation should not react to it and try to prevent it. In the final analysis, it meant that largely uninformed people died that day – uninformed because the government had not informed them of the terrorist threat and had equally failed to stop it.

By strange irony, the company heading a consortium that had just obtained a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center was supposedly spared by a last-minute cancellation. According to the New York Times, Silverstein Properties had planned to meet on 9/11 on the 88th floor of one of the towers to “discuss what to do in the event of a terrorist attack”, but cancelled the meeting Monday night “because one participant could not attend.” Suspects ? Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested by the police in the aftermath of the assassination, as he “acted suspiciously”. He was arrested as a suspect in the killing of a local police officer (J.D. Tippitt) and then suspected of also being the assassin in the Kennedy assassination, though he, as he pointed out himself, was not charged with the latter.

On September 11, 2001, a resident of Jersey City reported suspicious behaviour by a group of men who appeared to be celebrating as they filmed the destruction from across the Hudson River. The “suspects” were on the roof of their company’s building near Liberty State Park, shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.

As in 1963, the mainstream media initially reported that the men, who were arrested around 16h30, were Arabs. Soon, it was learnt that they were actually Israelis, but it did not change the stance of the authorities: the FBI released them only 71 days later.

The FBI also detained other groups of Israeli’s before and after 9/11, concluding some were part of an “organised intelligence-gathering operation” designed to “penetrate government facilities”.

The men, it is clear, were connected with the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad; all they may have been doing was creating a personal record of the event, which they would most likely then ship onwards to their superiors in Mossad, to do analysis. At the same time, when Arab terrorists are blamed for crimes, it is well-known that Israel is the first to feel happy about themselves, because of their stance that their own government sponsored crime record is deemed to be “required” in light of the Arab terrorist challenge they face.

In 1963, the CIA tried to create a fabricated trail of evidence, in which Oswald was connected with Cuba, and then was depicted as going to Cuba shortly before the assassination, in what could be interpreted as a man receiving his orders. The entire story was fabricated, but nevertheless leaked to the press, in the hope that the government would be forced to change its position on Cuba (which Kennedy had made untouchable) and sanction an invasion, in retaliation for the assassination of the US president. This did not happen. But we do need to wonder whether something like this did happen in 9/11.

It is clear that the Afghanistan and specifically Iraq invasion have nothing to do with the 9/11. The disaster was used as an excuse to validate the government’s invasionist policy. But 9/11 also changed the landscape of the Middle East. The Israel and Palestine agenda took on a different nature and – specifically – the Arab terrorist threat was made No. 1 on the world’s political agenda. Though the Israeli government has maintained its stance on improving life for the Palestinians, we can only wonder whether someone in the Intelligence agency caused, aided or used 9/11 to try and change that position. It will remain speculation and I only want to raise the similarities of the question – the answer may perhaps be known at some later moment in time.

Still, it is evident that the arrested Israeli were a major catch for the FBI. One man was found with $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, another had two passports on him, and a box cutter was found in the van. One report stated that maps of the city were found in the car, with “certain places” highlighted. The report suggested there was a link with 9/11. Of course, maps are often marked. Only a detailed investigation would have found out whether the markings were related to any activity of 9/11, such as hideouts, places where the hijackers stayed, etc. One of these Israelis later said: “Our purpose was to document the event”, which can be interpreted in many ways and leaves out the key question whether they started “documenting” like so many others started rolling their cameras, or whether they were “documenting” the events before everyone else – i.e. they were part of the terrorist plot.

Even so, with the knowledge that prior warnings did exist, the Israeli Mossad may have known what was going to happen on 9/11. After all, throughout the last decades, infiltrating Arab terrorists has been the prime occupation of that intelligence agency, having much more success than any of its Western colleagues. It may also be the case that Mossad warned their people the attack was imminent and take actions. It would explain the cancellation of Sharon’s travel plans. It could explain that Mossad asked their NY operatives to film the entire sequence of events. It could also explain what reporter Christopher Bollyn stated, namely that Zim American Israeli Shipping Co. broke a lease in order to vacate the World Trade Center just days before the attack. Bollyn’s source claims that Zim’s lease extended through the end of the year and that the termination cost $50,000. It would have been a small price to pay to cheat death and problems. It could, of course, just be coincidence. The larger picture The crimes of 9/11 came as a godsend for Donald Rumsfeld. On September 10, the Secretary of Defense held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. This is a pretty big hole, which makes the Enron scandal look small. Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal and resignations and investigations would have been called for. In short, super-gigantic amounts of tax payers’ money was unaccounted for.

However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. It is an intriguing coincidence – either revealing the irony of Fate or the hand of a manipulator – that it was the Pentagon Building itself that would receive a “hole” in the terrorist blast the next day. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the “War on Terror”. A lot has been made about the Pentagon attacks, as we already saw, with several critics arguing that the site shows no evidence of a jet crashing into it. They believe a missile or a remote controlled aircraft hit the Pentagon. They believe that the methodology of searching the lawns for evidence and the removal of the plane itself substantiate this possibility. Again, either by design or Fate, the Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attacks was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon’s money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defence contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies, including remote-controlled aircraft systems. Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America’s Defences which called for “a New Pearl Harbour” – which is exactly what happened on September 11. By design or divine Fortune, Zakheim announced his nefarious position (for which he was not to blame, but could be held responsible and would have to resolve) on September 10 – never having to face the difficult times that lay ahead of him. Anthrax Three weeks after 9/11, America was under attack from anthrax letters. Like the events of 21/7 in London largely took away the public’s attention from the events of 7/7, the anthrax square drew away the media’s attention to a “new scare”.

Five recipients of contaminated letters died, postal facilities were closed, as were office buildings on Capitol Hill where hundreds of lawmakers and staff were tested and given an antibiotic. At the time, this was seized on by the Washington power-brokers pressing for action against Iraq. “Who but Saddam Hussein could have supplied Arab terrorists with anthrax,” they asked.

The answer – which was not given ample attention – was “someone else”, for it was soon learned that this particular strain stemmed only from the government’s own labs in Maryland. In short, someone with the government was sending these out, killing innocent Americans, bringing America to an ever higher state of alert – at a time when America had so far failed to “respond” to the terrorist attack. Someone, it seemed, was trying to finger the Iraqis for both…

Intriguingly, Congress was shut down at a time when questions about 9/11 were beginning to surface. A complex enquiry was aborted, as if the anthrax campaign underlined the validity that America was indeed under attack, America should unite, and not ask questions –invade foreign countries, it seems, was what America should do instead. Operation Northwoods There is a precedent for a plot by America’s military bosses to fabricate an outrage against innocent civilians, fool the world and provide a pretext for war. It was called Operation Northwoods and dates from 1962 – the period in which Kennedy was president and the year in which most likely the plot to dispose of him was hatched – following his reluctance to agree to a Cuban invasion. [We can equally note the “irony” that the official policy of Kennedy and Bush was largely identical, calling an end to America’s role as a police force to be rolled out and invade foreign countries.]

In Operation Northwoods, the Pentagon, a top secret team drew up a plan to simultaneously send up two airliners painted and numbered exactly the same, one from a civil airport in America, the other from a secret military airbase nearby. The one from the airport would have military personnel on board who had checked in as ordinary passengers under false names. The one from the airbase would be an empty drone, a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft.

Somewhere along their joint flight paths, the passenger-carrying plane would drop below radar height, and disappear, landing back at the airbase and unloading its occupants in secret. Meanwhile, the drone would have taken up the other plane’s designated course. High over the island of Cuba, it would be exploded in mid-air after broadcasting an international distress call that it was under attack from enemy fighters.

The world would be told that a plane load of blameless American holidaymakers had been deliberately shot down by Fidel Castro’s Communists – and that the US had no choice but to declare war and topple his regime. Substitute Cuba with Afghanistan and Iraq and the airliner with the Twin Towers, and 9/11 is indeed born. Furthermore, the scenario does work – and has as a consequence become one of the cornerstones for the conspiracy allegations against the US government and its involvement in 9/11. For most observers, the idea of US involvement in the attacks still strains credulity beyond breaking point. Yet that catalogue of unanswered questions remains troubling. Some are very basic. How, for example, did the hijackers manage to slip past airport security with weapons? The White House explanation is “plastic knives”, but there has never been any independent confirmation of how the men were armed. Some passengers who made phone calls from the doomed planes said they witnessed stabbings but others spoke of bombs and even guns being used.

But there is a vast difference between certain distorted facts and a “global conspiracy”, which is what some have made 9/11 into. Time will tell who was right, and who was wrong. As to the Kennedy assassination, it took more than three decades to paint a somewhat coherent picture…      

Related Articles