JANUARY 2006

High-Ranking Military
Officers And Airline Pilots
Agree Flt 175 Did Not
Hit WTC South Tower
By Dave vonKleist The Power Hour
12-15-5 http://www.rense.com/general69/175.htm  

Startling new revelations about the 9/11 attacks were recently released on The Power Hour radio program. Col. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, "The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175".  After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, "That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted." ( www.thepowerhour.com/news2/replay_aug8_2005.htm ) This shocking conclusion is also being echoed by other military officers and commercial airline pilots. Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, "The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage". A mysterious "flash" is also seen in the clips that indicate possible incendiary events took place before the planes entered the towers. Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, "The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767", confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place. Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, US Army (ret.), an expert in photo analysis, reviewed the photos taken at the Pentagon before the collapse and concluded, "The plane does not fit in that hole!" indicating that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 strike. This explosive information not only brings into question the official story of the September 11th attacks, but also the real motives behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the War on Terror, the beneficiaries of government contracts, and the resulting legislation like the USA Patriot Act that was passed without review by Congress after the 9/11 attacks.  Because an increasing number of military personnel, civilian pilots, physicists, educators and law enforcement officials are now questioning the official story of hijackers responsible for the attacks on September 11th , 2001, there is a call for the re-opening of an investigation into the 911 attacks. ( www.reopen911.org ) The video clips and photographs examined are included in the controversial documentary, "911 In Plane Site" a Power Hour production. ( www.911inplanesite.com ) New York Magazine just prior to South Tower hit. Sept. 24th (2001) Issue Photo by Rob Howard plus enlargement that reveals protrusion on fuselage.    The Power Hour www.thepowerhour.com Joyce Riley & Dave vonKleist Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11 Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered James H.Fetzer, PhD., has publicly thrown his hat in the ring to support other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on the official 9/11 story.16 Dec 2005 By Greg Szymanski   A University of Minnesota philosophy professor, like an unexpected Christmas snowstorm, has dropped a large bundle of holiday cheer on the 9/11 truth movement, as this week he has thrown his hat into the ring with others seeking the truth.   “I stand with Steve Jones, professor of physics at BYU and David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus of Theology at Claremont and other students and scholars of 9/11, who believe that extraordinary times require extraordinary measures,” said  James H. Fetzer, PhD., a distinguished McNight University professor at the University of Minnesota at Duluth.   Professor Fetzer now becomes another in a long list of academicians, including Jones and Griffin, who have cast severe doubt on the credibility of the government’s official 9/11 story, calling for a renewed debate and independent investigation to get at the truth.  Fetzer has published more than 100 articles and reviews as well as 20 books in the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.   According to his biography on this web page, his publications have been divided by area, including special vitae for computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, evolution and cognition, and his applied philosophical research on the death of JFK.   Fetzer, who just entered the public 9/11 arena this week, agreed to appear next Monday on Greg Szymanski’s nationwide radio show, the Investigative Journal, on the Republic Broadcasting Network at www.rbnlive.com to explain why he has joined in the 9/11 truth fight.   As expected, a philosophy professor digs deep into the heart of the matter, dissecting words and meanings Before talking about specific evidence, Fetzer provides this illuminating discussion on “conspiracy theories,” relating to 9/11 in a recent paper he wrote called “Thinking About Conspiracy Theories: 9/11 and JFK.”   “One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a conspiracy theory,” wrote Fetzer.   “When critics of the government offer an alternative account that implicates key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously qualifies as a ‘conspiracy theory’, too.  But what matters now is that we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on  9/11, both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories".  It is therefore no longer rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in favor of the other.  The question becomes, which of two ‘conspiracy theories’ is more defensible?”   After setting the record straight on conspiracy theories, Fetzer in his paper delves into an analysis of the 9/11 evidence, saying that the controlled demolition of the WTC must be taken seriously.   “Most Americans may not realize that no steel-structure high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire in the history of civil engineering, either before or after 9/11,” wrote Fetzer. “If we assume that those fires have occurred in a wide variety of buildings under a broad range of conditions, that evidence suggests that these buildings do not have a propensity to collapsed as an effect of fire.  That makes an alternative explanation, especially the use of powerful explosives in a controlled demolition, a hypothesis that must be taken seriously.”    Besides the WTC, Fetzer also provides a detailed analysis of the Pentagon crash, questioning as many before him, “What Really Happened?”   In his paper, he states:   “If a small fighter jet rather than a Boeing 757 had hit the Pentagon, that would tend to explain the small impact point, the lack of massive external debris, and a hole in  the inner ring of the building, which the fragile nose of a Boeing 757 could not have created.    “It would also suggest why parts of a plane were carried off by servicemen, since they might have made the identification of the aircraft by type apparent and  falsified the official account.  A small fighter also accommodates the report from Danielle O'Brien, an air traffic controller, who said of the aircraft that hit, "Its speed, maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room—all of us experienced air traffic controllers—that it was a military plane.”   In concluding his academic look at 9/11, Fetzer boldly asks Americans to Endeavour to seek the truth in every possible way, suggesting the “government-dominated” mass media has presented one of the biggest obstacles.   “Which raises the question, who had the power to make these things happen and to cover it up,” asks Fetzer.  “Once the evidence has been sorted out and appropriately appraised, the answer is no longer very difficult to find.  Like the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11 required involvement at the highest levels of the American government.   “This conclusion, moreover, receives confirmation from the conduct of our highest elected officials, who took extraordinary steps to prevent any formal investigation of 9/11 and, when it was forced upon them by tremendous political pressure, especially from the survivors of victims of these crimes, they did whatever they could to subvert them.  There are good reasons for viewing The 9/11 Commission Report  (2004) as the historical successor to and functional equivalent of The Warren Report (1964).   “I therefore believe that those of us who care about the truth and the restoration of responsible government in the United States have an obligation to make use of every possible media venue from talk radio and the internet to newspapers and television whenever possible.  The American people can act wisely only when they know the truth.    “So, while the truth is said to "make us free", the truth only matters when the American people are able to discover what is true.  Obstacles here that are posed by the government-dominated mass media, including the use of stooge "reporters" and of prepackaged "news releases", only make matters that much more difficult.  As John Dean asks in Worse than Watergate (2004), if there has ever been an administration more prone to deceiving the American people in our history, which one could it be?”   Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight 93 and 175, Were Only Just Recently Taken Off The FAA 'Active' List Are Both Jetliners Still Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?   FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier. By Greg Szymanski  11-26-5                Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity. The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC. Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government. In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were 'deregistered' and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002. Why the late filing by United? "My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered.   The FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name. "Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were deregistered.   What's up with that?  "Although the planes are deregistered, they are not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled.   The American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United planes.  "There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago.   I  know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly right about the planes still being registered. "Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying?  Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery?   So did Flight 93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?" A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.' The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as 'cancelled not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further explanation. Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records. According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights. Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS. Why the discrepancy?  No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.                     More importantly critics contend this is another clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning 9/11. Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from unverified sources. On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however.  Remember, complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later. Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities found one of the   most glaring errors never explained by the airlines or the government. Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be found at http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php,  uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower. Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say: "What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims? "It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight." For more Greg Szymanski articles, please visit http://www.arcticbeacon.com/arcticbeacon.html