More 911 Evidence of Inside Job

[rottweiler]

This was a sophisticated operation. Planted evidence is a much simpler explanation than middle eastern hi-jackers who couldn't even fly Cessna's performing impossible maneuvers beyond the capabilities of the aircraft.

Where is the surveillance video of the hi-jackers going through security at Logan and Dulles?

And what about this man's expert testimony?

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC)

Statement: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a ****pit of a 757-767 class ****pit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Actually, even before the stories on all the calls were in, Logan Airport had been closed and the travellers and employees sent home ...... and among the cars remaining in the parking lot were those of the hijackers, and containing Bin Laden propaganda, instructions for suicide missions, papers about piloting jets, and the like.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I personally saw 22 gypsies sporting dangerous moustaches hijack a hot-dog cart with plastic sporks once and crash into the town hall. They got mustard all over the statute of the mayor and desecrated the flag.

Then the local WalMart fell down on top of StarBucks so the police had to attack Iraq. Damn Yankees!


x true- put me down for a local enlistment, those crooks are slippery

x flase- gypsies dont eat meat!

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

and among the cars remaining in the parking lot were those of the hijackers, and containing Bin Laden propaganda, instructions for suicide missions, papers about piloting jets, and the like.

I'm surprised they didnt bleave their "patriot right to travel papers" as well!

Musta got burnded up in the wreckage.

[BOBT12]

More 911 Evidence of Inside Job:

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11

by Alan Miller, alan.miller@PatriotsQuestion911.com

Official Account of 9/11: “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”,
“A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce”

January 14, 2008 – Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major
John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.

Originally Posted by Gen. Albert Stubblebine

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret), former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), is a strong critic of the official account of 9/11. In a 2006 video documentary he said, “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon.

And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?” 28 During his 32-year Army career, Gen. Stubblebine also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Gen. Stubblebine is one of
the inductees into the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. 29

Originally Posted by Col. Ronald D. Ray

In an interview on the Alex Jones Show on June 30, 2006 19, Col. Ray described the official account of 9/11 as “the dog that doesn’t hunt”, meaning it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In response to Alex Jones’ question, “Is it safe to say or is the statement accurate that you smell something rotten in the state of Denmark when it comes to 9/11?” Col. Ray replied, “I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that's accurate. That's true.”

“After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back,” wrote Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret), in a statement to this author.

A retired fighter pilot, Col. Razer served as an instructor at the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program and flew combat missions over Iraq. He continued, “The ‘collapse’ of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building’s
collapse before it happened, as BBC News did,20 unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states ‘they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse.’ 21

“We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic’. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it,” he concluded.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Artic...enge%20911.pdf

[trooper2ls]

Here is a de-classified CIA document that Clinton de-classed on his last day in office just to piss of the CIA.

It is rich.. 911 is a scam job to sway public opinion so they could get the sheeple to agree to these crazy policy changes.

..J

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

blowing off a little steam...cosmic engineers and social alchemists have to know when to turn a valve or two.

Funny thing is I just realized there were no planes at all anywhere!

[BOBT12]

And the government’s fairytale continues to unravel:

Report Of WTC Collapse Cover-Up Justifies Call For New Inquiry

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Richard Gage AIA, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and hundreds of other industry experts’ call for a new investigation into the collapse of the WTC twin towers and Building 7 is gaining strength following revelations of falsification and cover-up in relation to the FEMA-funded inquiry into the destruction of the buildings on 9/11.

As we reported earlier, the American Society of Civil Engineers - an organization that was funded by FEMA to investigate the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 - has been accused of engaging in a cover-up to protect the government, with critics charging the organization falsified conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes.

Richard Gage details the evidence for demolition in an exclusive new PrisonPlanet.tv video presentation.

In a recent sit-down video interview conducted by Alex Jones, Gage gave a succinct presentation bringing forth the best evidence for controlled demolition being the cause of the three buildings’ implosion on September 11.

As Gage highlights during the interview, numerous prominent architects and other industry experts have called for a new investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7.

These include James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who last year said that "the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

"Let’s look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what’s the significance of one cause versus another," he added.

Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design and analysis and project management of construction of major projects, including large steel structures, also added his support to a new inquiry.

Pegelow stated that the "FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation and it needs to be reopened."

Joel S. Hirschhorn, former full professor Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison; senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment; Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources at the National Governors Assoc., has also called for a new investigation to bring out the truth behind 9/11.

The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth website lists scores of other experts who have added their voice to the call for a fresh inquiry and Gage lists their credentials during the video interview.

Today’s fresh controversy, allied to last month’s revelations about 9/11 Commission executive director Philip Zelikow’s ties to the White House and his efforts to shield the Bush administration from responsibility for the terror attack, only lend new weight to calls for an independent inquiry - complete with subpoena powers - into the terror attacks.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1079

[BOBT12]

Here's a full report regarding Mr. Olson's phone call.

Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

David Ray Griffin
Global Research
April 2, 2008

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2

Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3

However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

Olson’s Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11

According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the ****pit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that ****pit, but I’m sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1236

[Shoonra]

There were witnesses that Ted Olson was receiving phone calls, since he was told by "them women in my office" that she was on the phone. Claims that the plane had no phone facility, etc., turn out to be erroneous:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Am...light_77_Calls

So far, none of the people known to have been on AA flight 77 has been shown to be alive.

[rottweiler]

At the Moussaoui trial an FBI-report showed that there was never any connection between Barbara Olsen and her husband.

Is Olsen lying or is the FBI lying? Why did Olsen make up a story about phone calls at a press conference he arranged announcing the death of his wife?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKyCpCrH3cY

Originally Posted by Shoonra

There were witnesses that Ted Olson was receiving phone calls, since he was told by "them women in my office" that she was on the phone. Claims that the plane had no phone facility, etc., turn out to be erroneous:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Am...light_77_Calls

So far, none of the people known to have been on AA flight 77 has been shown to be alive.