The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Ken Meyercord on 9/11 Remote Hijackings
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Ken Meyercord discusses his article “9/11: Controlled Demolition of Truth.” In it he writes:

“I believe the planes were remotely controlled. One of the most telling pieces of evidence for this is the incredible bit of flying the supposed pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, performed. The maneuver he made—a 270 degree turn while descending thousands of feet at 400 mph—led air traffic controllers watching it on their radar screens to think it must be a fighter jet. More experienced pilots than Hanjour (not exactly the valedictorian of his flight school class) say he would have been lucky to even find the Pentagon, much less perform such a loop-de-loop and hit the outer wall dead on (Maybe one of those aces who say it wasn’t such a difficult feat would be willing to prove it by duplicating the flight path—sans final impact***).

“What could have performed the stunt is a computer. Remote control of airplanes has been around as far back as 1962 when the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed blowing up a civilian airliner in midair so it could be blamed on the Castro regime.”

Ken adds:

“In his book, The Big Bamboozle (p. 30), (suicided ex-CIA drug pilot Philip Marshall) proposes an airfield in Pinal, Arizona known to have ‘Intelligence Community’ connections as the likely spot where the hijackers learned to fly Boeings, noting that it had functioning 757s and 767s on hand in the summer of 2001. Sounds like a good place to start as to where remote control functionality could have been installed on the four hijacked planes, if only we could provoke someone in authority to look into it.” (Ex-NSA whistleblower and journalist Wayne Madsen has speculated that Marshall was killed for writing a book, suppressed by those who killed him, pointing to “the boneyard” in Arizona as the final resting place of at least two of the airliners used on 9/11 and retired from service years later.)

During the interview Ken breaks some interesting news about the two 9/11 American Airlines planes. He writes:

“Of 284 American Airlines (AA) planes flown on September 11th, all had flown the previous day, except for two planes. The identifier, called the “N-number” (e.g., “N5BPA1”), of all the AA planes which flew on September 11th ended in a “1”, except for two planes. The exceptions in both cases were the two AA planes hijacked, whose N-numbers end in “A” (“N334AA”, “N644AA”) According to flight data maintained by the Department of Transportation (DOT), September 11, 2001 was the first time one of the “hijacked” planes (N334AA) was used for a scheduled flight since December 2000. There’s no record in the DOT data for the other plane (N644AA), suggesting that plane was never flown commercially. Could it have been the plane used in the development and testing of remote-control functionality? Was this functionality then installed in the other plane while it was sitting in a hangar for nine months? It is certainly possible that I am misreading the data, but until that is demonstrated, I’m going to consider this suspicious circumstance a smoking gun as to the possibility the kamikaze pilots on 9/11 were not humans but machines.

“UPDATE: In an earlier version of this post, I claimed I had determined that all four of the planes “hijacked” on 9/11 had not flown in the nine months prior to Sept. 11th. I have since learned of an anomaly in the BTS data which forces me to withdraw that claim for the two United Airlines planes (but not the American planes). I based that claim on a search of the flight records for the United planes by their N-numbers (“N612UA”, “N591UA”), but from January 2001 thru February 2002 the N-numbers of United planes in the database end, for some reason, in “ä1” (e.g., “N612ä1”) instead of “UA”. I have been unable to confirm whether N612UA and N612ä1 are the same plane or not. I have queried the BTS about this and am awaiting their explanation for the anomaly.

Where the data came from and how to use it:

The data comes from DOT’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ “Airline On-Time Performance Data” (I found no flight data for the AA-77 plane, which causes me to conclude it never went into commercial use). You can do your own research by accessing the data here and clicking on the Download option under “Reporting Carrier On-Time Performance (1987-present)”. You will be presented with a screen on which you can specify the Year and Month you want data for and pick the fields you want included in the download (e.g., FlightDate, Reporting Airline, Tail_Number , Flight_Number, Reporting_Airline, Origin, Dest, etc.). The Tail Number, also known as the “N-Number”, is a unique identifier for a plane (The N-Numbers for the planes involved in 9/11 are N334AA (AA Flight 11), N612UA (United Flight 175), N644AA (American Flight 77), and N591UA (United Flight 93)). When you’ve finished with your selection, click on the Download box at the top. After you’ve unzipped the downloaded file, click on the column header in the Excel spreadsheet for the field you would like to filter by (e.g., Tail_number). Next, select the “Sort & Filter” option in the Toolbar, then “Filter”. A box with a down arrow will appear in the header of the column you have selected; and, when you click on it, a list of values will appear (deselect “Select All” first); mark the value you want (e.g., “N334AA”) and the rows for that value will be shown. (If “########” appears under Flight_Date, just increase the width of the column.)

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: 9/11, Conspiracy Theories 
Hide 52 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Dov Zakheim should be seriously investigated.

    He is purported to have owned an aircraft retrofit facility to turn commercial aircraft into remote controlled drones. One of the pictures of the belly of an aircraft hitting the towers shows a belly pod identical to the ones Zakheim’s company used to install their electronics and control hardware.

    He holds US and guess which other citizenship. He was a high ranking official in the Reagan administration with DOD positions.

  2. That the planes used in the 9/11 stunt were remote-controlled sounds more realistic than that they were CGI or holograms. But the theory still doesn’t account for the missing passengers. What happened to all the people who (okay, supposedly if you like) boarded the airliners that dreadful morning?

    Don’t tell their still-grieving relatives that their kin just somehow kinda got lost or that they were executed by the plotters.

    • Replies: @SafeNow
    , @dimples
    , @saggy
  3. profnasty says:

    Yoose goys talk ways and means
    ad infinitum.
    Let your Muslim ball drop and talk
    names. Let Merrick Garland get off his
    lilly white(haha) ass and hand down
    indictments for the military Neocons.
    C’mon man. You know I’m right.

  4. Lysias says:

    Andreas von Buelow, a former State Secretary in the Ministry of Defense (sort of like Deputy Secretary of Defense) and Minister of Technology in Helmut Schmidt’s German government, argued in a 2013 book (“Die CIA und der 11. September”) that the 9/11 planes were remotely controlled. Given his previous government posts, he was in a position to know that this was technically possible.

  5. Anon[155] • Disclaimer says:

    If it was hard for a pilot in the cockpit, how much harder would it be for a remote pilot using 2000s technology?

    Fucking dumbasses.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @eudion2
  6. @RoatanBill

    Yes, of course. He’s just another disgusting dual citizen Jew.

    And he did have the aircraft technology you refer to. They probably initially planned to use it and changed their minds later realizing that using no planes at all greatly simplified everything.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  7. “Remote control of airplanes has been around as far back as 1962 ”

    It goes back at least as far as WWII.

  8. Zorost says:

    Makes more sense than holograms or nukes. The most important thing about 9/11 isn’t 9/11, but how it was used afterwards. Cuo bono.

  9. SafeNow says:
    @Etruscan Film Star

    I once read somewhere that the 911 planes carried far fewer passengers than would have been statistically expected to have booked those flights. So, the conspiracy thinking would be that the number of passengers sacrificed was mercifully held down; would-be passengers were told, sorry, that flight is already full.

  10. @Ralph B. Seymour

    I never bought into the no planes version of events.

    The picture I was referring to was a photo of a plane from below as it was just about to hit the tower. If someone was going to fake planes, then the smart thing to do is to fake the photo of an actual belly of an airliner. That’s not what the photo shows.

    The photo shows a rather large pod on the belly and that is not standard on any airliner.

    A fake planes conspiracy would also need a fake belly photo.
    A real planes conspiracy would need a real plane belly photo, and that’s what exists.

    I think planes hit the towers, a missile hit the pentagon, and nothing hit Shanksville as there was no wreckage, no bodies, no luggage and the crater was on Google Earth months before the incident.

    • Replies: @Ralph B. Seymour
    , @lee
  11. As Kevin mentions “’the boneyard’ in Arizona as the final resting place of at least two of the airliners used on 9/11 and retired from service years later” and that sort of ill-founded claim—so damaging to the 911 truth movement—is what motivated me to write my piece, let me clarify that I do not believe in that claim. I think the claim two of the airplanes “hijacked” on 9/11 are rusting in peace in Arizona is based on the fact there are planes at the Pinal Air Park with the same N-number as planes involved in the 9/11 attack, e.g., “N644AA”, but N-numbers are reused. When a plane is taken out of service because of a crash, old age, or whatever, after a time it’s N-number becomes available to be assigned to another plane. The history of an N-number can be found in the FAA Registry ( The registry indicates, for example, that N644AA was assigned to a Boeing 757-223 on May 8, 1991 (the plane that crashed into the Pentagon), then reserved on September 15, 2006—five years after 9/11—by one Greenway Jonathan James of Frederick, Maryland.

  12. Tjoe says:

    When you start with the plane that hit the Pentagon, you lost me right there. Cruise missile hit the pentagon. I used to believe in remote control but no longer do. Made for tv event.

    The fuselage of the plane on the original tv broadcast showed it coming out the other side. Yea right.

    • Agree: Cauchemar du Singe
    • Replies: @Iris
  13. @RoatanBill

    Of course, planes could have crashed into the towers. But I don’t believe it.

    And you won’t either if you listen to this video.

  14. @Ralph B. Seymour


    If there’s a Reader’s Digest version, I’d consider it.

  15. @Ralph B. Seymour

    Why won’t it let me save the video or watch it on YouTube?

  16. Sparkon says:

    No mostly aluminum-alloy jetliner could have cut completely through the mostly steel facades of the Twin Towers, and then just disappeared. Flying the plane by remote control or homing it in on a beacon doesn’t change that.

    I mean, where’s that STEM education when you really need it?

    Beyond that, the lack of any credible or verifiable airplane wreckage at any of the alleged 9/11 crash sites puts all these untenable theories about 9/11 hijacked or remote control airplanes into the dumpster.

    AA 11 and AA 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11, with no take-off data for either, while UA 93 and UA 175 were still responding to ACARS pings well after their alleged crashes at Shanksville and into WTC 2.

    I’ve pointed all this out to Dr. Kevin Barrett in the past, but not a peep about it from Dr. Barrett here.

    • Agree: Iris
  17. @RoatanBill

    Aren’t all commercial aircraft flown by auto pilot anyway with the pilots able to manually operate the craft in an emergency?

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  18. Iris says:

    The fuselage of the plane on the original tv broadcast showed it coming out the other side. Yea right

    Thank you Tjoe. I can’t resist and will post again, this immortal, all-time piece of douchebaggery that seemingly-intelligent authors have still the impudence to present us as true.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  19. @Wayne Lusvardi

    An autopilot is not nearly the same as the controls for a remotely piloted vehicle aka drone. Some drones are even AI enabled to perform a complicated mission requiring decision making en route without human input. Some are programmed to get the craft to a designated target and are completely on their own once launched.

    A typical autopilot holds course and altitude so the pilot doesn’t have to use muscle power every time the wind changes or when passengers change the weight and balance as they move around the fuselage or as fuel is consumed. It also allow the pilot to relax his mind for the usually monotonous part of any trip – the part between take off and landing. It’s a convenience like power steering in a car. Some autopilots can follow a descent path down to a landing strip given the right circumstances and other equipment availability.

    At high speed, the slightest misjudgment means a goal not achieved, like an aborted landing because there was too much airspeed or altitude over the runway threshold. The average person operates in two dimensional space. Once in the air, it’s a completely new experience operating in three dimensional space. It takes quite a while to get enough seat of the pants experience to almost unconsciously think ahead in any given situation. You develop a “feel” for flying and that includes being bounced around like a BB in a freight car every so often.

    Experienced airline pilots know what it takes to just get their aircraft over a runway and even with years of experience, they sometimes misjudge. To pilot a plane into a building is something no pilot has experience in. To make the minute course corrections, altitude corrections, to keep the wings level, etc is best done by a computer, sensors and servos that operate orders of magnitude faster than the human brain when you absolutely only have once chance at a mission.

    • Thanks: Etruscan Film Star
  20. Kevin,

    Thanks for bringing up AT THE VERY FIRST that this guy doesn’t believe in Physics. Doing so–and then getting into a long bullshit argument with him–made it clear there was no point in wasting time listening to the podcast.

    You saved me 30 minutes, Kevin!


  21. @Ralph B. Seymour

    Fetzer did a good job on this video.

    For those of us who understand the spectacular fraud that is the conventional 9/11 narrative, how would it be possible to view the absurd incongruities abundant in the Covid narrative and not see that they are again on the attack? And in twenty or ten or five years, we will be again crushed with yet another world crisis, while still struggling to expose the Covid event. Point being, these people are on a long winning streak, dating to the early 20th century it seems.

    • Replies: @Ralph B. Seymour
  22. @Etruscan Film Star

    Here’s a link to the video on Bitchute … you can download it there …

    • Replies: @Etruscan Film Star
  23. dimples says:
    @Etruscan Film Star

    Why doesn’t the theory account for the missing passengers? Presumably they would die in the crashes, their remains picked up later and analysed for DNA. If remote controlled drones or no-planes were used, the passengers would still have to be killed, put in a mincer and their bits spread around the crash sites by MIBs, to be later picked up and analysed by staff. Or alternatively, since no-planes seem to be a popular option, then no-DNA could also work. In this scenario, no body parts are picked up at all and all DNA reports completely faked. The passengers, having been killed, put through the mincer and samples having been taken for the no-DNA reports, are then simply dumped at sea.

  24. @Etruscan Film Star

    Because the jewess Wojcicki that runs YouTube believes herself to be Nanny of The Universe.

  25. R2b says:

    Yes, gravitation is mighty!

    Just walk the stairs.

    But not THAT mighty!

    And kerosene on steel!?

    Nice on the planes, though.

    But more diss than doe!

  26. @Just another serf

    Yes, of course. The international Jew bankers own and control everything. The press, the government, big tech, big pharma, the money supply, CIA, higher education……………….

    And as long as they control the money supply, they will continue doing whatever is good for them which includes all the psyops and junkie stunts they employ to control the population.

    Private central banking has enslaved us.

  27. Dr. Barrett, you’re interviewing an obvious troll, or worse, a dummie. As far as his story that the rubble collapsed into the sub-levels ignores the question, what happened to the material that formed the sub-levels. There were no planes. Every eyewitness who testified to seeing an airplane was in someway connected to the media.
    Occams Razor: Heinz Pommer’s report fills all the holes.
    The only thing I agree with from your guest is, the 911 Truthers were misguided.
    Where did the Shanksville plane go?
    Where did the laws of physics disappear to on that day.
    Stop circulating theories and closely look at the suspects. Certainly there exists 1 or more indictable persons. If only for dereliction of duty.
    There were no calls at all from the airplanes.
    The FBI admitted as much.
    Interview the stewardess that has published several books.
    At the late date there’s no reason for this guys nonsense.
    Yeah the tech exists to remotely takeover a plane, but that doesn’t change the dynamics of flight.
    As Lucky Larry said: “Pull It”.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Tjoe
  28. @Etruscan Film Star

    Estruscan, share it to your email. Very important video.

  29. Iris says:
    @the grand wazoo

    Occams Razor: Heinz Pommer’s report fills all the holes.

    Heinz Pommer is right.
    Pr Francois Roby did even better, since he made the calculations and provided the irrefutable Physics proof of the WTC nuclear demolition.

    The WTC aftermath scene released at least as much heat as a grid-connected 900 MVA nuclear reactor. Good luck to the imbeciles, village idiots and other “fucking dumbasses” (thanks Anon @5) trying to deny the venerable laws of Heat Transfer science.

    The WTC controlled demolition was a classic, standard and obvious case of underground nuclear detonations, similar to over 1,471 such nuclear tests, publicly carried out by the US/Russia/France over the past decades.

    Except that this time, there were buildings full of people standing atop the detonation sites, curtesy to Silverstein, Israel, and their “strategic” planning.

    No plane, hijacked or remotely controlled, ever hit the Twin Towers.
    No plane can allegedly “penetrate” a steel structure without bending, breaking, shedding any debris, catching fire, leaving no debris whatsoever stuck on the exploded steel.

    The Towers exploded because they had been rigged with nanothermite to simulate a plane attack, and this was done in an extremely cartoonish, in-your-face stupid way. Which “fucking dumbass” can still pretend to believe, in 2021, that an aircraft flimsy wing tip can cut through structural steel?

  30. lee says:

    It was not a pod—-this was debunked years ago.

    One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet’s undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York Magazine. Popular Mechanics sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER’s undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a “pod.”

    In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing’s right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. “Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film,” he writes in an e-mail to Popular Mechanics, “which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images—the pixels are saturated and tend to ‘spill over’ to adjacent pixels.” When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: “That’s bull. They’re really stretching.”

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  31. lee says:

    For the missile flown into the side of the Pentagon conspiracy theorists:

    Video analysis of flight 77’s last seconds as filmed by a security camera.

    • Replies: @Etruscan Film Star
  32. @lee

    All debunking concerning anything that even remotely involves the Fed Gov is just more psyop.

    This attempt reminds me of – “Who are you going to believe, me or you’re lying eyes?”

    I really like the glint part where sunlight is shining on to the bottom of an aircraft. I thought the sun was going to light up the top of the aircraft, with the bottom in shade, silly me.

    Appeals to authority don’t work for me since I recognize no authority.

  33. eudion2 says:

    Autopilots were in use decades before 2001. The megahertz processors and megabyte memories of commercially available computers were well up to the task of flying an airplane into a large target like a skyscraper. Of course, the military had better stuff.

    As for Flight 93, it went off course. So yeah, 2001 computer technology wasn’t perfect.

    As for the plane that hit the Pentagon, it didn’t. Nothing hit the Pentagon. Explosives were detonated inside the Pentagon and debris from a previously demolished plane was scattered over the impact area. That’s why all the surveillance cameras from local businesses were confiscated — because they DON’T show a plane.

    • Replies: @Iris
  34. Cking says:

    Dr. Judy Wood’s presentation of the destruction of the WTC on 9/11 destroys the jet airliner plane theory; it deserves greater broadcast.

    • Replies: @Proximaking
  35. @lee

    “Let’s have a closer look.”

    Okay, I see an ambiguous blob, a flying Rorschach test.

    Security cameras are not designed to show movement as fast as an airliner or missile. No one can say the vague image isn’t an American Airlines 757. But this supposed analysis hardly shows that it is.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  36. @Ralph B. Seymour

    Of course, planes could have crashed into the towers.

    Well, a plane can crash into a tower, yes. But a plane can’t crash into a steel-framed skyscraper and cut through however many steel columns and the nose poke out the other side.

    But I don’t believe it.

    You’re right not to believe it! As far as I can see, there is simply no case for real plane crashes. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Even if one had the technology to make a plane crash into a building, why would you ever do that if you could just put a fake video on the TV and everybody would believe it? A real plane crash leaves physical evidence and, just generally, many things can go wrong that simply cannot go wrong with prepared video fakery.

    What’s worse is that Kevin Barrett here seems to be regressing in his understanding of 9/11. I talked with him in person about it roughly 3 years ago and his stance was that he was “agnostic” on real plane crashes. I think he even conceded that the no-planers “had somewhat better arguments”. At the time, I assumed that we were talking about the twin towers, because it seemed so established that no airliner hit the Pentagon. Now, he is expressing that he believes that there were real plane crashes in Manhattan AND at the Pentagon!

    Well, anyway…. I just managed to listen to about 20 minutes of this interview with this Meyercord guy and that was a real waste of time. That guy is either a blatant shill or the stupidest mofo on the face of the earth. Well, not that those two things are mutually exclusive, he could be both.

    Meyercord does not believe that the buildings were blown up with explosives???!!! He thinks that steel framed skyscrapers just disintegrate in short order for basically no reason???!!!! I mean, even if a plane could cut through all those steel columns (which it can’t!) why would the bulk of the building underneath that point just disintegrate? The whole thing is just so replete with absurd cartoon physics!

    • Replies: @Iris
  37. Iris says:

    The megahertz processors and megabyte memories of commercially available computers were well up to the task of flying an airplane into a large target like a skyscraper.

    Utter bullshit. A successful automation control loop has almost everything to do with the actual physical parameters being controlled, and very little with the capacity of the processor implementing it.

    A commercial aircraft is too heavy, too constrained by the tight limits of its angle of attack (remember the doomed B767 Max), to be controlled so as to hit a target barely larger than itself, and at allegedly the breaking-point speed of 520+ mile-per-hour.

    The feat of hitting a Twin Tower with an aircraft was tried by very experienced professional pilots on plane simulator. The only way they could succeed was by using a smaller and more manoeuvrable B737, and by bringing its speed down to landing speed.

    Remote control is only that: an enhanced and automated control mimicking what a “perfect” human pilot (AI) could achieve. A commercial aircraft is neither a fighter jet nor a missile: such remote control would have been almost impossible to achieve, and definitely not without prior testing. Since we never heard of any aircraft crashing into a high-rise building in preparation to 9/11, we can safely conclude that no such testing happened. The “WTC remotely-controlled planes” narrative is a grotesque fantasy.

    For those too cognitively challenged to understand the above, there exists a more obvious argument: if the WTC alleged “planes” had indeed been remotely controlled, all the crew and all the passengers would have had their cellular phones at sea level, in perfect reach of New-York telecoms towers. They would have made dozens of calls to security services and families alike. Yet, a grand total of ZERO calls was made from those two “planes”.

    No planes whatsoever were involved in the 9/11 attacks, neither at the Pentagon, nor at the WTC.

  38. Iris says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    As far as I can see, there is simply no case for real plane crashes. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

    Even more so, these alleged “planes” are yet another blatant one-off violation of the principles of Physics and engineering, yet there are still people pushing this grotesque tall tale in 2021.

    A plane is broadly just a light, hollow tube with wings fitted each side, with four forces applied onto it:
    – the Lift, which counter-balances the plane’ s Weight.
    – the Thrust that pulls the plane forward and overtakes the surrounding atmosphere’s resistance to movement (the Drag).

    The Lift is therefore the force that maintains the plane in the air and keeps it from falling. It exists thanks to the slight difference of air pressure between the top and the bottom of the wing, which results in a vertical, upward force.

    This force has been known and calculated thanks to the century-old Bernoulli equation: its magnitude is directly proportional/increases with the aircraft’s speed and the air density:

    The problem is that the alleged WTC “planes”, flying at high air-density seal level, and at extraordinarily high speeds (as much as 520 mph for the South Tower UA175), would have long entered the structural damage zone calculated by Boeing in its flight manual:

    – At 490 mph for Flight AA 11, and 530 mph for Flight UA175, both “planes” would have been far past the “structural failure” limit to the right of the graph, with Flight UA175 being utterly off-scale, somewhere into engineering limbos nobody ever ventured into.

    In summary, both “planes” should have broken in-flight long before reaching the Towers due to unbearably-high air dynamic pressure exerted on their wings.

    But somehow, Yahweh made another 9/11 “miracle” and suspended the laws of Physics on that fateful day, in that special place. And Yahweh’s prophets are still preaching this “miracle” twenty years on.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  39. Tjoe says:
    @the grand wazoo

    Oh wise wazoo, Hilda is the missing link you seek. She hated Bill for showing the world that she cannot satisfy her man and she worked with mooooo sod (Epstein and crew) to set Bill up with the jewess Monica. All planned….a coup while we were watching the impeachment show. That’s when the plans went to the top of the us gov…..while they roasted Bill.

    They promised Hilda that she would rule the world (be US president) then failed twice. Imagine being Hilda, helping Is-reel to murder 3000 and not getting paid. Her mind about snapped with Obomber, but so they set up her “foundation” cash cow and gave her the job of SS.

    But Trump took her to insanity….where she runs the Democratic Party today….remote control.

    Her job as New York Senator was key facilitator. Bush knew…..and the JUDAS traitor let them do it.

  40. dimples says:

    Mr Meyercord should be congratulated for his discovery of the anomalies in the flight records of the 911 planes. Its amazing that only the tail numbers for the two American Airlines planes end in “AA” whereas all other American Airlines plane tail numbers end in “A1”. How weird is that given that the tail numbers are assigned at “birth”, ie the entry into service after manufacture. For N334AA (Flight 11) this is 1987, while for N644AA (Flight 77) this is 1991. Perhaps this indicates that these planes were originally fitted with special equipment who knows.

    Also weird is the fact that the two United Airlines planes also have a tail number anomaly in the Bureau of Transport Statistics database. The tail numbers end in a(umlaut)1 instead of UA. Perhaps this was an attempt to make enquiries to the database more difficult for these planes. I’m inclined to think that the completely missing record for N644AA (Flight 77) and 9 month gap for N344AA (Flight 11) are clerical errors since surely the plotters would not leave this sort of smoking gun lying about but who knows. However Mr Meyercord now relates that one of the United Airlines planes did not fly on Sept 8th and 9th, landing in Boston on Sept 7th and taking off again at JFK on Sept 10th. Incredible stuff. Starts at approx 39.00 in the tape.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  41. @dimples

    Mr Meyercord should be congratulated for his discovery of the anomalies in the flight records of the 911 planes.

    Not really. All the talk of planes is a big red herring.

    Perhaps this indicates that these planes were originally fitted with special equipment who knows.

    No, none of this indicates anything. The whole discussion is a waste of time because there were no planes.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @dimples
  42. dimples says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I’ve been consulting with my crystal ball and it sees you have a mental asylum in your future. Just thought I’d let you know.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  43. Clearly the two tower planes were flown by machine and the thing that hit the Pentagon office carrying out the fraud investigation was a cruise missile based on the size of the initial hole in the wall and the fact only parts consistent with a cruise missile were found lying about i.e. small jet fan parts and no large, virtually indestructible, aircraft engines for example.

    The fact the only video of the “plane” that hit the Pentagon, the most surveilled building in the world, came from a car park camera and even that was doctored and that they also commandeered the videos from the local garage to hide those from the public tells me that if they said a pink elephant stoned on mango juice hit that building I should assume that was a lie.

  44. @Cking

    Judy Wood’s work is pretty much on the button but she got two points wrong, it was a natural event after the two fires got going in the two self-similar buildings with two counter-rotating storm systems either side of the towers(look up the work of Dayton Miller and you will see the difference in light behaviour in a basement where the original Michaelson Morley experiment took place and on the top of a mountain where Miller did his final experiments and if light acts differently so does matter especially matter in self similar buildings as self similarity acts as an amplification force, look at fractal aerials if you doubt that) and the jumpers were hypothermic not hot as she had assumed. Look up “Paradoxical stripping and burrowing behaviour” which explains what people do when hypothermic. Judy also didn’t look at the pretty obvious religious implications of “the two candlesticks, the two witnesses, that stand before the God of the earth (mammon, Wall Street) and fire proceedeth from their mouths (the plane holes looked like mouths) to destroy those who destroyed them”.

    We know big oil in the form of Bush and Cheney were behind this and only cars and busses were “toasted” as Judy put it so we have to ask is what we call the Bible actually simply evidence of us getting technology around now to put information back in the past for us to use after interpretation now? If so is the Bible a short cut to a new technologic future and if so we have to ask the obvious question who wrote it and all other religious books, after all they are already here, because if we are to be self consistent we must put all these religious books back into the past to create the world we live in today and to create us. Of course if this is the way it actually is then we must all agree to put these books back, most of which we may violently disagree with, in order for any of us to exist. So we wipe the slate clean and we start again. As “the creator” in Bladerunner said ……..

    Deckard: She doesn’t know?!
    Tyrell: She’s beginning to suspect, I think.
    Deckard: Suspect? How can it not know what it is?
    Tyrell: Commerce, is our goal here at Tyrell. More human than human is our motto. Rachael is an experiment, nothing more. We began to recognize in them strange obsession. After all they are emotionally inexperienced with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we gift them the past we create a cushion or pillow for their emotions and consequently we can control them better.
    Deckard: Memories. You’re talking about memories.

    • Replies: @Iris
  45. Iris says:

    We know big oil in the form of Bush and Cheney were behind this

    No, as a matter of fact we actually don’t.

    Anybody examining the facts around the practical organisation and execution of 9/11, and in particular of the WTC nuclear Holocaust of 3000 American civilians, will find out that all 9/11 key actors were affiliated to Israel.

    These are the only undisputable facts accessible to us, ordinary people, and they entail a logical conclusion: Israel did 9/11. Not the goyim POS working under its control.

  46. @Iris

    Except that is not obviously a nose. But it also doesn’t mean it is not a plane. A nose would not have made it that far.

  47. @Iris

    Woopdie do. A fucking statistical prediction. Let’s see a plane actually do what you say. And it doesn’t rule out an intentionally modified plane either that may be able to withstand higher forces.

    • LOL: Iris
  48. @dimples

    The nukers, beam weaponists, and the no-planers need a special asylum for disinformationists and/or useful idiots. I could never tell which.

  49. saggy says: • Website
    @Etruscan Film Star

    Don’t tell their still-grieving relatives that their kin just somehow kinda got lost or that they were executed by the plotters


    Don’t confuse the idiots.

  50. @Etruscan Film Star

    It’s a joke. This is a lawn, but if you think hard enough, it’s an airliner.

  51. I haven’t kept up with the 9/11 Truth movement over the years, but I got reacquainted with it as a result of this posting and I’m amazed at the prevalence of the idea that no planes crashed into the Towers, the Pentagon, and/or the soil of Pennsylvania. Such a belief I find ridiculous, one of those red herrings planted by the perpetrators to distract and discredit. I think there is need for a schism in the movement between those who believe the designated planes did crash into the structures or the earth and those who don’t. There’s not much room for compromise on this point, like the schism between Christians, who believe Jesus was the son of god and a woman, and Muslims, who believe Jesus was the mortal son of a man and a woman, though both sets of 911 skeptics might agree on other points. I suggest those who believe in the planes refer to their movement as the 911 Plane Truth movement and leave the 911 Truth moniker to those who don’t, as the latter discredit the entire movement in the eyes of the 90% of the world who either believe the official dogma or are agnostic on the issue.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS