The official report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) relating to the two planes that crashed into WTC on September 11, 2001 shows that they were traveling at a speed of 945 km/h and 796 km/h respectively.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, has pointed out that, according to the manufacturer, the Boeing 767 develops structural failure and dismembers at a speed surpassing 660 km/h when flying at near sea level in thick air. This has also been certified by a former senior NASA executive, Dwain Deets.
It necessarily follows that the aircraft that slammed into the World Trade Center could not have been the planes corresponding to commercial flights United 175 and American 11.
In his book The Big Lie, Thierry Meyssan had entertained the possibility that the two aircraft had actually been substituted by military planes according to the procedure contemplated in Operation Northwoods (p. 168).
The NTSB report, which was declassified at the request of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, had already revealed that the cockpit door of flight American 77 had remained locked from the time of take-off until it disappeared from radar screens and allegedly crashed at the Pentagon site.
The logical conclusion is that it would have been materially impossible to highjack the flight.
With legal charges brought against them by the families of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the airline companies claimed that even if they had multiplied the number of safety measures, the attacks would have succeeded anyway.
According to their lawyers, the lack of response on the part of the authorities is enough to account for the heavy casualties incurred that day. To substantiate their arguments, the attorneys requested the appearance in court of certain FBI agents.
In fact, after 9/11, the FBI carried out a broad investigation into the attacks. The evidence gathered would indicate that on that day the government failed to follow the statutory procedures that would have prevented the multiplication of the attacks.
However, following the intervention of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Judge Alvin Hellerstein barred the hearing of the FBI agents, thwarting the chances of the airline companies to further elaborate their defense.
The hearing has been rescheduled for the 28th of July.
Seven years after those criminal acts, the FBI investigation, comprising 155,000 pieces of incriminating evidence and 167,000 official interrogation reports, has as yet to be examined in court. Their content has been revealed in connection with the trials of other related cases [1] and through declarations made to the press by FBI agents, who have asserted that their investigation belies the government’s version of the 9/11 events [2].
Contradicting the statements by CIA officials and successive Attorneys General, the FBI has consistently refused to attribute the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks to Osama Bin Laden whose name does not, consequently, appear in the FBI wanted list related to those attacks.
References
[1] For example, during the trial against French national Zacarias Moussaoui who was charged with conspiracy with a view to participating in the high-jacking of American Airlines flight 93, the FBI refuted the telephone conversations between passengers in the high-jacked planes and their loves ones on the ground. The officials under oath stated that – in light of their investigation – such calls, so often alluded to, never took place and are mere fabrications.
[2] « 41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11», by Alan Miller, Voltaire Network, 19 Mai 2009.
There Must Be a Reason - Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification
Part contemporary investigation and part historical inquiry, documentary follows the quest of one journalist in search of justice.
The film focuses on Christopher Hitchens' charges against Henry Kissinger as a war criminal - allegations documented in Hitchens' book of the same title - based on his role in countries such as Cambodia, Chile, and Indonesia.
Kissinger's story raises profound questions about American foreign policy and highlights a new era of human rights. Increasing evidence about one man's role in a long history of human rights abuses leads to a critical examination of American diplomacy through the lens of international standards of justice.
This incisive documentary offers a sobering portrait of Kissinger, quite possibly the most powerful and influential diplomat in U.S. government in the latter half of the 20th century.
Based on the book of nearly the same name by journalist and critic Christopher Hitchens (the slender volume goes with the singularized Trial), the movie takes on the form of a legal argument, bringing forward case studies that aim to illuminate Hitchens' claims against Kissinger.
Among the significant events in Kissinger's career that the movie tackles are:
his purported secret diplomacy during the 1968 peace talks to end the Vietnam War
the secret bombing of Cambodia in the early '70s without congressional authorization
an alleged U.S.-backed plot to overthrow the leftist government of Chilean leader Salvador Allende
The movie features numerous interviews with legal experts, journalists, and high-ranking diplomats, such as:
Alexander Haig
Walter Isaacson
Roger Morris
Hitchens himself
Predictably, Kissinger did not participate in the making of the picture.
Vice-president Dick Cheney Comes Clean - He Was the Real President, and He Stands by All of His...
- He Was the Real President, and He Stands by All of His Mistakes -
by Maureen Dowd March 6, 2013, from NYTimes Website
Dick Cheney certainly gives certainty a black eye.
In a documentary soon to appear on Showtime, “The World According to Dick Cheney,” America’s most powerful and destructive vice president woos history by growling yet again that he was right and everyone else was wrong.
R.J. Cutler, who has done documentaries on the Clinton campaign war room and Anna Wintour’s Vogue war paint room, now chronicles Cheney’s war boom.
“If I had to do it over again,” the 72-year-old says chillingly of his reign of error, “I’d do it over in a minute.”
Cheney, who came from a family of Wyoming Democrats, says his conservative bent was strengthened watching the anti-Vietnam war protests at the University of Wisconsin, where he was pursuing a doctorate and dodging the draft.
“I can remember the mime troupe meeting there and the guys that ran around in white sheets with the entrails of pigs, dripping blood,” he said.
Maybe if he’d paid more attention to the actual war, conducted with a phony casus belli in a country where we did not understand the culture, he wouldn’t have propelled America into two more Vietnams.
The documentary doesn’t get to the dark heart of the matter about the man with the new heart.
Did he change, after the shock to his body of so many heart procedures and the shock to his mind of 9/11?
Or was he the same person, patiently playing the courtier, once code-named “Backseat” by the Secret Service, until he found the perfect oblivious frontman who would allow him to unleash his harebrained, dictatorial impulses?
Talking to Cutler in his deep headmaster’s monotone, Cheney dispenses with the fig leaf of “we.”
He no longer feigns deference to 'W.' (George W. Bush), whom he now disdains for favoring Condi over him in the second term, and for not pardoning “Cheney’s Cheney,” Scooter Libby.
“I had a job to do,” he said.
Continuing:
“I got on the telephone with the president, who was in Florida, and told him not to be at one location where we could both be taken out.”
Cheney kept W. flying aimlessly in the air on 9/11 while he and Lynne left on a helicopter for a secure undisclosed location, leaving Washington in a bleak, scared silence, with no one reassuring the nation in those first terrifying hours.
“I gave the instructions that we’d authorize our pilots to take it out,” he says, referring to the jet headed to Washington that crashed in a Pennsylvania field. He adds: “After I’d given the order, it was pretty quiet. Everybody had heard it, and it was obviously a significant moment.”
This guy makes Al Haig look like a shrinking violet.
When they testified together before the 9/11 Commission, W. and Cheney kept up a pretense that in a previous call, the president had authorized the vice president to give a shoot-down order if needed.
But the commission found “no documentary evidence for this call.”
In his memoir, W. described feeling “blindsided” again and again.
In this film, the blindsider is the éminence grise who was supposed to shore up the untested president.
The documentary reveals the Iago lengths that Cheney went to in order to manipulate the unprepared junior Bush.
Vice had learned turf fighting from a maniacal master of the art, his mentor Donald Rumsfeld.
When he was supposed to be vetting vice presidential candidates, Cheney was actually demanding so much material from them that there was always something to pick on.
He filled W.’s head with stories about conflicts between presidents and vice presidents sparked by the vice president’s ambition, while protesting that he himself did not want the job.
In an unorthodox move, he ran the transition, hiring all his people, including Bush senior’s nemesis, Rummy, and sloughing off the Friends of George; then he gave himself an all-access pass.
He was always goosing up W.’s insecurities so he could take advantage of them.
To make his crazy and appallingly costly detour from Osama to Saddam, and cherry-pick his fake case for invading Iraq, he played on W.’s fear of being lampooned as a wimp, as his father had been.
But after Vice kept W. out of the loop on the Justice Department’s rebellion against Cheney’s illegal warrantless domestic spying program, the relationship was ruptured.
It was too late to rein in the feverish vice president, except to tell him he couldn’t bomb a nuclear plant in the Syrian desert.
“Condi was on the wrong side of all those issues,” Cheney rumbled to Cutler.
Cheney still hearts waterboarding.
“Are you going to trade the lives of a number of people because you want to preserve your honor?” he asked, his voice dripping with contempt.
“I don’t lie awake at night thinking, gee, what are they going to say about me?” he sums up.
They’re going to say you were a misguided power-monger who, in a paranoid spasm, led this nation into an unthinkable calamity.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan.
Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border.
This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002).
And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that,
"The UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts with Libya."
(BBC Online, August 10 2002)
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project.
Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy?
If there was ever a need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
