"Flight 77" The White Plane (explosive new CIT release!)

[Laura]

There are a few additional things to consider as I wrote in "Comments On The Pentagon Strike":

Now, let's move on to the "How did they do it?" question.

I once spoke at length with an individual who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. His job was to "program" missiles - VERY smart ones. Even though it was his job, he was completely astonished at their capabilities. He said: "They can be programmed to go down the street just above the ground, turn right or left at a cross street, and hit the designated building at the exact floor, even the exact window, that you tell them to hit!" He then said that he was exaggerating, but not much, and he was describing it this way just to emphasize for me the capability of modern guidance systems.

Now, that's amazing.

But let me make this perfectly clear: I don't think that it was a ]missile that hit the Pentagon.

The point of mentioning the smart missiles in use during Gulf War I is to bring up the subject of the guidance system. ....

Once I realized that the descripton of the smart bomb maneuvers exactly fits what happened at the Pentagon, the question that I asked myself was: Could such a guidance system be used in a plane? Even commercial jetliners?

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the "smart missile guidance system." Now have a look at he "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" and take note of just what this handy gadget can do! It even shows diagrams of maneuvers of exactly the kind we are talking about! (Do go and read the technical paper to assure yourself of the possibility that such a guidance system was, indeed, available and does, indeed, describe exactly the behavior of this anomalous 757.)

The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action - repeated that something smaller than a 757 was seen to strike the Pentagon.

This certainly creates some confusion. What can we make of it? Can the early witnesses be trusted more than the ones who came forward later, after having watched the shocking impact of commercial jetliners on the World Trade Center, over and over and over again on television and after hearing the repeated assurances that a Boeing hit the Pentagon as well? We must certainly consider that it is altogether possible that such repeated exposure to the WTC event by the media could create certain synaptic maps of the event that were then overlaid on the Pentagon event by simple suggestion. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote:

Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, (who may have had an agenda) said he saw a large American Airlines passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw.

One of the things that didn't make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn't. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was certainly flying low enough to clip light poles and didn't scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture.

Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows.

The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that as long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses - and by the evidence on the ground - that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who did NOT SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound.

"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."

"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh," just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of it hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!

If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way.

Another problem with this part of the story is the following comments from a resident of the DC area:

I live in the DC area, and the street lights are not very tall. In fact DC is a very "treed" city. Many of the trees are taller than the lamp posts. [...] If the wings of a 757 were hitting the lamp posts, the engines would be driven into the ground, provided that the plane was in a straight and level position.

The exhaust of those huge engines - that would necessarily be scraping the ground if they are hitting light poles - is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget.

You might want to take a look at the engineof this plane... there's 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth.

Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.

"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."

Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers.

The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft. And yet, there were supposed to be indentifiable body parts all over the place?

And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down while, at the same time claiming that it was the force of impact that vaporized the aircraft? It just doesn't add up. [LAM]

All of this is interesting, but it only adds to the confusion. We can't make too much of the various witness accounts. But let's look at still another report:

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. [...]

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."

In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet. ...

The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. This could easily be a consequence of the "memory making" process I have described above. The fact is, until the spin machine had done its work, except for a few government officials, most of the witness' descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of something other than a Boeing 757.

Many heard a jet. Others heard a missile. (All military men.) Those near Flight 77 as it came over the cemetery, saw it and heard it pass silently (no engine); whereas those near the killer jet which came by the freeway and knocked down the lamp posts heard its loud scream as it put on speed to reach the wall as the airliner flew over it. Witnesses who saw only one plane fall into two distinct groups, each seeing a different plane, on a different path, at different altitude, with different sound, at different speeds. A third set of witnesses saw two planes approach the Pentagon and one of these veer away.

Nevertheless, we are certain that it was a plane - it had wings - it knocked over poles on the incoming trajectory that it maneuvered "like a smart missile." And we know that there is a "guidance system" that has the capability of doing exactly what this object was described to have done.

As it happens, a correspondent had an interesting encounter on a train that goes along with the story about the military transport plane that so "luckily" spotted the "Boeing." In his own words:

I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man's story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact".

He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn't ID the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall).

The claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is extremely suspect for another reason: there is NO PROOF that the plane that disappeared from rader over Southern Ohio actually "turned around" and headed back for Washington. See the Washington Post article that discusses the thrity minutes of complete Radar Invisibility. This report says, in part:

The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens. The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed. [...]

With no signal on their radar screens, controllers did not realize that Flight 77 had reversed direction.

At 9:09 a.m., unable to reach the plane by radio, the Indianapolis controller reported a possible crash, sources said.

The first time that anyone became aware an aircraft was headed at high speed toward Washington was when the hijacked flight began descending and entered airspace controlled by the Dulles International Airport TRACON facility, an aviation source said.

The first Dulles controller noticed the fast-moving plane at 9:25 a.m. Moments later, controllers sounded an alert that an aircraft appeared to be headed directly toward the White House. It later turned and hit the Pentagon.

The report from the Washington Post also contradicts other reports which said that the radios transmitted sounds of voices with Arabic accents making threatening sounds:

Unlike at least two of the other aircraft, whose pilots apparently held radios open so controllers could hear the hijackers, there was only silence from Flight 77.

There are just too many problems of the Pentagon strike that indicate that it was not a Boeing 757 that plowed into the building. And this leads us to the most interesting questions.

If it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, why is the Administration rabidly declaring that it was and attacking anyone who questions that story with the slur of "conspiracy theory" rather than providing the evidence that it was for the public to examine themselves?

Why would George Bush and his gang be so resistant to an impartial investigation? (The official investigation cannot be considered impartial.)

Why was all the evidence of the crime scene immediately destroyed even though the government claims that "their experts" were taking care of everything?

Why can't we see the various films of the event that certainly exist from numerous security cameras in the area?

Why is the public denied full access to all the information about the crime?

After all, if the perpetrator has been identified, there should be nothing about a crime scene that would need to be withheld in order to catch the criminal, right? And if there is so much certainty about the perpetrators, why not let the public know all the details? If it was true, it could only help the Administration's case, right? So why all the stonewalling, all the backpedaling and secrecy? If actions are undertaken in good faith with the honest purpose of discovering the truth, there is no need for carefully guarded secrecy. In such circumstances, only the guilty seek the darkness to hide their crimes.

The whole thing has been so "managed," so quickly"figured out" and cleaned up and put away, that it stinks to high heaven of a "sales job."

Can it be that the public has been "sold" an answer - the answer that the Bush Administration wants them to believe and has arranged, with the complicity of the mass media?

The administration doesn't seem to have any problem at all believing that some crazed fundies hijacked four planes in the Most Powerful Nation on Earth, flew them around for extended periods of time, flew two of them into the World Trade Center Towers even though an intelligence expert plainly said in the early days after the attack that the clues leading to this conclusion were standard for False Flag Operations.

But, let's assume that's what happened. Let's also give the Administration the benefit of the doubt about their hurried naming of the perpetrators and their too quick destruction of the crime scene. Let's assume that their experts did handle everything well and they just have some psychological need for secrecy, or that there IS some compelling reason to stonewall a proper investigation.

We are still faced with the sticking point here: hypothesizing that somebody went to the trouble to arrange for a couple big jets to hit the World Trade Center, and we were shown the films of these jets hitting said buildings over and over again, why was the attack on the Pentagon so "different" in scope and evidence, most particularly the repeated showing of the attack on television? (The lack of same, that is.)

Why can't we see the surveillance videos of the same type of commercial jet hitting the pentagon???

We are stuck with a marvelous conundrum. If no 757 hit the Pentagon, why is the government claiming it did?

Let's assume that it WAS a smaller, or different type of plane that hit the Pentagon. No matter who was behind the events, if they did not use a 757 to strike the pentagon, WHY? If they were able to commandeer large aircraft, why not use one for the Pentagon?

Now here I am going to go in a couple of different speculative directions, so bear with me. The little grey cells are smokin'!

We notice that there is one major difference between the strikes on the WTC and the Pentagon: the extent of the destruction.

That is what IS.

And so, let's ask the question: could there be a reason for this?

The first thing we notice when we compare the two events - that is, the attack on the Towers and the attack on the Pentagon - is that the World Trade Center Towers were totally destroyed and there was enormous loss of life, while the Pentagon only had a small hole, and the collapse of a section that was not even fully occupied because it was still under construction. Or so we are told. We have already noted this supreme failure on the part of the suicidal Islamic Fundies who could plan such an extraordinary operation and yet do such limited damage to the Pentagon.

Doing limited damage to the Pentagon can NOT have been the objective of Fundamental Islamic Terrorists who were ostensibly striking at the heart of the "Great Satan" with burning hatred of the United States and its freedoms.

What if the limited damage was the intended difference between the very public and well publicized strikes against the World Trade Center? Total destruction as opposed to minimal destruction and damage? Or "targeted" destruction.

This leads us to why a different type of plane might be used in the strike on the Pentagon: the only answer that presents itself as obvious is that of the necessity for precision so as to inflict an exact amount of damage, no more, no less..

So let us theorize that precision was the major concern in the strike on the Pentagon and that is why a different attack device was utilized.

Which brings us back to the idea of a plane that had onboard smart missile guidance system - a system that can guide its carrier to literally turn corners and hit the target with such precision that "it is amazing."

Theorizing that precision was a major concern - precision of the type that can hit an exact window on a designated floor and do an exact and designated amount of damage - we arrive at the idea that such precision and limitation was essential for some reason.

What could that reason be?

Why would the conspirators want to totally destroy one target - where civilians were the main victims - and only partly destroy another?

What immediately comes to mind is this one of the oldest tricks in the criminal play book: self-inflicted injury as an alibi.

But there is a second possible reason as well. Readers may remember the Tylenol murders where cyanide was put in a random selection of bottles, placed back on the shelves in the stores, so that random persons would die to cover up the fact that a specific murder was the objective of this seemingly "random" act of terror.

So, what if there was someone - or something - in the Pentagon that someone wanted to preserve OR destroy?

We notice that the Navy lost its new command center.

We wonder, of course, if the Navy ONI was one agency that had not been compromised by the NEOcon invasion of Washington? Could that be one of the reasons that the Naval Command Center was destroyed? Consider the following:

Al Martin's book "The Conspirators" is a secret history of the late 20th century and an uncensored version of what really goes on in the back rooms of realpolitik brokers and go-fers. - In his book, Al writes that contrary to popular belief, ONI is the most powerful US intelligence agency. "The ONI already had a deep existing covert illegal structure. They had a mechanism before the CIA even existed. They had contacts in foreign intelligence services and in foreign governments that the CIA never could have hoped to obtain."

"The only people the CIA wouldn't step on to accomplish their aims was ONI. They would easily subvert an FBI or DEA investigation, but never ONI, because they were frightened of them." - "ONI is where the real deep control is. It's where the real deep secrets are kept. That was what ONI always did the best. Keeping secrets. Accumulating secrets. Warehousing secrets for the purposes of control."

"When I asked him 'what secrets?' he replied, "One thing I can tell you is the ONI was instrumental in dethroning former Mexican President Louis Portillo. Portillo got very friendly with George Bush and the CIA, and ONI had never alligned with the Bush faction. I know what people think, but that's not true. From what I can tell, it has never been aligned, but has always been hostile to that Eastern Country Club Bush Cabal and their friends in the CIA. The Bill Casey faction is the George Bush-Allen Dulles Faction."

Not a very nice idea, is it? That the United States has been taken over by a coup d'etat, that the secrets of the ways and means of keeping "American Freedoms" may have been destroyed in the WTC, and in a few selected rooms of the Pentagon.

So, this hypothesis has actually split into two directions: that of alibi, or intentional murder.

If we consider the Alibi conjecture, we include the idea that precision was necessary to insure the safety of CERTAIN occupants of the building. If you inflict an injury on yourself to allay suspicion, you don't want to make a mistake and blow your head off!

In short, considering the above questions, it is possible that a number of the conspirators were IN THE PENTAGON AT THE TIME IT WAS HIT, or that certain TARGETS were in the building, and this was the reason for a different "mode of attack" - a precision strike. And it is possible that both objectives could be served with a precision strike.

We notice that Newsweek coyly mentions that "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

If what we have theorized is true, it's not likely that they canceled their travel plans because they might get on the wrong jet - after all, according to them, they didn't know about a possible terrorist attack - but rather to assure that they would be in place for their alibi - or their destruction. I would be very interested to know who those guys were.

Without data we can't answer these questions and with either of these two lines of conjecture, we really can go no further.

The fact is that the buildings that represent not only our status in the world, but also our ability to maintain that status - i.e. our military organization - were hit by alleged terrorists. The emotional reaction of the masses of citizens was that the U.S. not only had a right to strike back with all its power, but also that it MUST. That is also "what IS." The masses of pedestrian thinkers do not look at the possibility of a self inflicted wound being an alibi.

Criminals have been pulling this wool over the eyes of juries for a very long time.

There is another problem with the fact that the government will not release the security videos that obviously would show WHAT HIT the Pentagon.

Because there is no reason that the conspirators should NOT release the videos EVEN IF A DIFFERENT CRAFT WAS USED TO STRIKE THE PENTAGON because, after all, a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack no matter what kind of plane they use, right?

If, according to the cover story of the current administration, Osama bin Laden had the resources to set up the hijacking of commercial jets to hit the World Trade Center, there is no reason he could not also have had the resources to get his hands on a fancy guided drone plane, or even a smaller jet, or anything similar for that matter. And it would have been just as easy to lay it at Osama's door. That is to say, if Osama can be blamed for hitting the WTC with a couple of commercial jets, there is no reason he can't be blamed for hitting the Pentagon with something else.

In other words, no matter what it was - a Boeing 757 or a kite with a nuke attached to its tail - there is no reason the Powers That Be could not spin it to their advantage.

So why won't they release the security camera tapes????

If it was Flight 77, why can't we SEE it?

If it was something else, why can't we SEE it?

Heck, the American people are pretty accepting of explanations. There's no reason they wouldn't accept that Osama and gang could get ahold of something else and fly it into the Pentagon. After all, Osama was said to have a massive underground hideout with missiles and a small army and about everything else. There's no reason why he couldn't also have been accused of getting his hands on a Global Hawk!

So again, and again, and again: why can't the American People SEE WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?

It clearly is not because of concern for the families of the victims and their grief. After all, the videos of the planes flying into the WTC were shown over and over and over and over again until the entire world was whipped into a frenzy of grief and rage.

Surely, assuming our theory of direct complicity of Bush and Co. to be correct, if the conspirators were setting this thing up as long as we think they were, they would have prepared the craft that hit the Pentagon very carefully and there would be nothing about it that would arouse suspicion or reveal their identiy, right? Then they could just haul out the videos and show them around the world and blame Osama, right?

Indeed, this small item is a problem. It suggests that if the surveillance videos of what hit the Pentagon were shown, it would reveal the truth. And whatever truth that is, the Powers That Be will fight to the last gasp to conceal it.

The only answer that makes any sense is that the Pentagon was hit by a craft that an expert could easily identify as being inaccessible to anyone at all except the military personnel of a very powerful state: The United States or, perhaps, even Israel.

 

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

3. List them. I will show you how these mainstream media accounts are quite dubious. If I had found a single previously unknown witness on the street who said such a thing I would be more open to it.

Here's three:

Lon Rains, editor of Space.com

In light traffic the drive up Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Washington takes no more than 20 minutes. But that morning, like many others, the traffic slowed to a crawl just in front of the Pentagon. With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 oclock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment.

At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball.

I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.

http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html

Again, who is Lon?

Do you have proof he was on the highway at that exact moment? What if he is an operative himself? What about all the other people who heard and reported a jet? Another editor providing irrefutable proof? How many editors and reporters on the highway at this very controversial moment is it going to take before we stop calling it a concidence?

Are we to believe a couple of people who heard a "whoosh" versus 10's, if not hundreds of people who saw and heard a jet?

How come no one else saw this missile? If it were a jet and missile, how did Lon hear the missile and not the jet.

I am sorry. But Lon is not a genuine witness. In fact, he didn't SEE anything except a fireball.

Steve Patterson:

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City:

The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395.

It was flying so fast that he couldn’t read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

“At first I thought ‘God, there’s a plane truly misrouted from National,’ Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon. […] I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. What’s next?”

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for be-ing so low.”

Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon “envelope” the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.
In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a “silver commuter jet”, he also said that the plane sounded like the “high-pitched squeal” of a fighter jet.

“I was right underneath the plane”, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

“I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying.”

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon, and because he saw it he also said, “I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying”.

What he said next, however, is not in keeping with a 757: “I guess it was hitting light poles”, said Milburn. “It was like a whoosh whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

I mentioned him earlier. Wrong color, wrong size, and wrong flight path. The plane did not come over ANC and look as though it would land on 395. And there is this:

Joel Skousen reported that: "I have, so far, been unable to locate a Steven Patterson in the Pentagon City area of Arlington, Va. None of the graphic design firms in the area that I called have heard of him. Barbara Vobejda told me she didn't have a contact number for him either since his testimony was picked up by one of the dozens of "stringers" they had out in the field that day interviewing people on the ground.

Kirk Milburn, saw a plane. Not a missile. He claims he was under it, but from where he was at-directly underneath it on the ANC exit on 395, he would not be able to see the impact or the light poles from the topography. He was right next to two of our witnesses who explicitly describe a loud twin engine passenger jet. People use different terms to describe different things. Perhaps the plane throttled off as it prepared to go into the bank.

We contacted Kirk Milburn. We spoke with his son. His son told us Kirk died in a motorcycle accident about a year before our call. He is not a witness to a missile.

Three early, primary witnesses have described a sound of a “whoosh”! The second one, when he couldn’t see it, said it was like a “WHOOSH whoosh”, just like the other man who couldn’t see it, but then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane.

But what he described was most definitely not a 757 flying low over his head.

It was a 757 or 757 sized jet. Not a missile.

4. We know the twin engine passenger jet was timed perfectly with the explosion. To have another aircraft ALSO in the same exact area at the same exact moment would certainly be risky and unnecessary.

Again, I don't see why it was risky and unnecessary, in fact I think it would have been much more risky to have nothing actually impact the pentagon and rely simply on the facade of the Pentagon simply explode. The risks involved in doing that, with so much commuter traffic passing the Pentagon would be great.

Joe, have you been to the area?

If you haven't, I think you should before you make that assessment. Remember, people were caught off guard. All you needed was 2-3 seconds of large jet at the bottom of that hill and an explosion/fireball. The human mind, the two planes at the towers, deduction, and the MSM would do the rest.

It makes absolutely NO sense to fly two objects toward the Pentagon at the same time. People would see a missile like or small drone object and would report it. Not enough people did. Only a small handful of those looking to muddy the waters did.

So let get this straight.

You think flying a jet on the north side and a missile/military drone on the south side (that no one saw) is less risky than 1 jet and an explosion?

Tell me, which would serve to convince people that a 757 hit the building and solely caused the damage...

A jet and a missile/drone screaming towards the Pentagon with the jet pulling up and the missile/drone causing the explosion?

Or...

A jet screaming towards the Pentagon with the jet pulling up, immediately followed by an explosion???

5. A few dubious mainstream media reports. No confirmed genuine previously unknown ones. This is why we don't believe it. I understand that you simply have to take my word for it and I understand how it's difficult to let go of things you have decided you believe but seriously.....we were not able to find any evidence for such a thing whatsoever.

It's got nothing to do with holding on to sacred cows or beliefs. Believe me, I have long since let go of any *need* to believe any particular hypothesis, other than that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon, and that is based on pure logic and the screamingly obvious.

Well I really hope people can let go of the missile and military drone. Because they were not involved. This only convolutes the matter and makes our job harder. So many people in Arlington don't want to talk, not because they believe in the conspiracy, but because they are not sure if they are talking to a conspiracist who believes in what they consider to be nonsense.

Of course you can suggest it based on speculation or mainstream media reports but we have demonstrated how doing this causes us to fall into their traps. We have demonstrated how first-hand confirmation and on site investigation is the ONLY way to get to the truth.

The time for speculation is over.

We HAVE evidence proving a military deception and it's time the movement sticks with information that we can prove.

I don't see it as a trap for us to discuss the possible finer details of the 9/11 attacks (and that IS all we are doing here) because we agree on the basic argument and the data that supports it. It is only a trap if we allow ego and sacred cows to supplant our goal - to disseminate the truth that 9/11 WAS an inside job. The trap is to allow detractors to imply that if we cannot conclusively prove EXACTLY what happened then we have no right to our argument.

But in a way, that is what is going on here. We have given you the closest thing to actually witnessing the event yourself. Yet, we are back to discussing Lon Rains, Steve Patterson, missiles, and global hawks. That IS forcing us to "prove EXACTLY what happened" from a conspiratorial point of view. Maybe it is the fact that we are "nobodies" coming out of nowhere with very conclusive and heavily supported conclusions that forces people to tit for tat with us, rather than learn, observe and discuss. But I guess if we are here to discuss the "finer details", I hope that entails people actually conceding and abandoning dead issues.

We do not have a smoking gun in terms of something that will suddenly awaken the world to the reality of what happened on 9/11.

Au contraire. The north side IS that smoking gun. It is definitive. It is heavily corroborated. It was that dirty little secret that they wouldn't or maybe even would hope we would find out.

We are talking about proof of a deception, direct military involvement, and a likely accomplice in the form of the cab driver.

Forget waking the world, this should scare the hell out of them.

What we do have is masses of circumstantial evidence, i.e. facts, sometimes unrelated, that when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown. Circumstantial evidence is regularly used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. The unfortunate part is that, since those responsible for 9/11 essentially own the criminal justice system in the US, we will never have our day in court.

Well circumstantial or not, the cat is out of the bag. The focus on the plane and the flight path scared it right out of the bag, now the focus is directly on it. You can't move a plane. You can't tell witnesses, who were there, that they saw the plane on the OTHER side of the gas station, when they didn't. Those cops are scared. Robert Turcios is scared.

We have enough of a smoking gun to start focusing that magnifying glass, in order that we start a fire.

For these reasons, the time for speculation is far from over, because what actually happened on 9/11, ALL of the details, while likely remain secret for a long time, if not forever. While I applaud your efforts, I would urge you not to get carried away with the idea that you or your work ALONE is going to break the whole sordid deal wide open.

Well I hate to break it to you, Joe, but it/we already has/have. At least in the way of the Pentagon. This is it. This is as close as you are going to get. You can speculate all you want based on 6 yr old ambiguous and unconfirmed witness accounts, it will leave us where we were 2,3,4,5 and 6 years ago...nowhere. This was the purpose of CIT, to provide hands on, in the field documentation. Full witness "interrogation" and random witness canvassing. We have proved there was plane and it did not cause the physical damage. That explains everything. Even if we happen to be wrong about the flyover/away and pre-planted bombs, the north side flight path has been confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt...why would we or should we need to theorize anymore?

 

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

BTW, please do not take offense to my style of posting. I can be very direct and sometimes very curt.

I respect all of you fine people, especially you Joe, as I was a big fan of the frozen fish article.

I certainly don't want to come off as a know-it-all, but I can assure I will give you a run for your money in the way of debate as I have spent an exorbitant amount of time on witnesses, witness placement, witness POV, landscape/topography/flight path obstacle documentation, and much more. So generally my knowledge is not rivaled by many and at this point it is hard for me to concede things to people who have not been there or directly spoke with witnesses, victims, Firefighters, rescuers etc.

 

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

I don't think there has been any significant infighting over any "missile/global hawk" or "explosives" theories. That these two theories exist in no way detracts from the argument. They are simply the finer points of what really happened on that day and do NOT need to detract from the argument in any way.

Well I have to disagree. I think the more arguments, the more confusion. The more theories, the more it appears "we" don't know what happened or what we are talking about. In fact, I get the skeptics giving us a hard time because there are people who don't embrace our work. At the same time, it just seems like a slap in the face to all the work we have done, the fact that we have put our names and lives on the line. We just feel that we went out there, to stop the theorizing one way or the other. We were even prepared for the possibility that a large AA jet flew on the official flight path, over that bridge, knocked 5 poles and slid into the first floor, even though were firm skeptics of that. But we didn't find that, we confirmed the north side flight path, Lagasse inadvertantly slipped up on when e-mailing Dick Eastman. I do think it detracts. Remember, there are new people every day coming to the pentagon impact trough for a drink, it;s ok to remind them of how we got there with all the theories but now we need to show people what actually happened with tangible proof that they touch, feel and understand. The North side is that.

Conversely, eric hufschmidt and co and their "tv fakery" at the WTC nonsense is evidence of real diversionary tactics.

I completely agree.

Just to clarify, we are not disputing your evidence for a flyover, in fact, I think it fits pretty well with the modus operandi of the perpetrators - flood the scene in real time with many data points in order to confuse.

Abosulutely. Great.

All we are saying is that the possibility of a global hawk-type device being used ALSO is real and need not be a source of division, unless we allow it to become one, which we certainly will not.

Well maybe you won't let it be here. But everywhere else it will be. It will eventually slowly realized that there was no missile and no global hawk. There wasn't. It is a dinosaur that we have to let be extinct. The jig is up. We shouldn't allow them anymore power from this tool of disinfo. Unfortunately, it will be a source of division. We are divided right now. We will never accept a global hawk or missile, because there is no rational evidence for it anymore. This is not, in any way to slight you good folks, but we will counter this info wherever we find it.

Please note that, other than in our book, the idea that a global hawk was used in the Pentagon attack does not get any significant attention on our web site. If someone asks, we include it as a hypothesis, and from now on we will certainly including your evidence for a white plane flyover.

Excellent Joe!

On that point, we'd like to give some publicity to your work on our web site. Any suggestions as to the way you would like to do this?

Email me off line if you are interested.

Absolutely. We'll get right on it, Joe. Talk to you soon.

 

[Craig Ranke CIT]

BTW, please do not take offense to my style of posting. I can be very direct and sometimes very curt.

I respect all of you fine people, especially you Joe, as I was a big fan of the frozen fish article.

I certainly don't want to come off as a know-it-all, but I can assure I will give you a run for your money in the way of debate as I have spent an exorbitant amount of time on witnesses, witness placement, witness POV, landscape/topography/flight path obstacle documentation, and much more. So generally my knowledge is not rivaled by many and at this point it is hard for me to concede things to people who have not been there or directly spoke with witnesses, victims, Firefighters, rescuers etc.

Exactly.

Clearly we are passionate about this cause and confident in our unprecedented research.

Please don't mistake our confidence for arrogance or take it like we are trying to bully anybody.

But bottom line we HAVE provided evidence that breaks this case.

We do not claim to know everything about how the operation was carried out but as anart already pointed out....we do not need to.

We only need to provide enough evidence proving their story false and we have most certainly accomplished this.

Thank you for your kind offer to feature this important information on your website as this is the type of support we seek.

Peace and thanks SOTT!

 

[Laura]

We do not have a smoking gun in terms of something that will suddenly awaken the world to the reality of what happened on 9/11.

Au contraire. The north side IS that smoking gun. It is definitive. It is heavily corroborated. It was that dirty little secret that they wouldn't or maybe even would hope we would find out.

We are talking about proof of a deception, direct military involvement, and a likely accomplice in the form of the cab driver.

Forget waking the world, this should scare the hell out of them.

The problem is, it doesn't matter if there is proof of deception, proof of direct military involvement, and it doesn't matter how much corroboration you have: who ya gonna tell? How ya gonna tell 'em?

The number one problem in the entire scenario is the control of the media. You, us, anybody who sees the facts and understands that there was deception, complicity, and knows the evidence, will always be marginalized; ALWAYS.

That is a barrier that you cannot cross, we cannot cross. Without that 94% of the population lining up behind you to do something radical, you will never be able to do a thing.

And there is more than just the control of the media, there is the problem I wrote about back in November of 2006:

Post Election Reality Check

.....
Pelosi rejects calls to impeach Bush... but, just to make sure people think she is being straight-up, they'll investigate the "manipulation of facts." Can we say LYING, Pelosi? Can we say putting American lives in danger? Can we say TREASON?

Now, let's think about this for a minute: All the revelations mentioned above - the "culture of corruption" - came to us via the Media. We all know that the media is responsible for promoting the lies that Bush and the Neocons peddled about 9/11 and bin Laden and Saddam that got us into the war. We all know that the media colluded to protect the standing of G.W. Bush, a rapist, drunk driver, cocaine user, and deserter from the National Guard. Now, do you really think that the media (and its controllers) suddenly woke up and decided to become overseers of the Neocon ethics, to expose the corruption in the Bush Administration that has existed for all of the past six years?

Of course not.

Now, think back to the previous presidential election when it is a certainty, based on exit polls and the general feeling in the U.S., that G.W. Bush did not win that election - heck, he didn't win the first election - it was a fraudulent election, plain and simple. Take this to the next step: do you really think that if two elections could be stolen, that a third one could not? That the entire election of yesterday could not have gone to the Republicans IF that had been wanted by those who control the money, the media, and the voting machines?

But they knew that Americans were getting just a bit too hostile, that the climate in America was volatile, and another obviously "stolen" election could have been the spark to set off a powder keg. Not that they don't, ultimately, WANT to create a revolution in the U.S.; they just want it on their terms, and when they are certain that they can make it go the way they want it to go.

Besides, the crucial legislation that was needed to get and keep all the Democrats in line has already been passed.

Remember how many democrats voted to confirm Samuel Alito? What about Atty. General Gonzalez? How about the Patriot Act? The Torture Act? Remember how McCain showed his yellow spine?

So, do not, for an instant, let it escape your mind that the very media organs that ought to support accountability have been totally co-opted for a very long time. Israel - by way of Jews loyal to the Zionist agenda - controls the media. They control other things as well. Consider who controls the telephone system in the U.S.... Israel. In short, long before 911, they had the ways and means to blackmail anyone in this country, INCLUDING CONGRESS. Then consider what Paul Craig Roberts wrote about Bush's illegal spying...

Bush's acts of illegal domestic spying are gratuitous because there are no valid reasons for Bush to illegally spy. The Foreign Intelligence Services Act gives Bush all the power he needs to spy on terrorist suspects. All the administration is required to do is to apply to a secret FISA court for warrants. The Act permits the administration to spy first and then apply for a warrant, should time be of the essence. The problem is that Bush has totally ignored the law and the court.

Why would President Bush ignore the law and the FISA court? It is certainly not because the court in its three decades of existence was uncooperative. According to attorney Martin Garbus (New York Observer, 12-28-05), the secret court has issued more warrants than all federal district judges combined, only once denying a warrant.

Why, then, has the administration created another scandal for itself on top of the WMD, torture, hurricane, and illegal detention scandals?

There are two possible reasons.

One reason is that the Bush administration is being used to concentrate power in the executive. The old conservative movement, which honors the separation of powers, has been swept away. Its place has been taken by a neoconservative movement that worships executive power.

The other reason is that the Bush administration could not go to the FISA secret court for warrants because it was not spying for legitimate reasons and, therefore, had to keep the court in the dark about its activities.

What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election?

Could we attribute the feebleness of the Democrats as an opposition party to information obtained through illegal spying that would subject them to blackmail?

When Roberts suggests "What might these illegitimate reasons be? Could it be that the Bush administration used the spy apparatus of the US government in order to influence the outcome of the presidential election? "

... he doesn't really go the full distance. What if the illegal spying is to gain complete control of government and judiciary? Everybody has dirty laundry, and if you have that information, you can control about anything. The only people you can't control are those who are "clean" and we can guess from the way things are going in the U.S. and UK, just about everybody is "dirty."

Americans turned out in record numbers to vote in the last presidential election. They NEVER do that unless they are unhappy with the status quo. The exit polls and evidence of vote tampering suggests strongly that Bush did not win the election... (which is not to say that Kerry was any better choice!)

So, not only do they have control of congress and the judiciary so that they can control legislation, they also control the votes... As Stalin said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes. And with control of congress and the judiciary AND the support of the Israeli owned media, there is NO possibility of them being made accountable for ANY of their crimes.

The whole election was played out as a farce to reassure the American people that they still lived in a democracy and to quell the growing revolutionary agitation.

So, considering the cards that the Israelis are holding in terms of illegal spying, I think we need to be realistic and understand that this election is not going to change anything substantive. They made a big show of the Democratic Sweep of the House, and on and on. But with the controls this cabal has already, there is ZERO possibility of fundamental change in course.

Bush (really, Israel) wasn't illegally eavesdropping for nothing. That's how they got Alito on the Supreme Court; with blackmail material, you can do whatever you want. And they will. You can count on it.

William Rivers Pitt is right when he says: Bush is "deranged, disconnected, and dangerous." Thing is, this really applies to psychopaths across the board and they are the ones who have taken over the world. Psychopaths (both Neocons and Zionists and their lackeys) insanely believe that they can commit atrocities such as 911, and get away with it. And sadly, it's probably true. Psychopaths at the helms of power are dangerous because they really believe that they can do whatever they like and no one will stop them. No one. Hitler and the Brown Shirts believed the same thing.

Consider Henry See's article: Environment of Evil where he reports on the work of Dr Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor at the University of Manitoba.

has spent much of his career researching the personality profile of what he calls Right Wing Authoritarians. He has published an overview of his research called The Authoritarians. It offers an insight into that percentage of the population that is easily swayed by the pathological types. Unfortunately, Altemeyer has not factored in the existence of psychopathy and pathocracy as important realities in society, so while he can help explain the functioning of the system, he is incapable of either explaining its origins or arriving at a solution.

Altemeyer reported on a simulation game that he ran on two nights, one using students who had scored very low on his RWA scale, the other, students who had scored very high.

Unauthoritarians and Authoritarians: Worlds of Difference

By now you must be developing a feel for what high RWAs think and do, and also an impression of low RWAs. Do you think you know each group well enough to predict what they'd do if they ran the world? One night in October, 1994 I let a group of low RWA university students determine the future of the planet (you didn't know humble researchers could do this, did you!). Then the next night I gave high RWAs their kick at the can.

The setting involved a rather sophisticated simulation of the earth's future called the Global Change Game, which is played on a big map of the world by 50-70 participants who have been split into various regions such as North America, Africa, India and China. The players are divided up according to current populations, so a lot more students hunker down in India than in North America. The game was designed to raise environmental awareness, and before the exercise begins players study up on their region's resources, prospects, and environmental issues.

Then the facilitators who service the simulation call for some member, any member of each region, to assume the role of team leader by simply standing up. Once the "Elites" in the world have risen to the task they are taken aside and given control of their region's bank account. They can use this to buy factories, hospitals, armies, and so on from the game bank, and they can travel the world making deals with other Elites. They also discover they can discretely put some of their region's wealth into their own pockets, to vie for a prize to be given out at the end of the simulation to the World's Richest Person. Then the game begins, and the world goes wherever the players take it for the next forty years which, because time flies in a simulation, takes about two and a half hours.

The Low RWA Game

By carefully organizing sign-up booklets, I was able to get 67 low RWA students to play the game together on October 18th. (They had no idea they had been funneled into this run of the experiment according to their RWA scale scores; indeed they had probably never heard of right-wing authoritarianism.) Seven men and three women made themselves Elites. As soon as the simulation began, the Pacific Rim Elite called for a summit on the "Island Paradise of Tasmania." All the Elites attended and agreed to meet there again whenever big issues arose. A world-wide organization was thus immediately created by mutual consent.

Regions set to work on their individual problems. Swords were converted to ploughshares as the number of armies in the world dropped. No wars or threats of wars occurred during the simulation. [At one point the North American Elite suggested starting a war to his fellow region-aires (two women and one guy), but they told him to go fly a kite--or words to that effect.]

An hour into the game the facilitators announced a (scheduled) crisis in the earth's ozone layer. All the Elites met in Tasmania and contributed enough money to buy new technology to replenish the ozone layer.

Other examples of international cooperation occurred, but the problems of the Third World mounted in Africa and India. Europe gave some aid but North America refused to help. Africa eventually lost 300 million people to starvation and disease, and India 100 million.

Populations had grown and by the time forty years had passed the earth held 8.7 billion people, but the players were able to provide food, health facilities, and jobs for almost all of them. They did so by demilitarizing, by making a lot of trades that benefited both parties, by developing sustainable economic programs, and because the Elites diverted only small amounts of the treasury into their own pockets. (The North American Elite hoarded the most.)

One cannot blow off four hundred million deaths, but this was actually a highly successful run of the game, compared to most. No doubt the homogeneity of the players, in terms of their RWA scores and related attitudes, played a role. Low RWAs do not typically see the world as "Us versus Them." They are more interested in cooperation than most people are, and they are often genuinely concerned about the environment. Within their regional groups, and in the interactions of the Elites, these first-year students would have usually found themselves "on the same page"--and writ large on that page was, "Let's Work Together and Clean Up This Mess." The game's facilitators said they had never seen as much international cooperation in previous runs of the simulation. With the exception of the richest region, North America, the lows saw themselves as interdependent and all riding on the same merry-go-round.

The High RWA Game

The next night 68 high RWAs showed up for their ride, just as ignorant of how they had been funneled into this run of the experiment as the low RWA students had been the night before. The game proceeded as usual. Background material was read, Elites (all males) nominated themselves, and the Elites were briefed. Then the "wedgies" started. As soon as the game began, the Elite from the Middle East announced the price of oil had just doubled. A little later the former Soviet Union (known as the Confederation of Independent States in 1994) bought a lot of armies and invaded North America. The latter had insufficient conventional forces to defend itself, and so retaliated with nuclear weapons. A nuclear holocaust ensued which killed everyone on earth--7.4 billion people--and almost all other forms of life which had the misfortune of co-habitating the same planet as a species with nukes.

When this happens in the Global Change Game, the facilitators turn out all the lights and explain what a nuclear war would produce. Then the players are given a second chance to determine the future, turning back the clock to two years before the hounds of war were loosed. The former Soviet Union however rebuilt its armies and invaded China this time, killing 400 million people. The Middle East Elite then called for a "United Nations" meeting to discuss handling future crises, but no agreements were reached.

At this point the ozone-layer crisis occurred but--perhaps because of the recent failure of the United Nations meeting--no one called for a summit. Only Europe took steps to reduce its harmful gas emissions, so the crisis got worse. Poverty was spreading unchecked in the underdeveloped regions, which could not control their population growth. Instead of dealing with the social and economic problems "back home," Elites began jockeying among themselves for power and protection, forming military alliances to confront other budding alliances. Threats raced around the room and the Confederation of Independent States warned it was ready to start another nuclear war. Partly because their Elites had used their meager resources to buy into alliances, Africa and Asia were on the point of collapse. An Elite called for a United Nations meeting to deal with the crises--take your pick--and nobody came.

By the time forty years had passed the world was divided into armed camps threatening each other with another nuclear destruction. One billion, seven hundred thousand people had died of starvation and disease. Throw in the 400 million who died in the Soviet-China war and casualties reached 2.1 billion. Throw in the 7.4 billion who died in the nuclear holocaust, and the high RWAs managed to kill 9.5 billion people in their world--although we, like some battlefield news releases, are counting some of the corpses twice.

The authoritarian world ended in disaster for many reasons. One was likely the character of their Elites, who put more than twice as much money in their own pockets as the low RWA Elites had. (The Middle East Elite ended up the World's Richest Man; part of his wealth came from money he had conned from Third World Elites as payment for joining his alliance.) But more importantly, the high RWAs proved incredibly ethnocentric. There they were, in a big room full of people just like themselves, and they all turned their backs on each other and paid attention only to their own group. They too were all reading from the same page, but writ large on their page was, "Care About Your Own; We Are NOT All In This Together."

The high RWAs also suffered because, while they say on surveys that they care about the environment, when push comes to shove they usually push and shove for the bucks. That is, they didn't care much about the long-term environmental consequences of their economic acts. For example a facilitator told Latin America that converting much of the region's forests to a single species of tree would make the ecosystem vulnerable. But the players decided to do it anyway because the tree's lumber was very profitable just then. And the highs proved quite inflexible when it came to birth control. Advised that "just letting things go" would cause the populations in underdeveloped areas to explode, the authoritarians just let things go.

Now the Global Change Game is not the world stage, university students are not world leaders, and starting a nuclear holocaust in a gymnasium is not the same thing as launching real missiles from Siberia and North Dakota. So the students' behavior on those two successive nights in 1994 provides little basis for drawing conclusions about the future of the planet. But some of what happened in this experiment rang true to me. I especially thought, "I've seen this show before" as I sat on the sidelines and watched the high RWAs create their very own October crisis.

We are facing the second scenario, not as a simulation, not as a game, but as our own future.

The ONLY thing that could possibly change this outcome is the wide propagation of the knowledge of psychopathy and how psychopaths wear a "mask of sanity" and are "snakes in suits" and live "next door" and so on.

It is only this knowledge that will enable people - the masses that you need to effect any change whatsoever - to see through the lies and deception.

I don't care how much proof you have, the masses of people whose lives are invested in believing the lies of the government, those who have been programmed to believe them, will never believe you. It's really that simple.

Have a look at my article on Transmarginal Inhibitionto understand exactly what you are up against.

One of the main factors to consider in terms of how a society can be taken over by a group of pathological deviants is that the only limitation is that of the participation of susceptible individuals within that given society.

In addition to the primary type of psychopath, the "essential psychopath," there are a variety of psychopathies described by Lobaczewski and others: asthenic, schizoidal, anankastic, hysterical, etc. These less vicious types are the second tier of the Elite Control System and it should be noted that they are far more numerous than the essential psychopaths.

The next tier of such a system is composed of individuals who were born normal, but are either already warped by long-term exposure to psychopathic material via familial or social influences, or who, through psychic weakness have chosen to meet the demands of psychopathy for their own selfish ends. Numerically, according to Lobaczewski, this group is about 12% of a given population under normal conditions. It is difficult, as Lobaczewski points out, to draw a distinct boundary between these latter types and the genetic deviants without the input of genuine, non-psychopathic, science. At this point, the distinctions can only be descriptive.

So it is that approximately 18% of any given population is active in the creation and imposition of a Pathocracy (or the attempt to create and impose same). The 6% group constitute the Pathocratic nobility and the 12% group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous.

Once set up, the elitist psychopathic system corrodes the entire social organism, wasting its skills and power. Once a Pathocracy has been established, it follows a certain course and has certain "attractive" powers. In a Pathocracy, the socioeconomic system arises from the social structure which is created by the system of political power, which is a product of the particular elitist world view of pathological deviants. Thus it is that a Pathocracy is more a macrosocial disease process created by human pathogens, and it can come to affect an entire nation to a degree that is equivalent to a cancer metastasizing. And just as the process of cancer in a body follows a characteristic pathodynamic process, so does the macrosocial disease of Pathocracy.

It is impossible to comprehend such a pathological phenomenon using the methods of "normal" people which do not take into account the deviant thought processes of human pathogens. Certainly it could be said that the entire world has been governed by a "covert pathocracy" (or cryptopathocracy) for a very long time. Many researchers suggest that there has always been a "secret government" that operates even though the "out in the open" government is not, technically, a Pathocracy. The suggestion is that psychopaths are technically ALWAYS in the background, even in the cycles of history that are NOT pathocracies (i.e. during "good times" in what Lobaczewski describes as the foundation for a hysteroidal cycle that opens the door to an overt Pathocracy).

If we use the term pathocracy for "secret government rule", then all of history becomes a "pathocracy" and the word loses its meaning, so it is important to note that the term "Pathocracy" is the specific phenomenon that comes as a result of the hedonism of good times, and that it is characterized by 100% of essential psychopaths assuming some type of leadership position, out in the open, as occurred in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and Eastern Europe.

One cannot really designate the issues that confront us today as "political", using the ordinary names of political ideologies because, as noted above, pathological deviants operate behind a complete mask, by deception and other psychological tricks which they practice with great cunning. If we think or believe that any political group that has such and such a name is heterogeneous with regard to its true nature, we will not be able to identify the causes and properties of the disease. Any ideology will be used to cloak the pathological qualities from the minds of both experts and ordinary people. So, trying to refer to this or that as "left" or "right" or "center" or "socialist", "democratic," "communist," "democrat" or "republican," and so on, will never help us to understand the pathological self-reproduction and its expansionist external influences. As Lobaczewski says, Ignota nulla curatio morbi! No movement will EVER succeed that does not factor psychopathy and ponerology into its considerations!

we could say that the past 200 years of American History has been a crypto-pathocracy which was held back from full manifestation by the influence of the majority of normal people. This period was also marked by several layered periods of "good times," where hedonism was promoted and there was an overall decline in the knowledge, understanding and conscience of normal people which led to the conditions that we experience today. "This hedonistic view contains the seeds of misery", as Lobaczewski puts it, acting as an opening for psychopaths to take more power.

Today, a clinical case is being made that we have at the helm of government a corporate/conglomerate psychopath, with a blathering characteropath as front-man, the president of the United States. Referring to the Straussian neocons as clinical psychopaths may be a stretch for some, but the important thing about abnormal psychology is that you determine condition by behavior, not by implied or projected intent. To pick but one example from many - is it a civilized nation, a supposed adherent of Judeo/Christian principles, that argues about acceptable levels of "torture"? Not debating the issue of torture itself, mind you, but arguing about the "best utilitarian use of cruelty in the context of the end justifying the means?"

Will this gang of psychopaths take the the planet down with them? Probably. It's way too late to do anything other than a Revolution and you need media for a revolution and you don't have it. Even with an average of 15 K unique readers per day, we don't have it either.

When, however, the group of pathological deviants in a society begins gradually maneuvering to control more and more of the wealth and resources of that society, utilizing their special knowledge of human psychology based on something like game theory, and the society itself has been dumbed down, has no adequate and accurate psychological knowledge to defend themselves from predation, interesting things begin to happen.

One of the first dynamics to come into play is that the deviants who have risen to the top by virtue of their lack of conscience and special abilities already mentioned, seek to force other individuals to exercise functions which deny their humanity, their talents, their intelligence. The deviants also arrogate to themselves and their cronies - other deviants - jobs and positions for which they are not only ill-suited, but totally incapable of performing effectively and efficiently.

Back in 2000, a study was written up in the media entitled "Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies FindThey're blind to own failings, others' skills." In this study, Dr. David A. Dunning, learned that people who are incompetent, who do things badly, are often supremely confident of their abilities to the point that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, they consider their competence superior to that of people who actually are competent! The researchers involved in the study, published in the December 1999 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology theorize that the reason for this blindness is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

As it happens, a lack of creativity and technical skills is one symptom of psychopathy and related pathologies. They can't do anything well except lie and manipulate others to do things for them when they are in positions where they must produce results, and when they are in positions where they have absolute power, they believe that they can re-shape the world according to their vision by force.

In short, Capitalism, as it is practiced in the United States, as well as its so-called "democracy," gives increased access to unrestricted power and control over resources, including other human beings. It is not absolute power that corrupts, it is power that attracts the corrupt.

So it is that the U.S. system was set up by and for psychopaths, and it has only been the informed citizenry that has kept them in check until recent years. Over the past 100 years or so, as psychopaths have gradually taken over those positions where they could consolidate their power and gains, they began a deliberate program of dumbing down the populace, utilizing the education system, medical system, science, the media, etc. There is no area of U.S. society that has not been co-opted and corrupted to the purposes of the Pathocracy.

In such a society, a normal person may start out basically healthy, but after a period of exposure to psychopathy in the workplace, things take on a different tone. If circumstances are brought to bear on an average person with a lack of psychological knowledge so that he or she is forced to perform functions which do not fit his abilities and talents, he begins to feel cheated and even overwhelmed by duties which prevent him from achieving his own self-realization. In such a situation, the person begins to dissociate, to daydream about a world where he or she is what he should be, deserves to be, and is capable of being. This is particularly true if the professional adjustment is downward. A particular danger of the downward adjustment is that the individual, not being regularly challenged, fails to establish an accurate estimation of his own abilities and talents. In his dissociated daydreams, he "fixes" the unfair world and dreams of having the power to do so. In this way, he acquires psychopathic traits even though he may not be a psychopath.

Another aspect of the problem is when we find individuals (not pathological) who obtain important positions because they belong to the privileged elite group in power. If their talents and abilities are inadequate to their position, they will avoid the problems they are supposed to solve in their position, instead devoting themselves to those minor things that don't really matter - but which they can do - in a grandiose and ostentatious way. We call them "upwardly adjusted" because they are operating at a higher level than they are capable of managing. An individual in such a situation is likely to develop a progressive case of histrionics and tests will show, as the study quoted above, that their correctness of reasoning actually deteriorates.

So, in order to hold onto their high position in the face of the unbearable (and thus, denied), realization of their incompetence, such an individual will begin to direct attacks against anyone with greater talent or skill, even actively seeking to remove them - or have them removed - from their position which, of course, engenders in the other person a feeling of injustice regarding this "downward social adjustment." Naturally, upwardly-adjusted people favor "whip-cracking" governments which will protect their positions and their incompetence. This, of course, reminds one of a recent news story: Leading GOP Candidates Surge to Embrace Torture

Despite the contention of scores of senior military intelligence officers that "torture doesn't work," the audience at last week's Republican presidential candidate debate broke into applause when leading candidates endorsed increased use of "enhanced interrogation" techniques. [...]

The most vehement champions of "enhanced interrogation" were the two men considered, along with McCain, to be front-runners in the nomination contest: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. [...]

While all the major GOP presidential prospects save McCain were eager to trumpet their support of aggressive interrogation techniques, most military and counter-terrorism authorities have taken a contrary view.

The most recent came on the same day as the South Carolina debate. In a Washington Post op-ed article, retired Marine Corps Commandant Charles C. Krulak and retired four-star Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar wrote:

"Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent US citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.

"Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program, in which torture techniques euphemistically called 'waterboarding,' 'sensory deprivation,' 'sleep deprivation' and 'stress positions' - conduct that we used to call war crimes - were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: 'Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know.'"

That view is shared by most members of the military who have intelligence experience. These include former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who wrote a public letter to McCain opposing Bush's detention policies. "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell observed. "To redefine common article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions] would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

Powell's letter came amid the 2005 battle between the Bush administration and some members of the Senate to stop the president's bid to legalize torture and ad hoc military tribunals. That effort was thwarted - not by Democrats, but by four key Republican senators: McCain, John Warner of Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Susan Collins of Maine.

Their success culminated in passage of the Detainee Treatment Act, which the president signed into law, but simultaneously nullified by issuing a "signing statement" saying, in effect, he would obey the law unless he thought national security was at stake.

The deal resulted from a so-called compromise between Bush and the four senators. The president had barely announced the deal before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made it clear that the administration would define torture any way it liked. He said on CNN that torture meant the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental harm, and repeated the word "severe" twice.

I think that we can safely suggest that individuals that support torture are in their positions because of money and connections and are incompetent to solve real problems as well as incompetent to realize their own incompetence. Perhaps many so-called "conservatives" fall into such a category?

Upward and downward social adjustments results in a total waste of any society's most precious resource: the talent pool of its members. This process will lead to increasing dissatisfaction and tensions among individuals and social groups. Evolution or devolution in all areas of cultural, economic and political life depend on the extent to which this human resource talent pool is properly utilized. And, as Lobaczewski points out, in the final analysis, it also determines whether there will be evolution or revolution.

Certainly, in such a society as described above, there will be people who are capable of figuring out what is wrong to some extent, and to begin to try to apply their abilities to right the widespread social injustice. They may approach the problem from the point of view of legislative reforms, or from the point of view of religious moral revival, or disseminating accurate psychological knowledge about the nature of the problem among the masses. Elimination of social injustice and revival of morals and education level of the society could deprive a pathocracy of any chance to take over. And so, such reformers and moralists must be consistently neutralized by various means. If they can't be bought or co-opted, they will be defamed and their character assassinated. The most dangerous among them will be murdered by various set-ups so that the blame never falls on the deviants.

Even though there are many similarities between what is happening in the U.S. now and the Nazi Regime that arose in Germany under the pathological deviant, Adolf Hitler and his deviant cronies, one must never forget that psychopaths running the show from behind the scenes have a special knowledge of normal human beings and how to manipulate them that nearly all people in the present time simply are not aware of. Just like psychological warfare strategists, psychopaths seem to be able to naturally and cunningly decide rather early on which ideology is going to be most efficient to enable them to establish their rule. They select the ideology because of its adaptability to a given nation's traditions or personality. That is why specially adapted "democracy" and "capitalism" were selected for the U.S. and why the so-called Conservatives were selected as the base of the Bush fraud. The specially modified ideology performs the function of a Trojan horse, "transporting pathocracy into the country", so to say. Nazi Germany was culturally different and so a different ideology was used. But of course, the various ideologies are then gradually conformed to the psychopath's master plan and then, when the mask comes off, it is seen that it is always and ever the same.

Prior to the point in time when the Pathocracy plans to make its big maneuver, local partisans are recruited from dissatisfied individuals who are generally suffering from longterm downward adjustment. Leadership is provided by those trained in the secret idea as well as the ideology concocted for the external mask. Assistance will be given to groups of conspirators who believe fervently in the concocted ideology and, very often, a coup d'état results, and an iron-fisted government is installed. Once this has been accomplished, the diversionary partisans' activities are suppressed so that the new authorities can take credit for bringing about internal peace.

This is how an overt Pathocracy comes to power and I think that the reader can see the comparisons with what has happened in the U.S. since Bush Jr. was assisted in stealing the election in 2000. One must keep in mind that a network of pathological individuals has long been active and in place under the guidance of the inspirational psychopathic world view.

Have a look at Immigration: Ignota nulla curatio morbi!

and

Al Gore and the Monolithic and Ruthless Conspiracy

if you want to know how bad it really is and how little chance you really have of doing anything at all.

Finally, check out The Protocols of the Pathocrats to understand what kind of deviant minds you are up against.

Bottom line is, only when people who can SEE at least partially, who have a conscience, begin to aggregate together, put aside their disagreements on HOW 911 occurred, focus on the main issue which is psychopathy, and that this is what underpins the crime of 911, and next, on the Pentagon and the fact that there was no 757 there, and do it rationally, reasonably, and with compassion and understanding for what has been done to the masses, to basically hold their hands while they wake up, will there be any possibility of any mass awakening and support.

Debate is just a waste of time. We agree that there was no 757 at the Pentagon. You have a theory, we have a theory. (I should mention that our theory includes information from a reliable, highly placed European source that a drone type plane was launched from a ship offshore and this is what hit the Pentagon, and that satellite photos of this launch exist...).

But theories are just that, theories. The only certainty is that no 757 hit the Pentagon and that, alone, screams complicity.

The other certainty is that the masses will never wake up until they learn that psychopaths really exist - soulless, conscienceless, intraspecies predators.

That is the task before us.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Debate is just a waste of time. We agree that there was no 757 at the Pentagon. You have a theory, we have a theory. (I should mention that our theory includes information from a reliable, highly placed European source that a drone type plane was launched from a ship offshore and this is what hit the Pentagon, and that satellite photos of this launch exist...).

But theories are just that, theories. The only certainty is that no 757 hit the Pentagon and that, alone, screams complicity.

Pardon what will be further theorizing, but I don't think the two theories are necessarily irreconcilable. For example, if the European source is correct, the "flyover" plane could have been the same drone launched from offshore. (Keep in mind that drone simply means a remotely-piloted craft, it need not be a Global Hawk.) Considering that explosives were used for spectacle at the WTC, they were probably used at the Pentagon as well, timed with the proposed flyover. It's also possible the plane was equipped with some shaped-charge missiles to cause additional damage. Whether these were fired or simply carried depends on the following point.

There's still the question, in my mind, if the "white plane" actually performed a flyover, or if it hit the Pentagon. If the plane was the size of a jet airliner, as the witnesses say, then this implies a flyover, as the damage is not consistent with a craft of that size. However, it is hard to tell the difference between two visually similar objects traveling in the air; a small plane traveling close to a point of reference can appear the same size and speed as a larger object traveling faster and further away. With enough data from the eyewitnesses, a physicist would be able to determine the size (and perhaps speed) of the white plane. Have you, Craig and Aldo, attempted to have these calculations done by a professional using data from your witnesses?

This would answer the question of whether the plane was actually a large jet, or a smaller plane made to look like a jet. Just as the flyover is a deception, so too would be a smaller plane painted and perhaps modified to look like a larger jet airliner. It's entirely possible that the illusion of a jet airliner, coupled with the expectation of hijacked airlines due to knowledge of the WTC attack, could produce the perception that a smaller craft was larger than it actually was.

What do you think?

 

[Joe]

There is one thing I would like to add. All truth groups in recent years have been essentially ineffective in achieving their primary aim - the dissemination of truth to a wide audience. Why is that? Obviously major factors include the control of the media and the influence of Cointelpro within the movements, but these factors are not in my opinion the principle reason that such groups have failed in their goal. The primary factor and the factor which actually makes it possible for Cointelpro and the media to successfully neutralise the potential of truth groups is the lack of understanding among truth seekers themselves of their vulnerability to being manipulated via ego hooks.

In short, if any truth seekers wish to truly serve the truth, they must do precisely that - serve the Truth,which exists outside of themselves and for which they act merely as vehicles. It is not THEIR truth, they must not seek nor identify with the "spoils" of any success they have in the dissemination of the Truth. Again, it is not THEIRS. It is not THEIR theory. A little more humility in the 9/11 and other truth communities would go a long way.

Only in this way can there be any chance of success, IMO.

Joe