911-A Posssible 9/11 Scenario

A Posssible 9/11 Scenario By Peter Meyer

I sent the message below to 22 people in a mailing list discussion. The email message did not have any links other than the one to Operation Pearl. I have added embedded links to the version below. These are to pages on this website which provide further reading (and there are more links here and here). Note that unofficial investigations of what really happened on 9/11 have been going on for nearly four years now, and some important articles to which links are given were published two or three years ago, so should not be expected to reflect familiary with the latest evidence and thinking. Understanding what really happened has been a slow process, to which many people have contributed (and which some people have tried to obstruct — and are still trying). I have added a couple of extra comments in square brackets.

From: Peter Meyer To: [22 recipients] Date: Sunday, 3 July 2005 Subject: Other scenarios David West asked: >If there were no hijackers, then what other scenarios are possible? More than one. Firstly there's the scenario put forward by Prof. Dewdney which is on my site at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm (Originally published on Physics911.org, a site which seems to have disappeared. What is it with Canadian 9/11 sites? First Michael Elliot's gone and now it seems Kee Dewdney's. [Physics 911 has now reappeared at physics911.net.]) Secondly, here is a scenario which does not require on-board hijackers: 1. AA 11 and AA 77 did not fly on 9/11. UA 93 and UA 175 flew, and landed somewhere. Some or all of the passengers were killed soon after landing so as to provide DNA "evidence". 2. A remotely-controlled aircraft or missile (previously prepared by the perps) flew into WTC1, which had previously been primed with explosives at the impact point so as to produce a huge explosion. [But see below.] 3. A remotely-controlled aircraft loaded with napalm flew into WTC2, also previously primed, with aircraft parts contained in a large cannister ejected a few seconds later from the north side (so as to provide bogus evidence of impact by a commercial jetliner). 4. After sufficient time for photo ops and Reality TV drama broadcast nation- and worldwide, the bases of the central steel columns in each tower were destroyed by explosives (possibly small nukes), and explosives throughout the rest of the buildings were detonated, to bring them down (in a bit under 15 seconds). 5. A remotely-controlled aircraft, a mock-up of an AA Boeing 757 (but smaller), and perhaps a couple of cruise missiles, flew into the Pentagon (the aircraft having been blown into fragments just prior to impact). The entrance hole being obviously too small for a 757, the perps arranged for the "collapse" of the wall about 20 minutes after impact so as to eliminate this inconvenient item of evidence (nevertheless captured in photos). 6. An aircraft flying over Shanksville was exploded in mid-air or was flown into the ground, the purpose being to produce a crater, later said to have been produced by UA 93 hitting the ground. [Actually it seems that the crater was made, not by a plane hitting the ground, but by ordnance having been buried and exploded so as to produce a crater.] 7. Bogus stories were put out (planted in Newsweek and other media organizations where the CIA has influence) about cellphone calls from alleged victims (even though such calls were impossible from high-flying aircraft in 2001), and were used to support a bogus story about "plucky passengers" designed to fool the American public. 8. All physical evidence was collected by the FBI and sequestered or shipped overseas to blast furnaces, and all security camera footage was confiscated by the FBI, so as to minimize the forensic evidence available to anyone later able to conduct an investigation, official or otherwise. Note that: (a) This scenario does not require Arab hijackers, but also does not exclude their playing a minor role, in particular, as patsies who were set up by their FBI or CIA handlers with visas, flight school courses, etc., and who were told to make themselves as conspicuous as possible before 9/11 so as to support the FBI's bogus claims. (b) This scenario does not require any black technology or fake videos planted in the mainstream media, although it does not exclude the possibility that such fake video evidence was produced and deployed. It requires only known technology (high explosives, remotely-controlled aircraft, maybe missiles) and thus does not embroil itself in debates concerning the existence of technology not known to exist or not well understood. (c) This is a possible scenario, not claimed to be the final truth, but a hypothesis to be tested against such evidence as is available [and modified accordingly]. (d) It draws upon not only my own thoughts on the matter over the last four years (almost) but also those of Fintan Dunne, Kathy McMahon, Carol Valentine, Christopher Bollyn, Leonard Spencer, Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren and others too numerous to mention but whose contributions will one day be generally recognized. Regards, Peter Meyer

If this scenario is consistent with the available evidence (which it is) and if it stands up to criticism (as it does), and if there is no scenario which fits the evidence better and is more plausible, then this is probably close to what actually happened on 9/11, though, of course, there are many details to be filled in — especially as regards (a) WTC7 and (b) who exactly planned and carried out the operation. If there were no on-board hijackers then there were no on-board Arab hijackers, and since Arabs (especially not Arabs in the Middle East) were not in a position to (i) prepare aircraft or missiles and fly them under remote control into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, (ii) install explosives in the Twin Towers and detonate them to bring them down, (iii) plant bogus stories in the mainstream media about (impossible) cellphone calls and ensure that they received wide distribution or (iv) remove all physical evidence relevant to the crime, we may conclude that 9/11 was neither planned nor carried out by Arab terrorists, and in particular not by any Arabs from any Middle Eastern country.

The real agenda of those who assert that the Pentagon and the Twin Towers were hit by Boeing 757 and 767 passenger jets is to support the "Arab hijackers" claim, which formed the "justification" for the Bush Administration to launch its war against countries in the Middle East (in particular, those countries possessing rich oil reserves or which constitute an obstacle to Israel's actions and goals). There were no Arab hijackers and the Bush Administration's "justification" was a fraud.

All that the Administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney has done since 9/11 to remove Americans' civil liberties and to restrict their freedom has been based on a vicious hoax backed up by a bare-faced lie. The War on Terrorism is a complete sham, and no terrorists attacked America on 9/11 except those currently in the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI and the CIA (to which can be added a few people not holding any office). The survival of the United States as a country that anyone would ever want to live in (not to mention the restoration of any semblance of international respect for it) depends upon their identification and criminal indictment as soon as humanly possible. This can occur only if the people of the United States demand long and loud for the impeachment of those in the Bush Administration who were, treasonably, responsible for the atrocity of 9/11 and who are responsible for the war crimes that they have committed since then.

---

Note added by PM, 2006-01-16:  Since this was written evidence has emerged that Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged. The scenario presented above suggests that "A remotely-controlled aircraft or missile ... flew into WTC1, which had previously been primed with explosives at the impact point so as to produce a huge explosion." But if the Naudet video was staged then perhaps it was also doctored — the blurry flying object (claimed to be American Airlines Flight 11) being added to it (something which could easily done by a video expert). In that case there is no need for any remotely-controlled aircraft or missile. The "impact" can be explained as follows: (i) WTC1 was primed with explosives at the "impact" point. (ii) Naudet received a signal about ten seconds before the explosives were detonated and (as previously instructed) swung his camera up toward the North Tower, capturing the explosion on tape. (iii) The video was then doctored in the lab so as to add the blurry flying object. Voila! — the Naudet video complete with (alleged) AA 11 hitting the North Tower.