How and why the 9/11 attacks were carried out and why the Truther community has a low IQ

The attacks of 9/11 were the result of meticulous planning and preparation with military precision and a minimum of two years in the making. A false flag operation that came about as a result of economic and energy demand for the worlds precious hydrocarbons (oil & gas), geopolitical remapping of the Middle East, financial payouts (billions) for big corporations, Zionist political & economic objectives, and a hawkish neocon vision for the Middle East and against America’s geopolitical foes (Russia & China).

As one can ascertain from the above, this is beyond the capabilities or vision of one man, a political party or administration, or even a single civilian or military gathering intelligence agency. Such an event becomes only feasible when its participants are a combination of hawkish political figures who hold a new vision for America’s foreign policy and its strategic geopolitical and economic position in the world, rouge politicians, and rouge elements within the national security apparatus and national security agencies that all come together for the same plan but for varying objectives and self-interest.

So-far we have covered motive and objectives. But the 64-million-dollar question is “Who” planned and carried out the attacks and “How” it was pulled off, because the 9/11 attacks are a mystery rapped in a riddle inside an enigma and for the average Joe, this all way beyond his comprehension. After all, we were all bombarded with constant 24 hours news stream of information, images, and constant updates of America under attack and Bin Laden is the perpetrator of this unspeakable act of evil that led to two great towers, symbols of American economic greatness to collapse in a mere 10 seconds for each tower, killing and injuring thousands of people, striking a section of the Pentagon, and the heroic story of how the passengers on one flight fought back the terrorists and crashed the plane in an empty field to save the US Capital and their fellow citizens from further devastation. It was all too much to bear for anyone of any religious or political following, to see the mass murder of thousands of people live on TV like never seen before. Coupled with the mainstream media’s ignorance and reluctance to ask the hard questions and do real investigative journalism, the world was conned into believing that 19 so called “hijackers” trained by Al Qaeda, carried out their martyrdom attacks with pin point military precision, overcoming the most powerful intelligence agencies of the United States, overcoming the US air defenses, taking over four commercial airliners, overpowering the passengers and crews, and finally crashing the aircrafts into the known designated landmarks. This can be the plot for a great Hollywood blockbuster, but most of the people believed it to be true and even today most people believe it to be so.

However, with good research one can shatter the official story and expose the true events of that horrible day, not because one doesn’t agree with it but because the evidence completely contradicts the official version of events. This is not about what I think or what you think, this is about solid and irrefutable data found in the public domain, declassified documents, 9/11 commission documents, FBI documents, radar data, ATC data, expert testimony, eye witness testimony, video and photo documentation, and so on.

There are three categories of data that clearly demonstrates the official version to be false. Once we can understand this data it is possible to link all the pieces of information together and form a theory that is based on the evidence of what took place. Short of a live confession by a member of the perpetrators of 9/11 or the public admission by the government, this will not be a 100% accurate version of the events but will be the closest we can get to the truth, so far.

On the morning of 9/11, NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and elements of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), were in the middle of several and overlapping wargames and exercises. Most of the war games & exercises that have been admitted to in the public domain have some if not most its content redacted but we do know enough to gather the relevant information and form conclusions.

The following war games & exercises were taking places on the morning of 9/11:

The Global Guardian Exercise: On the morning of the attack, a large-scale military training exercise called Global Guardian was "in full swing." Global Guardian is an annual exercise involving Stratcom (the US Strategic Command), the US Space Command, and NORAD.

There is evidence that the date of the 2001 Global Guardian exercise was changed to correspond with the terrorist attack. NBC News military analyst William Arkin, in his book Code Names, gives the date of the exercise as October 22-31, 2001. 6 Also, a military newspaper, the Space Observer, reported in an article dated 3/23/01 that the exercise was scheduled for October of that year. Stratcon directed the exercise, which included all the US strategic forces, from Offutt Air Force Base.

The Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian Training Exercises: These were apparently a pair of war games (attacker versus defender) which involved live-fly simulations of hijackings. Both this pair of exercises and Northern Vigilance probably involved the use of "injects" into screens to simulate aircraft. These games apparently resembled the actual attack sufficiently to confuse military officers, as suggested by the following transcript. The only known source for the exercise named Vigilant Warrior is Richard Clarke's book, Against All

Amalgam Warrior: A NORAD field training exercise involving life-fly air interception, held twice yearly, in the spring on the East Coast and the fall on the East Coast.

The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill: The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) "provides our nation its eyes and ears in space." It operates a system of reconnaissance satellites to provide real-time monitoring of objects in the skies. On 9/11/01 the NRO headquarters in Chantilly, VA, were evacuated as part of a "plane into building" drill. The scenario involved a small corporate jet crashing into one of the campus' four towers.

The Timely Alert II Terrorism Drill: On the morning of the attack, personnel at the Fort Monmouth Army base in New Jersey were preparing to hold a drill, for the days of September 11 and 12, to test preparedness to respond to a chemical attack. The exercise was to involve law enforcement and emergency responders including the New Jersey State Police and Fort Monmouth Fire Department. Just before the exercise was to commence, reports of the attack in New York City surfaced and "real world events overtook the exercise," in the words of Army spokesman Timothy L. Rider.

The Tripod II Biowarfare Exercise: FEMA had deployed to New York City on September 10 to set up a command post at Pier 29, supposedly in preparation for a biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12.

As one can see, “live-fly” hijacking drills were running that in 2 forms, Simulated (meaning electric blips representing false planes) into NORAD radar controllers and Real planes (physical aircrafts in the air with passengers and crew) playing the role of being hijacked (as part of the war games/drills). This is the Rosetta key to the 9/11 attacks.

As the above shows, the US military had envisioned various exercises, including terrorist attacks using aircraft as missiles planned before 9/11. More relevant to the subject at hand, however, is the fact that a number of military war games were scheduled to be conducted by the US military on the day of September 11, 2001, at precisely the same time as the murderous events occurred. These war games included exercises involving aircraft hijackings and crashes. Were the exercises and the murderous events in some way related?

A central feature of the simulated war games conducted on 9/11 was for the military to feed electronic blips representing airliners into military and civilian radar. As the events of 9/11 unfolded, radar operators had no way of knowing whether the blips they were observing on their screens represented real or simulated aircraft.

There were in fact three types of blips the controllers had to confront:

Those representing virtual aircraft, possessing no physical existence; those representing real aircraft which were scheduled to participate in the simulated hijackings; and, all other blips representing real aircraft. Similar exercises had been conducted just days prior to 9/11, all working with the same scenario of terrorists hijacking a London to New York flight with plans to detonate explosives over New York.2 Air traffic controllers and others responsible for flight security in the Eastern part of the United States thus had good reason to believe that at least some of the input on their screens was part of a similar if not identical exercise.

Upon receiving notification from Boston regarding the possible hijacking of flight AA11 NEADS commander Col. Robert asked if the notification was part of the exercise. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins also received word of the possible hijacking from Boston. She, too, initially assumed it must be part of the exercise. Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander, had helped design the day’s exercise. Thinking the reported hijacking was part of it, he was reported to have said, “The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour.”1 Three NEADS technicians who were following the news—Stacia Rountree, Shelley Watson and Maureen Dooley—looked forward to an exciting exercise: 08:37:56 Watson: What? Dooley: Whoa! Watson: What was that? Rountree: Is that real-world? Dooley: Real-world hijack. Watson: Cool!2

The above conversation is excerpted from recordings made in the control room of NORAD’s Northeast headquarters, obtained by the magazine Vanity Fair

The expression “real-world” is used by the military to denote live-fly, as opposed to table-top exercises, not a “real attack”. This can be ascertained from a comment made by Major James Fox, leader of the NEADS weapons team, at 8:43 a.m., after it had been made known within the system that flight AA11 had been hijacked: “I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.” Had Shelley Watson, quoted in the above dialogue, believed that “real-world” meant a real attack, she would hardly have exclaimed, “Cool!”

Similarly, NEADS Battle Commander Robert Marr, upon observing his personnel reacting to the news of the hijacking, reportedly thought the day’s exercise was “kicking off with a lively, unexpected twist.” Even after a colleague informed him of the situation—”real life, not part of the exercise”—he continued to believe his colleague was playing a part in the exercise by attempting to mislead him. Marr said he thought that “this is an interesting start to the exercise. This ‘real-world’ mixed in with today’s simex [simulated exercise] will keep [my staff members] on their toes.” (Spencer, 26)

Even Major General Larry Arnold later said that, when he heard of the hijacking, his first thought was to ask, “Is this part of the exercise?” When United Airlines’ Chief Operating Officer Andy Studdert arrived at the airline’s System Operations Control (SOC) center on the morning of 9/11, at around 9:00 a.m., he had to repeatedly assert to employees that the unfolding crisis was not a training exercise: “This is not a drill!”1 Ten days prior, he had surprised the staff with a crisis-training exercise, where he’d told them a flight over the Pacific had broken radio contact and suffered a potentially disastrous engine failure. The staff believed the story for 30 minutes before he told them the truth. As late as 9:04:50, after both WTC towers had been hit, the following conversation took place at the Battle Cab, the glassed-in command area overlooking the ops floor at NEADS:

Is this explosion part of that that we’re lookin’ at now on TV? Yes. Jesus... And there’s a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines ... Two planes? Get the f.. out... I think this is a damn input, to be honest.3

The last sentence reveals that the unidentified speaker thought that what he was seeing on television was also an “input,” i.e., a fabricated image being fed to “his” television set. This suggests that he was not the only participant to believe that everything he or she was being fed had been faked. In a detailed analysis, the blogger Shoestring demonstrated that some locations carried the exercises past the crash times of the four aircraft. They apparently believed the stories about the crashes, including what was being reported by the television networks, to be fake. It bears mentioning that most major NORAD exercises conducted previously had included a hijack scenario. NORAD officials have acknowledged that “scriptwriters” for the drills had included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons in past exercises.

As Vanity Fair reported, audio recordings from the operations floor at NEADS reveal that “there was no sense that the attack was over with the crash of United 93.” Instead, “the alarms go on and on. False reports of hijackings, and real responses, continue well into the afternoon [of 9/11].” The fighter pilots over New York and [Washington] DC (and later Boston and Chicago) would spend hours darting around their respective skylines intercepting hundreds of aircraft they deemed suspicious.... No one at NEADS would go home until late on the night of the 11th.”1 The FBI and the 9/11 Commission showed no inclination to investigate the relationship between the exercises and Operation 9/11. US authorities refused to disclose the identities of those coordinating these exercises, and why September 11, 2001, had been selected.

Within the framework of a live-fly hijacking exercise, the military would seek to employ reliable participants to play the role of hijacked passengers and flight crew. Participants would be told they had been selected for their trustworthiness and discretion and would be invited to participate in an anti-terror exercise. Most of them would probably accept to participate in such an exercise as a civic and patriotic duty. Those reluctant to make fake calls to their next-of kin would be offered the option of calling unrelated persons, such as security officials. With such a scenario, the plotters would be able to establish the future legend of Islamic hijackings.

Did the phone callers participate in hijacking drills? Having mentioned the multiple military exercises being conducted on the morning of September 11, 2001, including live-fly hijacking drills, and the fact that the phone callers reported bogus and implausible events, the question that immediately springs to mind is: Were the callers participating in the hijacking drills? It should come as no surprise that, had this been the case, it would be treated as a mortal secret never to be revealed. The conduct of the callers strongly suggests, indeed, that they were acting rather than relaying real events.

The hijacking drill theory Enter a theory sketched out years ago by blogger John Doe II, but which apparently has not since been explored systematically. According to this theory, the phone calls made by passengers and crew members were genuine, meaning they were made by the named persons and not by impersonators. The callers would have been asked to participate in a live-fly hijacking drill in which they would enact, as realistically as possible, the role of passengers and crew on a hijacked aircraft. Their main task would have been to call selected recipients on the ground and report the mock hijackings, including the alleged conduct of the alleged hijackers, their alleged Middle Eastern background and other details that would later become building blocks of the official 9/11 legend.

The volunteers would have been told that the military needed civilian volunteers to participate in a yearly hijacking drill, the purpose of which is to find out whether the information provided by the phone calls would trickle through “the system” quickly enough to trigger a military response to the hijackings.

The enforced disappearance of the passengers and crew of the four flights

As it has been clearly documented, the phone callers were duped into deceiving the recipients, including their husbands and wives, though they did so for a legitimate reason, namely participating in a counter-terrorism drill. There is no evidence that they survived. Absent definite evidence as to where passengers and crew were taken after they had checked in at the airports, the airlines and ultimately, the US government, bear the responsibility of providing a credible and verifiable account about their fate. Even if they are believed to have been murdered at the behest of the US authorities, their legal status under international law remains that of enforced disappeared persons.