55 Congressional Candidates Oppose War Spending

Thee 9-part vodeo a little further below is for an excellent, great talk that Professor David Ray Griffin provided in Walkerton, Ontario, quasi-boonie land, on May 1st. The 911blogger page has all nine clips embedded and people, like myself, with limited PCs may prefer to use the Youtube copy. So I'll include the the link for the first part at Youtube, also.

This was during the 3-day speaking tour in Canada by him and Richard Gage, founder of AE911Truth, Architects and Engineers. The talks were at the U. of Toronto, the U. of Ottawa, and at U. of Quebec in Montreal; but David Griffin also spoke in Walkerton, Ontario, distinct from these three universities.

"Dr. David Ray Griffin: Is The Afghanistan War Justified by 9/11? Walkerton, Ontario, 05-01-10. [1-9], CanadianTruther, May 1 2010

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-05-13/dr-david-ray-griffin-afghanistan-w...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkSZm0uqdtY

NOTE carefully that not only does he state research results from scientific, forensic investigation and study of the destruction of WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 proving that controlled demolition was the cause, he also competently argues that the alleged hijackings were bs. He refers to either Don Paul or Jim Hoffman, who is editor or co-editor of the important resource website of www.911review.com and of www.wtc7.net. I don't precisely recall what he said when speaking of either or both of these other two leading 9/11 Truth speakers, etcetera, but will nevertheless include the following video for an excellent presentation that both of them made.

"San Diego Citizens Grand Jury" (34:47)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8665829728276544290#

Note that the actual title for that video at Google has "Citizens" misspelled as "Citicens". It took me quite a while to find the video again a few days ago because of this misspelling.

Don Paul and Jim Hoffman, who are among the top 9/11 Truth researchers, writers and activists, stated plenty about the NORAD stand down that really happened the morning of 9/11. It did not necessarily or wholly happen in what most people would normally think of when saying "stand-down", but what happened works out to be equivalent enough when considering the elite orchestrators of this. It was more hidden though and this great deception makes this even uglier.

Remote control and possible use of trojans:

Jim Hoffman added that not only is it not credible that these planes were hijacked by the alleged culprits or terrorists, or anyone else, it is much more credible that these planes were either remotely controlled or that a computer trojan was used to take over flight controls. Remote control has been a feature in these planes for a long time, long enough anyway, but he's a software engineer and is right about it being possible that trojans were planted into the computerized flight control systems of these planes.

Ted Muga, highly and long experienced pilot:

At around 24 minutes into the above video Ted Muga, a highly and long experienced, expert pilot speaks and he explains that it is rather absolutely not credible that these planes were hijacked; especially not by a few terrorists wielding box cutters. He said it'd be difficult for an armed person or group to be able to hijack these planes without being heavily armed. His explanation is definitely credible.

He also describes what another expert pilot member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth experimented with on 9/11. This other highly experienced pilot was teaching a class of pilot students someplace in Florida on 9/11 and after the attacks occurred, he had the students use the flight simulator to try to simulate piloting the planes that struck WTC Towers 1 and 2. All of them failed and then he tried. He only succeeded on his ninth attempt and he was a highly experienced, expert pilot.

Retired USAF Lt Col Robert M. Bowman, an expert military pilot who flew 101 missions during, I believe, the Vietnam war said that even the most expert pilots would have extreme difficulty at flying a plane the way AA 77 was flown into the Pentagon. He said it might take a very expert pilot 20 attempts before being able to perform this strike and might still fail.

NONE of the alleged 9/11 hijackers had any expertise with flying planes!

Remotely controlled, or controlled with trojan programs planted in the flight control systems on the planes used for the attacks, these are the only plausible, credible explanations. After all, the pilots didn't commit the attacks and the planes could not credibly have been hijacked.

More on remote and trojan flight control:

The following article, which says plenty about remote control, doesn't specifically speak of the use of "trojans", but nevertheless does explain that the planes were either remotely controlled or their flight controls were preprogrammed in ways that non-insiders, people who weren't on the inside information loop, would easily believe real hijackings took place. That's as a good as saying that a trojan was planted in the flight control systems of these planes.

"Will America Face the Truth About 9/11?

by Mark H. Gaffney, Feb 24. 2007

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17162.htm

Look for his article, "The 911 Mystery Plane (Part I)", April 5, 2007, at 911review.com, and read both parts. It's about the E-4B "doomsday" plane over the White House and Pentagon a few minutes after AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Many people, including news crews, witnessed this plane that the govt has, apparently still today, always denied the presence of over DC the morning of 9/11. It's a military aerial command center that can replace the Pentagon if it was ever disabled, say. And these planes, of which the US has only four or five (having read both numbers) are normally stationed in Nebraska.

I have since learned more about those planes and there are some very good videos at Youtube about these planes the morning of 9/11. I think it is four of the five that were then taking part in the massive war games that morning, while the other was first spotted near the WTC Towers when they were struck, and later witnessed over DC just a few minutes after the Pentagon was struck.

That plane did not fly from Nebraska to NYC in the blink of any eye, but I've also learned that while these are highly equipped with electronic technologies, they also have technology for remotely controlling other planes. I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but I think part if the information said that not only can these remotely control other planes, they can also do that after taking over the flight controls of the other planes. In other words, handshaking is not required; the other planes could be taken over whether the pilots of those planes approve, or not.

Cheney and stand-down order:

Many people say that there was an extremely underreported order for standing down military interceptor jets, but I don't know if we have actual proof of this, yet. We have proof that many interceptor jets were included in the massive war exercises the US military was conducting just south of the US when the 9/11 attacks occurred and it's easy to realize that this was not acceptable, and these war exercises were simulating the very kind of attacks that happened that morning. Unrelated coincidences happen, but this time they were not unrelated; not credible anyway.

However, we have actual proof that Cheney gave or at least maintained a stand-down order, but what this was related to might, if not would, draw two different responses. Some or many people would say that the order was related to inteceptor jets.

The following article gives a different and very credible explanation for the order. Mike Green argues well enough, or very well, that the order was or could surely not have been related to interceptor jets, but, instead, anti-aircraft missile defense systems that the White House and Pentagon are, as Lt Col Bowman and Ray McGovern have said, heavily equipped with. And while this following article might require some updating, for a few changes, the argument about what Cheney's order had to have been related to makes a lot of sense.

"How They Get Away With It"

by Michael Green, June 28, 2006, originally June 18, 2006

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html

His argument is only based on when AA 77 was ten miles from the Pentagon, but the operator who had asked Cheney at this point if the order still stood had previously warned that the plane was, for the first warning, 50 miles away and maybe interceptor jets could have had the time to then intercept. I'm not sure that they would have enough time, for a plane flying 500 mph or so traverses 50 miles very quickly. But if they would have had enough time to intercept or to at least try to do so when AA 77 was 50 miles away, then perhaps Cheney's order applied to both these interceptors and Pentagon anti-aircraft defense systems.

When AA 77 was only ten miles away, however, then Mike Green strikes me as definitely being credible that interceptors on the ground would not have had time for conducting the interception and, therefore, the order at least then related to the defense systems at the Pentagon, only.

Either way, Cheney clearly gave a stand-down order, and he didn't need to explicitly use the word for it to be clear that this nevertheless is what his order was about.

Conclusion

WTC 7 is not the only 9/11 "smoking gun", and there are some found in the results of research and analysis into the destruction of WTC Towers 1 and 2. WTC 7 is the only case that many truthers call a "smoking gun", but this is either due to lack of information, or thinking too narrowly.

Several "smoking guns", and no real hijackers. There's evidently not even a shred of proof that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the 9/11 attack airliners!

There's plenty to learn about 9/11.