PSYOP

A few months back I reluctantly plunged headlong into the ongoing investigation by others into the events of 9/11/01. I say “reluctantly” not because I am on some mission, but rather because I know myself, my obsessive nature, and that I would be absorbed until spent. Below is a summary of my sifting of books, YouTubes, movies and interviews. There are tons of such platforms out there on this subject, and most of it is nonsense. There is a thread of substance weaving through it, serious people who have done serious work. But it’s hard to separate wheat from chaff.

I find a self-directed Q&A format an easy writing device. Here goes:

• Q: Who did it?
• A: Unknown. It’s much easier to say who did not do it, specifically, Osama bin Laden and those 20 others. But that is not the question to ask. First, we need to know what happened.
• Q: It’s not obvious to you?
• A: It appeared so. But it is not at all obvious. 9/11 was a large operation, both military and psychological – the preparation had to have taken years. There are many sub-operations within the events of that day – placement of Bush in the presidency, use of the news media to plant the ideas of “Al Qaeda,” “Osama bin Laden,” and “planes hitting buildings.”
• Q: Osama didn’t do it?
• A: It appears he was as surprised as all of us – that’s what I read in his final interview before he died in 2001. He was not terribly smart; apparently did not even know that the US was backing him as he fought the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980’s. And anyway, he certainly did not have access to the resources necessary to shut down the national air defense system that day. But set that aside. The question is, again, what happened?
• Q: So what happened?
• A: Maybe two planes were taken off course. They didn’t hit anything.
• Q: I saw them hit the buildings.
• A: We all did. More on that later. Here is the key to 9/11 in my mind: There were a large number of military and civilian drills going on that day that distracted our people, used vital resources, sent F16’s off to Alaska, and confused everyone. The military does this on a regular basis to keep their people sharp. One of fifteen or so drills on 9/11/01 was a scenario where planes would be flown into the Twin Towers. As the day unfolded, NORAD and other personnel were looking at blips on radar screens they thought to be part of drills.
• Q: A drill?
• A: Yes. It’s quite routine. They try to imagine every possible form of attack on our country so that we can be prepared. This was a big personal breakthrough for me in coming to a better understanding of how they pulled this off. Real people were involved, but did not know it. It was a drill, they thought, and then … it was flipped live. It was not the first time, as I understand it, that this sort of covert operation has been pulled off. On the surface it appears that there were many witting participants, but there weren’t.
• Q: They didn’t know it was real?
• A: Only a few did. The rest were just doing their jobs. Every drill has two elements, a fake attack and a fake response, all subject to later analysis to improve our defenses. Once the ordinary people involved realized that the attack was real, it was too late. And seeing what happened, they knew to shut up. Killers were at large.
• Q: So that’s how they did it – flew the planes in to the towers because people thought it was just a drill?
• A: It gets weirder. No planes hit the towers. No plane hit the Pentagon. What happened in Shanksville is a mystery. Two of those airliners were not even scheduled to fly that day. There is evidence that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, its passengers disembarked and …?
• Q: But I saw planes hit the towers!
• A: Yes, but only after computer graphics specialists superimposed images of planes onto overlays using software widely available then.
• Q: So the pictures were not real?
• A: Oh, the explosions were, sadly, quite real. In each explosion in the towers, there were two white puffs prior to the big explosion that were set at the correct distance apart to represent the distance between the two engines of a 767 or 757. The graphic artists then used those white puffs as their reference points to superimpose the image of planes hitting the tower and coinciding with the huge explosions. That way, all of the various videos faked up that day have a common reference point.
• Q: Who were these people?
• A: Who knows – moles working in some basement or at Disney or Northrup or Langley. And not everything was done right – one famous video taken by Evan Fairbanks from below shows the plane hitting the building, but the white puffs are on top of the wings instead of underneath, where they should be. Those Disney guys had a long day!
• Q: The planes were fake?
• A: Yes. The towers were not hit by planes. As I understand it, video fakery using overlays is very common in movies, and the software to do it is widely available. It’s not an easy task, but the dominant image from that day – two monolithic towers – presented and ideal backdrop for superimposition of images of jet planes. That surely was part of the decision to use the Twin Towers as a target. But there were limitations – time was one. It had to be done hurriedly, so there are obvious mistakes – disappearing wings that reappear, holes in the building that patch over and then reappear. Color was apparently a problem. All the images from that sunshiny day are of gray planes with no markings. Background too seemed problematic – boats in the harbor in original footage disappear in the overlay, and the sky is no longer blue. It was a hurry-up job. They did not have the time that George Lucas did to make the illusions convincing. Images shown on TV later in the day have higher quality fakery.
• Q: There were live shots of the airplanes hitting the buildings!
• A: There was a time delay, and those two shots, Choppers Five and Seven, were a critical element in selling the scam. But the Chopper Five footage was really mucked up. Apparently, even as the overlay was in process, the copter moved, and the overlay got messed up. The fake plane enters the building on one side, and comes out the other intact! NBC saw this problem and covered it up with black. The photographer also forgot to zoom in on time, so that in the wide shot there is no plane. It only appears as he zooms in, but should be in the wide shot too. The whole of the video is easily seen to be CGI.
• Q: So why haven’t people spotted the “illusions”?
• A: They were only shown that day, and never again on network TV. The purpose was a one-time shock. The only reason we have them and can view them is because people recorded them on their VCR’s. The news networks have never shown them again.
• Q: But there aren’t just a few images – there are a lot of them.
• A: There are not as many as there should be. There is only one shot of the first tower explosion, of course, the famous Naudet Brothers one. Their being there in position and just happening to turn the camera to catch a totally off-the-wall event is suspicious. A Danish investigator counted 101 coincidences for that to have happened as it did. With the second tower, granted, no one was expecting a second plane, but still there should be hundreds of shots, even if only accidental ones, just due to cell phones with cameras. But there are maybe 35 videos of the plane hitting the second tower. They are all CGI.
• Q: How can you know that?
• A: Simple logic – if you have 30 good shots, why fake three? If one is faked, all must be.
• Q: Surely there were more.
• A: Maybe, but that is all I know about. Some videos exist on YouTube, like the famous “Bob and Bri” video from their 36th floor apartment, and another by a guy on a bike a couple of miles away. Those two, even with cameras aimed at the buildings, miss the second plane. They seem to malfunction. It’s sad to have cameras trained on those buildings like that for over an hour, and miss the critical, historical shot. But get real – those videos are doctored, not to hide what happened, but rather what did not happen. No planes.
• Q: OK, let’s move on. What about the Pentagon?
• A: That was a little more difficult to sell – I’m kidding. After the shots of the Twin Towers being hit, everything was an easy sell. We were in shock, our bullshit detectors completely disabled. With the Pentagon, since CGI would have been far more difficult, we were told just to believe the impossible.
• Q: No plane?
• A: No plane. Obviously no plane. The question is, what hit the Pentagon? Some think it was a cruise missile, others suspect nothing hit it, that the explosion was caused by planted bombs. Still others think that a real jet flew over the building prior to the explosions. There is far more unknown than known about that incident … unknown unknowns? It is perhaps the most secure location on the planet. Unless disabled, video cameras recorded everything. None have been released except one that shows exactly nothing.
• Q: Hani Hanjour …
• A: A patsy, one of the worst imaginable patsies in history. He could no more have flown that plane and done the things it was said to have done than Peewee Herman.
• Q: So he wasn’t flying it?
• A: Flying what? Do you see how easy it is to fall into the trap? There was no “it” to fly! There was no hijacking. Hanjour, apparently, was a real person, a patsy from a large stable of patsies available for use in covert operations. He probably had doppelgängers and managers, he may have been killed that day somewhere, or may have died years ago with only his name surviving. Someone using that name did enroll in flight school in Florida, and if he was a patsy, he would have done so on instruction without knowing why. As I said, planning for this event took years.
• Q: Why such a complicated maneuver – 330 degree turn, 2200 foot descent – not even real pilots can pull that off in a 767.
• A: It didn’t happen, of course, but there might be a reason for that story, but only speculation is available right now. One theory is that they wanted to destroy the computers and murder the people who discovered the $2 trillion in missing funds that Rumsfeld had revealed the prior day. That’s a subplot. We don’t know, of course, but if that attack was real, the obvious thing to do was to just aim the plane at the Pentagon and hit it. Then “Hani Hanjour” would now be famous for killing Donald Rumsfeld, who was sitting at his desk and was a straight shot, we are told.
• Q: Shanksville?
• A: Investigation is ongoing. There was no plane debris. There was some obviously planted evidence. The official story is that the plane hit soft dirt due to strip mining and reclaiming, and sunk fifteen feet underground. That’s why there was no plane there.
• Q: Did they dig it up?
• A: Dig what up?
• Q: “Let’s Roll?”
• A: “Let’s pretend.” That’s even embarrassing. We don’t know if there was a real plane, if it was really shot down, if there were real people aboard – that’s a made-for-Hollywood story, or perhaps made up on the spot as a contingency story due to some foul-up. There is so much remaining to be uncovered, far more than has been learned so far, no doubt.
• Q: What do you mean, “real people”?
• A: Investigation ongoing, but the Social Security death register doesn’t show people from the airliners that day. They could be fictitious. I’ve always been curious about the local obits for the passengers that day. Do they even exist? Do we all assume they lived somewhere else? It is fairly certain that there were victims from flight 77, the “Pentagon plane,” but how they ended up at the morgue is another subplot. They could have been taken off the plane and killed somewhere else. After all that, plane supposedly vaporized due to heat, but the corpses survived. That stretches credulity.

  Here’s an interesting side story: Chic Burlingame, the pilot of Flight 77, was a big strong guy, and would not have given up that plane without serious resistance. He probably would have stomped 150 lb Hani Hanjour like so many seedless grapes. Chip had a daughter, Wendy, who died In 2006 in a suspicious apartment fire in New Jersey. Idle speculation: Did Burlingame cut a deal with the devil on 9/11, do a flyover, disembark the passengers for killing elsewhere, and then enter witness protection of sorts? Did he then break the deal by contacting his daughter to say he was still alive? Or did Wendy just DIAF. Who knows. But mysterious deaths around 9/11 should always be followed up in depth.

• Q: I suspect you are going to tell me now that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition. That’s what all the “truthers” say.
• A: No, not at all. It would be impossible to put such a large quantity of explosives in place, or even thermite. And remember, it was not just the towers. Seven buildings were destroyed that day, all having a “WTC” prefix.
• Q: Seven?
• They were numbered “WTC1” one through “WTC7.” WTC6 was sheared off like someone had taken a radial arm saw to it, desks and chairs still visible in place. The destruction of 1,2 and 7 we saw on TV. The other four were so badly damaged that only their remains were razed.
• A: Isn’t that natural, what with falling debris and all?
• A: It would appear so, but most of the debris was gone that very day. Below is an image from 9/27/01 – there used to be seven buildings there.

• Q: I saw it on TV! There was a huge pile of debris.
• A: Our field of vision is easily overwhelmed looking at a small image on TV. There was not nearly as much debris as there should have been. This is what triggered Dr. Judy Wood’s curiosity. She has done meticulous research in this area, wondering what happened to all of that debris. There should have been thirteen stories of steel, aluminum, porcelain toilets, desks, files, computers and monitors, but there was only two stories. (The notion that Giuliani “shipped it off to China” is a false lead. There was nothing to ship.) From 1 and 2 there was only one surviving artifact – a filing cabinet wadded up in a meteor-like ball with paper sticking out the sides. There were no toilets, door hinges, light fixtures, computers or files. They all vanished in the … I almost said “collapse.”
• Q: The Twin Towers had seven floors underground. Wasn’t the debris down there?
• A: No – the basements did not collapse, and there was no debris. Dr. Wood even has pictures of light fixtures still working as rescue workers walk through the uncluttered parking areas below after the collapse. And most interesting of all, the bathtub was completely unharmed.
• Q: Bathtub?
• A: The WTC complex is an engineering marvel, built right out into the Hudson River. Prior to construction, the Port Authority built a retaining wall to house the complex – the bottom stories of every building there was technically under water. It’s called “The Bathtub.”
• Q: It was destroyed?
• A: Not even close. It was not harmed. They were very worried about it that day. When they took down the remains of WTC6, they had to be extremely cautious, as it was built adjacent to the Bathtub wall. Had the Bathtub breached that day, the subways, all of lower Manhattan would have flooded. Some very important people and some of the most valuable real estate on the planet would have been harmed. Lucky thing!
• Q: So no bombs?
• A: Oh yeah, there were bombs placed high up in the buildings. But that was to sell the idea that planes had hit the towers. They were even set off in such a manner that there were outlines of an airliner left behind.
• A: Please, I saw the outline of an airliner not just in one, but in two buildings!
• A: So did we all. But if real jet airliners had crashed into those buildings, they would not have penetrated the outer shell like that. There would have been an indentation perhaps, fires, falling debris, wounded and killed people, and plane debris all over the streets. There was none of that – just a jet airliner sucked into a building leaving behind that cartoonish Roadrunner outline. Can’t happen.
• Q: There was debris on the streets.
• A: There was mostly dust and paper. Cars were toasted blocks away. An apparent pyroclastic flow engulfed Manhattan, and people ran from it. But oddly it was not hot. People had trouble breathing, but did not die from it. Fires burned cars, but paper sat within inches of those fires, and did not burn.
• Q: I saw a jet engine on the sidewalk. It was on TV.
• A: There was one jet engine laying on a sidewalk that, unfortunately, was not the type used on 767’s or 757’s. It apparently came from a Boeing 737. Honestly, sometimes I think they weren’t even trying! But again, this was done for the sake of initial impression, and there was never any follow-up.
• Q: So what brought down the buildings?
• A: Very good question. Dr. Wood does not supply anything but very cautious speculation regarding directed energy-based weaponry of some type. Her most valuable contribution has been to let the evidence speak for itself. In so doing, she has ruled out any possibility of pancake collapse, controlled demolition, use of nanothermites or mini-nukes. That’s where she is at right now. She refuses to go beyond what the evidence tells her. This drives people nuts. We want answers! And there are no answers. Only speculation.
• Q: She’s the beam lady, right?
• A: Yes, the beam lady. Here’s her bio:
  

  Dr. Wood is a professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science.

  Could all be bullshit, of course. It’s a hall of mirrors. One of the hardest part of my submersion into this underworld of intrigue is called the “limited hangout.” Dr. Richard Gage formed “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” But he will not talk to anyone who does not believe in controlled demolition. That’s all he allows within that group. Stephen Jones advanced the nano-thermite theory, but that’s not plausible either. But he won’t back down or discuss any other possibility. These two and others appear to be out to mislead us, take us down garden paths, and away from real evidence. Jones is an odd duck in that he was involved in the Pons/Fleischmann cold fusion experiments in 1989 – it was Jones who supposedly discredited the research. Dr. Wood believes that directed energy of some sort was used, that there is some energy source used that day that we have not seen before. But it is very difficult to know who is reliable and honest in their research and who is bullshitting us. I’m satisfied about Gage and Jones. They are false leads. There’s another Jones, “Alex,” who does similar misleading work, and a guy named “Fetzer” in Minnesota (Scholars for 9/11 truth) who seems only to want to pit people against one another. I have decided to trust Dr. Wood at this time, but, you know, she could be pulling our chains too. The people who pulled this thing off thought ahead. They knew there would be questions and skeptics.

Q: How do you know who to trust?

• A: You don’t. And really, other than satisfying curiosity, does it matter now? I want to know what happened that day, as it’s a really good mystery. So do millions of others, but remember, the wars went ahead, the American public bought the lies. It was a successful “PSYOP.” (As with everything else here, please do your own google-binging. I’m tired.) Anyone who questions the official story is ridiculed, and it is never discussed on TV or in any news. It’s a forbidden subject.
• Q: “PSYOP?”
• A: Yes. Most of what we think of as the terrorist attack of that day was provided to us by our television sets via FOX, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN. It was basically a TV reality show.
• Q: OK, here we go. You’re saying that they were part of it, right?
• A: “They” is such a useless term, but yes. It only takes a few moles in the right positions. Years ago, in the late 1970’s, the Church Committee investigation of CIA activities found that even then they had as many as 500 moles in news agencies all over the country. On the morning of 9/11, network news executives were interviewed who said they were out walking and saw the jetliners fly overhead and hit the buildings. They were planting the seeds. They are moles. As I read it, there is really only one truly independent eyewitness who says without reservation that he saw a plane hit WTC2. Everyone else learned that planes hit buildings from TV news. That’s a PSYOP.
• Q: Newscasters lied?
• A: Maybe one or two of them did. Those pretty faces we see on TV are not hired for their journalistic chops. Television news is a confidence game. They need people who are attractive and appear credible. They read from monitors. Their job requires believability, not intelligence or honesty. Real journalists, like, say, Helen Thomas, are not pretty people. If Helen was pretty, she would have not had incentive to develop her brain as she did. Seymour Hersh is a lousy speaker. Television news is a suggestibility medium, not just for 9/11, but for everything. As they learned in the 1950’s, people tend to believe faces on that screen in their living rooms. If a newscaster says something, people automatically think it is true. They have amazing power. No way is government going to let that power go to waste.
• Q: All right then, it appears you think it was an inside job. Who did it?
• A: There’s a lot of who’s, and many facets to this very large operation, not the least of which is the ongoing cover-up. These are psychopaths, killers, technicians, planners, moles, dupes, patsies … but at the very top of such an operation there are probably only a few with broad knowledge of the entire operation. If I had to name just a few names, I would include perhaps Rumsfeld, Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and am especially intrigued by a guy named Myers.
• Q: What about Cheney?
• A: Maybe he’s involved, but he’s a public face. He’s obviously a sociopath, but seems to have a drinking problem, if shooting a guy in the face is a clue.
• Q: Bush?
• A: Get real. Such a stupid little man, unstable and all, would not be allowed within ten miles of such an operation. No one would have trusted him.
• Q: Others?
• A: Many others, but not as many as appear necessary on the surface. Remember that most people involved that day were unwitting participants.
• Q: To what end?
• A: In essence, we are looking at a coup d’état, where one faction within and scattered throughout government and the defense industry and Wall Street took control of the executive branch. It had to include the military, intelligence agencies, contractors, news media, and there are enough moles in place within FBI and other places to assist. That’s why the leads discovered by honest FBI agents prior to that time were never followed up on – moles.

  The guts of 9/11 was “Angel is Next” (“Angel was code name for Air Force One), the threat to the executive branch that sent Bush’s protectors scurrying around the country that day before landing at Offutt in Nebraska. STRATCOM, the United States Strategic Command, is there. They understood, and came around late that evening. Bush appeared on TV and blamed Osama bin Laden, and the game was over. They had surrendered. (Don’t confuse Bush with the executive branch. He, like Obama, is just a ribbon cutting teleprompter reader.) Shortly thereafter the US would invade Central Asia and Iraq, and as it turns out, quite a number of other Arab countries.

• A: So it was not just for shits and giggles?
• A: No. It had real purpose. It was meant to be a traumatic event to galvanize the public behind military aggression. It really hammered our psyches, creating a kind of mass psychosis. They could have invaded Denmark and had public support after that tragedy. There had to be a real purpose other than just an attack for its own sake. Such a drastic plan had to have a real purpose beyond making us all irrational and angry. That might well have to do with economics. The US is in a precarious position, and our currency is propped up by oil. We have plenty of oil mind you, but it is oil that keeps the dollar afloat. Without the dollar as the international exchange currency for oil, it will shrink in value. For a small country like Argentina or Sri Lanka, it’s only a local disaster, but for an empire like the US, it is a massive calamity. It spells the end of our empire. We cannot sustain this massive military machine without a strong dollar.
• Q: So they staged a false attack on ourselves to save the dollar?
• A: To save the empire. That is not, in my view, far off the mark. Saddam Hussein was defiantly trading oil in euros, and had to be brought down. That created the urgency that the Neocons warned Clinton about in their Project for a New American Century – Iraq had to be conquered, and quickly. Iran was threatening to do the same, wanting to set up its own bourse. They were getting uppity. Venezuela is renegade as well. It’s almost a game of Whack-A-Mole, and I think, in the end, hopeless. We are an empire in contraction, just as the Soviets before us.
• Q: What lay ahead?
• A: I cannot think about the future. It’s hard enough to understand the past. There is so much more unknown than known about 9/11, so much more to learn, and I loves me a good mystery.
• Q: If people know what happened, will it bring down the government?
• A: Not unless some pretty talking head tells them on the TV. Remember, TV is our reality. We need more than Charlie Sheen to cause a Great Awakening. I’m pretty much content to understand “what.” I don’t see any great shaking coming in this population. It was Proudhon who said that we humans are “…too ignorant, too enslaved for me to feel annoyed at them.” We have this idealistic notion that people want to be free, that slavery is involuntary. Not so. Slavery is security. Slavery is freedom.
• Q: Charlie Sheen?
• A: Yeah. He’s our great leader, the only public figure who has had the guts to say in public what so many know in private.
• Q: Cocaine and hookers, delusions of grandeur … that Charlie Sheen?
• A: Yeah, that’s our guy. But remember, the cocaine/hookers incident happened after he went public about his thoughts on 9/11. After that he lost his job with CBS too. The hooker/cocaine incident looks to me like enticement and entrapment, ala Elliot Spitzer.
• Q: A warning to him to shut up?
• A: Possibly. Who knows? Perhaps he was supposed to DIAF that night or suffer a massive overdose of some kind, but miraculously survived. Even so, he knows to shut up now.
• Q: Why don’t you shut up?
• A: I write a small blog. Even my kids facepalm when they read this stuff. Piece of Mind gets maybe 300 hits a day now. Maybe five people will read this through. Maybe. It’s a curiosity site and threatens no one.
• Q: Anything else?
• A: Lots. I’m just scratching the surface. But what is really troubling is how those people died. It is weird and disgusting. They were jumping out of the towers. Dr. Wood says as many as 1,200 people died that way, though it is just an arithmetic projection based on testimony of fire fighters in a given time frame. But it was, as one said, raining people that day, and not stupid people. They knew the building would not collapse, that the fires would go out, that help would arrive. But they jumped anyway! If Dr. Wood is right in her speculation of some energy-based weaponry, if some far-fetched weapon out of Reagan’s Star Wars program was developed and tested that day, they were not jumping out of a burning building. They were escaping a microwave oven. Photos have them tearing off clothing, appearing almost relieved as they fall. Firefighters talked of the awful “thuds” going on that day prior to the collapses.

  Of all the horrors I have seen in my life, that tops it. The U.S. routinely drops bombs on people everywhere and is indifferent to civilian casualties. I suspect civilians are often targeted for terror’s sake alone, but this is the worst crime I can imagine, inflicting such an agonizing death for its own sake, testing a weapon with complete indifference to humanity. The Romans were known to be brutal, even lining the road with heads on stakes after a slave rebellion. This tops that.