Dulles

We think it is an opportune time to rewrite a report we first presented to the general public on a now defunct website approximately 18 months ago. We are used to our opponents on the web taking extreme measures when confronted with irrefutable evidence of government lies – but their reaction – closing the website down, surprised us at the time. The website in question served as something of honey pot for western intelligence agencies who could easily see what the so-called Islamists were up to. It served as a forum for radicals, spies and members of the public who were gutsy enough to provide their email addresses to register. It also served as a media outlet for  Muslims whose videos were sometimes downloaded by commercial television stations for various news reports.
We have no way of knowing whether ip addresses were sometimes forwarded to government security agencies – although we suspect they were. We think that the forum for radical Muslims was closed down because it outlived its usefulness and was proving to be an embarrassment when a group of individuals led by andrew007 began to deconstruct the 9/11 legend in an unprecedented way. We pushed buttons, revealed a lot of information and succeeded, to some extent, in winning over neutral readers.
Myths are hard to define in the twenty first century because not only do the Americans want the general public to believe that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 – but many radical Muslims cling to that illusion as well. To suggest that George Bush ordered the entire operation is something many Muslims see as an affront to their Jihadist beliefs.  To say that the CIA or Mossad did it is seen by some Muslims as being in a state of denial that stems from an assumption that Muslims in general and Arabs in particular do not have the technical ability to conduct such an operation. We, on the other hand, have no time for these considerations as they do not relate to evidence. Whether or not we agree with a particular viewpoint is neither here nor there. Reality for us has an objective characteristic that transcends an individual point of view. We think that’s why infovlad decided to pull the plug on us eventually: because our reports, based firmly on reality, were being read by literally thousands of people who could then take a leaf out of our book. We do not, furthermore, consider ourselves the only people in the world capable of critical thinking. We do think, however, that outside some state sponsored intelligence agencies, our database is the best in the world.
Visitors to the infovlad website can now see a small image of two wooden birds, the kind sometimes planted in a pot alongside a flower. Underneath the image is the following text: “clearinghouse.infovlad.net is history, stark history; every stone is soaked in blood.” How true.
If the existence of the old Soviet state defined the course of world history in the twentieth century, then 9/11 is likely to define the course of history in the twenty first century. We often make the point that the American permanent war economy needs its daily narcotics fix of death and misery so it can continue to lead the world and prevent economic collapse. The military service industries alone, such as Blackwater and Halliburton, employ thousands of people worldwide.  General Atomics, the producers of the Predator drone, are optimistic they can sell their devices to other countries, aside from a small group of NATO allies. No doubt the Obama administration will favourably consider granting export licenses for these weapons when it needs to review its current stimulus package. We are of the opinion that the so-called sub-prime mortgage crisis will quickly engulf the commercial property market and further plunge the world economy into crisis. As the world’s leading arms manufacturer, America is well positioned to avoid capitalist collapse by igniting conflict throughout the world – but at what cost? Will the insatiable greed of capitalist class eventually destroy the world?
We would like to begin this report in earnest by stating that not only are there major question marks about the conclusions of Pentbom investigators in relation to events at Dulles on the 10th and 11th of September, 2001 – but also that the standards of investigative journalism are very poor throughout the USA. When the major media organisations lost their monopoly control over the flow of information with the introduction of the internet, a golden opportunity was lost, in our view, when alternative media outlets by and large refused to employ serious investigative techniques such as interviewing people and instead resorted to guesswork, conspiracy theories and using a priori assumptions about Israeli control of America, for example. The issue of Israeli control of America led some webmasters to claim that Israel was in fact behind the 9/11 operation without any real evidence. The investigative techniques used by these clowns without a circus included watching television, reading newspaper reports and visiting websites run by right wing nutters such as Alex Jones and Michael Rivero. It is ironic and amusing that the above mentioned journalistic techniques were first deployed by an ex-LAPD detective who put together a time-line relying solely on various newspaper reports. Criminals operating in the Los Angeles area should be encouraged by this state of affairs – carry on as usual and the LAPD won’t sit up and take notice until they read about it in the press.
Of course there are exceptions within the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. We know, for example, that Sander Hicks undertook the basic journalistic technique of interviewing people and – despite his prejudiced, bigoted views which include the outrageous slander that the Taliban wanted to become the world’s major drug cartel – so did Daniel Hopsicker. In the case of the former, we think the unquestioned ability of the individual was wasted by focusing so exclusively on Vreeland and in the case of the latter, we admit we were among the gullible who read his work. We would like to point out at this time that the stories about the hijackers drinking alcohol and taking prostitutes are a deliberate government plant, in our view. The FBI took extraordinary steps to denigrate the moral character of the hijackers in order to prevent millions of Muslims throughout the world from admiring them. Reports that Atta drank rum and Coke, for example, when in reality he drank cranberry juice, reinforce this perspective. Because so much of the information denigrating the hijacker’s character came from Hopsicker, we cannot avoid the conclusion that Hopsicker was part of a wider operation. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that had Hopsicker discovered everything he said he had, someone would have shot him. Instead, we are asked to believe, he walks around Venice uncovering major drug operations, DEA collusion with those operations, establishes a relationship with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris to those operations and miraculously lives to tell the tale. Mr Hopsicker developed what he amusingly calls the magic Dutch boy theory in relation to these developments. We at this point would like to ratchet up the general level of amusement by referring to a magic Hopsicker survival theory we have been patiently developing over the last few years.
We can only find two examples of independent investigators having a look at what happened at Dulles on the 10th and 11th September, 2001. It is interesting to note that both presented reports on the subject which reinforced their own perspectives. The first report, presented by Joe Vialls, an Australian based investigator who has since passed away, should be studied here.
Mr Vialls presents three photographs at the top of the page to argue incorrectly that the 9/11 Commission used the video these frames were extracted from to hoodwink the American public into thinking they were taken from a recording taken on the morning of 9/11. The fact is that the video was given to Associated Press on the evening before the 9/11 Commission released its report by Motley Rice, a legal firm representing families who were suing the government and the security companies in charge of screening passengers. While it is true that the 9/11 Commissioners had access to a video, we are not sure which version of the video (there are at least two taken from separate cameras) they had access to or whether the video had time-stamps on it. Mr Vialls argues that the absence of time-stamps renders the video effectively useless as evidence. He then goes on to point out that the shadows of pedestrians outside the terminal are very short and an indication that the video was taken much later in the day. Mr Vialls also points out that the amount of bright sunshine streaming in from the outside indicates that the video was taken later in the day, perhaps around midday, he suggests. Let us examine the photographs presented by Mr Vialls as evidence. Mr Vialls gets off to a shaky start with the photograph on the left, in our opinion, as it is easy to see a long, extended shadow at the top of the photograph.  The photograph on the right has no visible shadows and while the photograph of the taxi does appear to show a short shadow, there is nothing – nothing – to indicate that photograph was taken in connection with the video taken in the terminal building. Instead, the photograph of the taxi appears to have been taken on a cloudy, overcast day while reports inform us there were clear skies that morning. Where are the short shadows Mr Vialls claims to have identified then? While it seems obvious that the length of the shadows has more to do with the direction of the sun vis a vis the entrance to the terminal building, we feel obliged to examine Mr Vialls claims more closely to determine whether they have any validity. Here are some snapshots we took to demonstrate that the shadows are in fact long in places where they are visible. long shadows

We would like to point out  that although the amount of sunlight streaming through the front entrance to the terminal does appear intense, it is normal procedure to calibrate exposure times to best capture peoples faces in an area under surveillance. If the exposure times were not adjusted for the bright light at the entrance, then the faces of the passengers being screened would be so dark they would be indistinguishable. A consequence of this adjustment is that the white light at the entrance appears more intense than it actually is. What matters, of course, is that the cameras preserve an accurate record of people passing the check-point. The area by the entrance is deliberately over-exposed, hence it appears brighter than it actually is. Furthermore, we have in our possession video with a time-stamp although the time-stamp has several problems with it. Firstly, as we can see from the images below, there is no date but only a timer which, in the first of our snapshots, was activated 17 minutes and 21 seconds before. The video the frames below were extracted from is 37 seconds long and has clearly been edited but the time-stamp runs in sequence – with no breaks to go with the edits. Obviously it was added later but by who – and why – we are unable to say. As this video is less than four mb in size, we will happily send it as an email attachment to other researchers. Just ask. (andreweslazak@yahoo.com.au)   It is a shame that Mr Vialls passed away and it does not feel very comfortable denigrating his work when he has no chance to reply. (Perhaps we are wrong on this and a thunderbolt will hit us tonight.) We understand he did some important work with the Libyans on the Yvonne Fletcher frame-up and congratulate him for that. When all the above elements are combined, however, we think our exclusive database is capable of refuting so-called evidence presented to reinforce an a priori assumption. It appears the time-stamp was there but was layered on top of the video. The shadows outside the building do appear reasonably long where they are visible. We suggest, furthermore, that to study the length of shadows to determine the time would require a trip to Washington to assess all light sources in the vicinity. Shadows can be formed by reflected light off white buildings, for example. What you think you see is not necessarily an indication of the time of day, especially in a high density built up area such as Dulles Airport.

We think the most startling images in the video come from the section with Hani Hanjour. We think he arrived with a woman and present the following snapshots as evidence. The last time we did this on the infovlad website, the whole website got pulled overnight, which makes us think, somehow, we are dealing with sensitive information. Prior to the release of the 500 megabyte video for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, no versions of the video released to the public showed Hanjour passing through the terminal. By releasing the Hanjour section for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, the Justice Department may have been asserting their independence or may have been trying to clear up a great deal of confusion that arose when many 9/11 researchers noticed that in the initial release, Hanjour was absent. In the first photograph we present, Hanjour pauses by the terminal entrance to wait for the woman approaching from behind. In the second and third photo, he is clearly interacting with her: In the last photo, they pass through the terminal together: We think we can understand the difficulties the government had presenting this evidence and puts the delay of the Hanjour segment into some context. Of course they did not have to release the information at all, as the Zacarias Moussaoui trial could proceed without the video as evidence. Again, placing the release of the video in context, we can see extraordinary pressure building up in America at the time, as large numbers of its citizens refused to accept the government line. On the Democratic Underground discussion forum, for example, Hanjour’s absence on the initial video release was regularly commented upon. And although these debates inevitably descended into farce with the “no plane hit the Pentagon” brigade regularly hijacking the debates, the government was clearly in a bind with no pilot for Flight 77 shown on initial video. There was a report in the Washington Post, for example, that Hanjour did not have a ticket and somehow bypassed airport check-in altogether. Clearly, the government did not want investigators to turn in that direction as it opened up a can of worms the government did not want the public to examine. And while other 9/11 investigators may disagree with the arguments presented in this report, they would agree, if they studied the evidence, that Hanjour was added almost as an afterthought to the list of hijackers. Obviously, American authorities needed to identify someone who could fly.

It is also very interesting that Al Qaida have released a number of videos of the hijackers, starting in 2002. As we can see from the following photo, the hijackers’ photos appears to be screenshots taken from their video wills – with the exception of the pilots. In cases where the video wills have not been released, in Al-Suqami’s case, for example, As-Sahab, the so-called Al Qaida media organisation, have a screenshot of him with traditional Arab clothes,   presumably a screenshot from an unreleased video. In the case of Hanjour, as with the other pilots, the photos in the possession of As-Sahab are commonly available photos taken from visa applications, drivers licenses etc etc. There has been no new video or photographs of any of the hijacker pilots released by Al Qaida which isn’t surprising since in our view they never had possession of that material.

The main argument presented in this report is that the hijackers arrived at Dulles airport on the morning of 9/11 with no idea they were about to hijack Flt 77.  Before we proceed with the main body of evidence to bolster our case, we need to review another report produced by independent film-makers Susan and Joseph Trento.  In their video, the couple start out with a definite point of view: namely, that airport security isn’t tight enough. And while most Americans would readily agree in light of the hijackings, it is important to realise the film-makers agenda at the outset. Most interestingly, the video producers interview Eric Gill, who was employed at Dulles airport and who claims he spotted some Arab males in a secure area of the airport on the 10th September.

Please note that Gill identifies Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Marwan Al-Shehhi as being present in the secure area. This is particularly interesting since we know that Al-Shehhi was a pilot and could fly – but the case presented by the government has him at the controls of Flt 175 which departed from Boston. We have reports that Al-Shehhi shaved his beard off on the 10th September leaving only a moustache. The identification of Nawaf Al-Hazmi in the secure area is crucial as he has variously been described as the deputy commander of the attack and a Saudi Arabian intelligence asset. We must stress, however, that we are unable to reach any firm conclusions about the identification of these two individuals by Gill.  Of all the possibilities that arise from Gill’s identification of the pair, we are unable to say whether they corresponded with reality. Perhaps he was correct in identifying Al-Hazmi but wrong in the case of Al-Shehhi. Or the opposite may be true. We have no way of knowing although we suspect his identification was correct on both counts. That would account for the late introduction of Hanjour into the video and his inclusion in the official 9/11 narrative. It is also necessary to point out that Ramzi Bin Al-Shibah, in an interview with Yosri Fouda, allegedly sometime in 2002, claimed Nawaf Al-Hazmi piloted Flt 77 and not Hanjour.

The only plausible explanation for Al-Hazmi being in the secure area was that he was either surveying that part of the airport or leaving behind weapons to be used the next day. And it is important to realise that Nawaf Al-Hazmi was overall second in command of 9/11 so if the report by Gill is correct, we are no longer able to believe the hijackers turned up the next morning with concealed box-cutters or knives. Gill states quite clearly that the intruders wore American Airlines uniforms. They were in a secure section of the airport and attempting to open a door with a security pass when Gill intervened. Suddenly, in our view, we leave behind the notion the hijackers were amateurs who trained on Cessnas and we gain an initial glimpse of a state-sponsored intelligence/terrorist operation.

This perspective is tremendously reinforced by the doctored video evidence of the hijackers passing through airport security and also by the decision of the alleged hijackers to drive to Dulles in a blue Toyota Corolla on the morning of 9/11. Even defenders of the official government line on 9/11 could not claim the video released by Associated Press or the video introduced as evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial are the original, unedited videos. The time-stamps have at various times been removed or added and the problems associated with the Hanjour section have been explained. With all state-sponsored terrorist operations, almost without exception, a trail of evidence is left behind to incriminate the chosen victim, in this case Osama Bin Laden. The events at Dulles on the morning of 9/11 proved no exception. We can see from the following document the incredible amount of evidence the alleged hijackers left behind for the FBI to subsequently discover. Additionally, in what can only be described as fortuitous in the extreme, Salem Al-Hazmi’s wallet was subsequently found at the Pentagon.

The evidence left behind in the car led to the arrest of Osama Awadallah and Mohd. Abdi. Perhaps more importantly, although certainly not from the perspective of the individuals concerned, Lofti Raissi was arrested in London on the basis of documents left behind in the car. The prize find for the FBI, however, was a Fedex slip relating to a packet sent by an individual with the unusual name of Rawf Al-Dog to Mustafa Al-Hawsawi’s UAE post office box on the 10th September. Although Mustafa Al-Hawsawi allegedly flew to Pakistan and didn’t receive the packet, subsequent investigations by international law-enforcement discovered links between Mustafa Al-Hawsawi and Khalid Sheikh Muhammed through a joint account and – once that association had been established – it was easy to establish a link to Osama Bin Laden. The packet allegedly contained Khalid Al-Mihdhar’s debit card. The car itself contained Khalid Al-Mihdhar’s email address so his associates could be tracked. It was very convenient that the alleged hijackers left behind all the information in the blue Corolla that enabled the FBI to solve the case once the car’s contents had been investigated.

Hijackers don’t behave like this in the real world – and this makes us believe it was a false-flag terrorist operation. But is there an alternative explanation? Is there a plausible explanation about why Hanjour would turn up with a woman and the evidence left in the car was left for the FBI to discover? Osama bin Laden once stated that the hijackers didn’t know the details of the operation until the very last moment in a statement we believe was forged. Could Nawaf Al-Hazmi have kept everyone in the dark until they were actually seated on Flt 77 it is reasonable to ask? Well, that didn’t stop him cleaning the car out so no incriminating evidence was left behind. He could have prepared properly and kept the details of the operation to himself.

Of course many Americans will lap up this information as it is possible to use this report to support the theory that Flt 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon. Of course we have looked at that information. We do agree that the flight path of Flt 77 does not seem to be believable in view of the witnesses who say they saw it coming from the East, flying over the Potomac River and then banking before allegedly hitting the Pentagon. If American authorities  have to create an imaginary flight path for the Flight 77 of course we wonder what they are hiding. It also very hard to believe that Flt 77 hit the Pentagon at essentially zero altitude while leaving no marks on the grass. The trouble for the theory, in our opinion, is that too many people would need to be in the loop. In view of the fact that the World Trade centre towers had already been hit, we don’t think George Bush needed the Pentagon strike to launch his administration’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We think he already had enough ammunition up his sleeve. Anyway, enough Americans have already adopted that cause and we don’t think adding ourselves to their number would bring the issue any closer to being resolved. We watched a video the other day by a group calling itself CIT. At least they got out and about, went to Washington and actually interviewed people, unlike the many clowns without a circus who think you can investigate by reading newspaper reports. Whether they are right, partly right or completely wrong, we can’t say. We don’t know. Maybe a stray missile deployed as part of air defences hit the Pentagon as well as Flt 77. That’s not even an educated guess. One day perhaps we will turn to focus our attention on what happened after Flt 77 took off and examine whether it hit the Pentagon or not. Please note that for some unknown reason we are unable to properly format this document. It’s just another mystery.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.