9/11 Suspects: Ralph Eberhart

09/09/201639 Comments


CLICK HERE to watch the full documentary


According to the official story of September 11, 2001, four hijacked airliners flew wildly off course over the most sensitive airspace in the United States for 109 minutes without being intercepted by a single fighter jet. As Commander-in-Chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command on 9/11, General Ralph Eberhart was in charge of the largest failure to defend North American airspace in history.

Rather than accepting blame for his command's complete lack of response that morning, however, or even expressing regret about what had occurred, General Eberhart instead spent the rest of his career attempting to pin the blame for this failure squarely on the FAA.

GEN. EBERHART: You've read a lot over the last two and a half years about what NORAD did and did not do that morning and should have done in the years and months leading up to that attack. Ground truth is that NORAD was charged to support the FAA in the event of a hijacking. Our role was to respond to the request from FAA to get airborne, fly, shadow the hijacked airplane, say whether the hijacked airplane was following the instructions of the air traffic controller, of FAA. And in a terrible situation that that plane crashed, or that airplane exploded in mid-air, document that tragedy.

(Source: Homeland Defense in the Global War on Terrorism)

Although Eberhart's version of events was cemented into place as the official story of 9/11 propounded by the 9/11 commission, they are in fact self-serving lies.

In Eberhart's version of events, NORAD is completely subordinate to the FAA. In reality, however, NORAD is specifically tasked with dealing with such events itself, not waiting passively for FAA orders. NORAD's own regulations for dealing with hijacked jets specifically state that "FAA Authorization for Interceptor Operations is not used for intercept and airborne surveillance of hijacked aircraft within the [continental United States]."

These standard operating procedures were not merely theoretical, or some obscure regulation that would have been unfamiliar to the four-star general in charge of defending American airspace. In the year 2000 alone, NORAD scrambled fighters in response to "unknowns"--pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency--129 times.

Perhaps even more remarkable, however, is that Eberhart and NORAD offered not one, not two, not three, but four separate timelines of their complete lack of response that morning. The first, offered by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers just two days after the attacks during his confirmation hearings in the Senate, claimed that not a single fighter was scrambled to intercept any of the airliners until after the incident at the Pentagon. One week later, NORAD released a partial timeline that indicated they had in fact received advance notification about three of the planes with as much as 20 minutes warning, more than enough time for the planes to have been intercepted. A third story emerged in May 2003; this time, NORAD was only contacted about Flight 175 at 9:05, 3 minutes after it crashed into the south tower. The official story, found in the 9/11 Commission's final report, was that NORAD received no advance notice of any of the flights. Eberhart and the military were completely exonerated.

However, Eberhart had testified in October 2001 that NORAD had been notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 AM. The 9/11 Commission determined that this was a lie. Regardless of the truth or untruth of any of these accounts, the simple fact is that, according to the 9/11 Commission itself, Eberhart had lied to Congress, which is in fact a crime. By the 9/11 Commission's own account, Eberhart should have been tried.

But Eberhart's lies do not end there.

GEN. EBERHART: Many people will talk about that they knew that there was going to be an attack. They knew that people were going to take over an aircraft and fly it into a building. I can tell you that there was no credible intelligence at that time to go build a defense against that type of attack. Tragically, we were wrong. We were wrong.

(Source: Homeland Defense in the Global War on Terrorism)

Once again, Eberhart's depiction of events is a self-serving and easily demonstrable lie.

Not only had NORAD envisioned such a scenario, they had been training for it extensively in the years leading up to 9/11. Between October 1998 and September 2001, NORAD had conducted 28 exercise events involving hijackings. At least five of those hijack scenarios involved "a suicide crash into a high-value target." Furthermore, at least six of the exercises took place completely within American airspace, putting to rest the oft-heard excuse that NORAD wasn't prepared for threats from within the US.

Another note that would be of interest to prosecutors looking at potential foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks pertains to Eberhart's dual role as Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command, where he was responsible for setting something called the "Infocon threat level." Established in March 1999, the Infocon threat level was designed as a measure of the threat to Defense Department computer systems and networks and different levels required different protocols for securing communications and information systems. At 9:09 PM on September 10, 2001, less than 12 hours before the attacks began, Eberhart reduced Infocon to Level 5 , the lowest threat level, making it easier for hackers to compromise Defense Department systems and controls. Eberhart has never been asked about this change in the public record.

There are a laundry list of other questionable actions that Eberhart took on 9/11. His failure to implement military control over US airspace. His decision to drive from Peterson Air Force Base to NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Control Center at 9:30 AM, right in the middle of the attack, despite knowing this would involve loss of communication for part of the drive, and the fact that it took him 45 minutes to complete the 30 minute trip. His decision to ground all fighter jets by ordering them to battle stations instead of ordering them to scramble at 9:49 AM. And even NORAD's inability to turn over basic documentation to government investigators.

The official story of 9/11 is a lie. But Eberhart's story is a lie within that lie, designed to absolve himself and other members of the US military charged with defending American airspace that morning from the most catastrophic failure in that mission in their history. And not only did Eberhart survive with his career intact, he was praised as a "9/11 hero" and moved into the private sector after leaving NORAD in 2004, as chairman and board member of a number of companies that directly benefited from the post-9/11 police state and the post-9/11 war on terror.

Ralph E. Eberhart remains at large.

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. m.clare says:

    So Sayeth YouTube:

    “Content that is considered “not advertiser-friendly” includes but is not limited to:

    – Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.”

    James, it would appear that your subject matter is not deemed sufficiently controversial nor sensitive by YouTube to warrant censorship. I am puzzled by this. How are you managing to stay while others are complaining they have been invited to leave?

    • Corbett says:

      This whole recent story about YouTube censorship is wrong on every level. There has been no change in YouTube policy. The crackdown began a year and a half ago (which I reported on at the time: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=13994). And it is not about “censorship” in the “delete your video” sense but monetization of videos, which doesn’t affect me since I do not monetize my videos anyway.

      So, in short, don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

      • m.clare says:

        “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet”…. says the gentleman on the internet.

        Forgive me. That you are distributing your carefully and ingeniously crafted information AND reaching hundreds of thousands of people occasionally strikes me as too good to be true.

        There is no Santa Claus. There is no Easter Bunny. There is no God. There is no democracy. The leaders of the Western world are NOT the good guys. There are no “Peace Keepers”. There is no moral coalition of benevolent souls uniting to fight Climate Crisis; there is no climate crisis. There is no justice. There is no truth in mainstream media. There was no Osama Bin Laden striking fear into a free America because he “hates our freedom”. There was no airplane at the Pentagon. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no lone deranged gunman in 1963….ad nauseum….

        My parents misled me. The church lied to me. The media lied to me. The politicians lied to me. My school lied to me. Noam Chomsky let me down……

        The pattern has repeated since the day I was born. James Corbett hasn’t yet disappointed me….and, believe me, I’m looking carefully with the cross armed posture of a skeptic. If you are (as I suspect you are) the real deal, I worry about your safety if you manage to add a couple of zero’s to your subscribership.

        I haven’t been able to poke any holes in your arguments yet but…I owe it to myself and you NOT to accept every word you post as gospel.

        Thanks for the reminder @ 11:58. Especially, I want to thank you for this recent 911 video effort. Again, it’s all too good to be true.


        • ralphodavis says:

          I won’t hazard a guess on how many times, in my relatively recent exposure to TCR, James has stressed the importance of not merely verification of what’s presented, but invitation to actively contribute open-source documentation of facts.

          That’s how this place works. All-in responsibility for material, analysis and opinion.

          Maybe, just, rather, ‘good to be true’, eh?


  2. VoiceOfArabi says:

    Well… Hats of to you Mr. Corbett… That was excellent work, and worth every second spent watching it.


    On another note..

    What does Corbett Nation think of Anonymous?? I stumbled on the video below posted 4 days ago, and watched over 600,000 times so far.. The scary part is, everything in this video is very accurate.. They seem to be people in the know, and not just some hackers…

    Anonymous – Message to the Citizens of the World V

    James, did you do an article on Anonymous??? What do you think of them??

    • m.clare says:

      I apologize, you didn’t ask me, but….I strongly suspect Anonymous are Gate Keepers:


      Likewise for The Young Turks
      Likewise for Bill Maher
      Likewise for Noam Chomsky

      It is a Hurculean task to distinguish the snake oil salesmen

      • jay.z says:

        I’m with you m.clare on leaning toward Anonymous being gatekeepers/a deep state operation as well…

        But unlike Assange, Snowden and the others you mentioned, Anonymous pointing toward 9/11 being a false flag is a significant thing. Does anyone know if this is the first time they’ve mentioned that in their official videos?

        In any case, I’m interested in Corbett’s thoughts on this as well! : )

        If not before, here’s a good QFC:
        James, what’s your overall take on “official” Anonymous at this point? And what’s your take on them pointing to 9/11 being a false flag operation in this video that VOA posted above?

        A great community of researchers and activists here, most of whom strive to be reflective and mature in their engagement of one another and the very important, sensitive subject matter. James, his guests and this community continue to give me hope and passion about our future as humanity. Thank you all!

      • VoiceOfArabi says:

        Hi m.clare,

        Thanks for answering my question, and i am glad you did. It makes it more interesting when it is a collaborative effort.

        I agree with you 100% on The Young Turks, Bill Maher, Noam Chomsky, and I will even throw in InfoWars, because i have seen enough of their material to make a judgment.

        But this is the first time i have seen Anonymous. I have watch 5 videos all titled Message to the Citizens of the World, and i must admit, it appears to be well informed, and not keeping anything away. (i did not care much for the graphics and just listened to audio) but I could be mistaken..

        Why do you suspect that they maybe gatekeepers??

        • m.clare says:


          I was enthusiastic about their work at first but became disillusioned. I regret that I can’t recall what initially led me to suspect “Anonymous”, however, the link I provide above regarding their position on Climate Crisis is a quick example and is enough for me. Corbett, Pilato, Edmonds (and others) have the balls to put their name behind their work…..

          I spoke to an individual who doubts the 911 Legend (which got us talking) but swallows Climate Crisis, Chemtrails and thinks there is compelling evidence the world is flat and the moon landings were faked. I know another guy who “knows” Climate Crisis is BS but refuses to discuss 911.

          We are thus divided and conquered.

          You can fool all of us some time, some of us all the time but you can’t fool all of us all the time. Some of us will stumble upon inconsistencies that get us asking questions. I believe there is a gatekeeper to lead these folks safely down the garden path. David Icke is another example. Donald Trump is another.

          I believe the role of Donald Trump is to lump those asking questions together on the same leaky boat; we will all go down with the ship when he loses the election. Anybody who challenges 911 is a gullible, racist loony. Tin foil hats all around.

          I suspect Anonymous are performing a similar service.

      • ccuthbert2001 says:

        m.clare, there is the possibility that Chomsky is not a gate keeper, at least in the way some mean, in that he’s agreed to be on the payroll. Could be that he was threatened into boundaries, which to me is a totally different situation than, say, the Young Turks and Maher, who are disgusting, steaming piles.

        Does anyone have thoughts on this distinction or Chomsky in particular?

        • m.clare says:

          Intimidation? Why have Corbett, Pilato, Edmunds, and Richard Gage NOT been threatened? I think the LAST thing the bastards need at the moment is a martyr…. martyrdom lends legitimacy. Tin foil hats, peer pressure, gaming, distraction and systematic brainwashing are cleaner and much more effective. Violence is a last resort. They have learned much and refined their methods since the days of the Great Wars.

          Chomsky is brilliant. I have a hard time believing he swallows the 911 Fairy Tale. He could very well have been threatened. I don’t care if he has.

          The two obvious motivations for the types of sociopathic behaviour Corbett is shining a spotlight on at present are Greed and Fear. Is it possible that a more Altruistic motivation is also making a significant contribution to the justification of these atrocities?

          • ccuthbert2001 says:

            I’ve been told that the key is credibility. For a renowned prof at MIT to come out and say 9/11 was an inside job is completely different from an unknown, know-nothing, Canadian blogger in Japan. No offense, James, just framing the debate. The people with credibility need to be kept in line or gotten rid of, is my impression. Look at the eye witnesses who dropped dead. The marines who go public. Michael Hastings.

            Credibility is the key.

            And the threats are more likely against his family than him. It doesn’t matter if you care or not, the fact is that few people would sacrifice their children in that way, and expecting them to is just not realistic.

            • Nick says:

              ccuthbert2001 it seems illogical that if credibility is the key you would go about keeping that by holding non credible views on particular topics (9/11 and JFK for Chomsky in particular). I assume you have seen the Corbett vid on Chomsky gatekeeper? In any event, i think even if your suggested reasons for CHomskys compliance are correct, MClare’s point is also correct. If your credibility is not beyond reproach (for whatever reason) then you are a shill because how can anyone possibly differentiate what you lie /remain willfully ignorant about vs what you are being honest about. You are basically in the same pot as all the rest. It is the essence of counter intelligence. Stirring in 5% crap with 95% truth so people being given the message chuck the baby out with the bathwater. Even the craziest of the crazies David Icke speaks truth on 70-80 percent of what he talks about. If CHomsky is on the payroll (be it for cash or the safety of his family), which im sorry, he just has to be for such an intellect to unequivocally state there is nothing even suspicious that has any credibility re 911 inside job, then how can he be trusted any more than a David Icke type?

              • ccuthbert2001 says:

                Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear about what I meant by credibility.

                The credibility that I’m referring to is that which the general public assigns to someone. The general public would certainly think that an MIT prof is highly credible just by his position. I’m not referring to Chomsky being credible due to his opinion on 9/11 or anything else. In this context, credibility is all about appearances.

                That’s why I said that James isn’t “credible” while Chomsky is. Therefore, I think James has little to fear from tptb wanting to bump him off. They would more likely marginalize him.

            • ralphodavis says:

              “In this context, credibility is all about appearances.”

              This says more about superficiality and popular distortion of definition than anything. C’mon.

              9/11 realities are no mere matter of opinion. One demonstrable reality is the overt and pronounced ambivalence to open and unfettered independent investigation of facts proffered by Chomsky himself.

              MIT is the inner academic sanctum of the Pentagon. To make any comparison between Corbett v Chomsky is pure straw-man stuffing. ( Btw, I’m being polite 😉

              One is about facts, the other: pretentious and pernicious propaganda.

              • ccuthbert2001 says:

                It seems you are again completely missing my point. sigh.

                The question was will tptb bump off James. I suggest no because in the estimation of the majority (51%) or even plurality of Americans, James is not credible because he’s an unknown, unconnected, no-nothing, Canadian blogger somewhere in Japan v. a member of the intelligentsia.

                I am not commenting on James’ or Chomsky’s work, on the quality of the information or anything else.

                In general, I doubt that tptb are interested in assassinating Joe Blow on the internet. They would be and we have evidenced that they are very interested in famous experts, eye witnesses, movie stars and journalists who stray off the reservation.

                I hope this is clear now bc I’m getting tired of talking at cross purposes.

          • ccuthbert2001 says:

            “Is it possible that a more Altruistic motivation is also making a significant contribution to the justification of these atrocities?”

            Where are you going with this, please?

            • m.clare says:

              RE: Credibility,

              A colleague @ the office ended a Climate Crisis debate by bringing up the NASA web page. He asked me how many missions to the moon I had under my belt; the answer is, of course, none. Who am I to contradict the official NASA gospel on the matter? Case dismissed.

              Popular Mechanics
              MIT Professors

              Ok…ccuthbert2001…your question,

              As I am of the “working class” I spend 50 hrs / week working or commuting, 15 hrs / week running a household, 30 hrs / week parenting…….but I have spent some time imagining what it might be like to be one of the super elite. They don’t need to waste their waking hours with such trivial matters. What would they think about with all of their free time?


              Given that 1) Oil is a finite resource and 2) Human population continues to rise, it is logical to conclude that Peak Oil is an inevitability.

              The consequences of Peak Oil would be extreme hardship, hunger, cold, and War

              I considered the following moral dilemma years ago when people were starving in Africa: Which scenario represents the moral high ground 1) allow 10 million to starve to death today or 2) feed them so that 25 million starve to death 30 years later? If I was an accountant, I would say feeding them would be three times as cruel as letting them starve to death. (again, I’m empathizing with a sociopath)

              Gulf of Tonkin: 50,000 American soldiers die.
              911: 3,000 citizens and 5,000 troops = 8,000 dead

              911 was Five times more humane than Vietnam (wearing the sociopathic bean counter hat)

              Military industrial complex employs MANY. Ending it results in millions of engineers, factory workers, secretaries, etc. etc. NOT bringing bacon home to their families. Military industrial complex is in the business of war. There will be blood. There has been a 500% reduction in American blood and…well….the same amount of brown skinned blood gets spilled. Can’t be helped.


              Same logic applies to Peak Oil. The elite are having the slaves build the Green infrastructure. Georgia Guide Stone commandment #1 says Half a Billion representatives of the human race can sustain themselves on the remaining half of the world’s oil inheritance.

              Q. What is more humane: allowing our population to swell to 15 billion and having to wipe out 14.5 billion of us OR wiping out 6.5 Billion of us today? The sociopathic bean counter will say the ALTRUISTIC option is to eliminate half as many people. The sooner the better.

              Is it possible we’re in the final push to commission the great Green Infrastructure for the benefit of the offspring of the chosen ones before the virus is released?

              Years from now the offspring of the elite will look at our empty cities and the Green Infrastructure with the same wonder we express today for the Great Pyramids.

              • ccuthbert2001 says:

                You could add to your argument the vaccination effort and slathering people with pesticides, both of which reduce fertility.

                Not sure how to respond to your idea, other than to propose that psychopaths don’t have the empathy you’re suggesting.

                Quien sabe?

        • 19skydog72 says:

          When Chomsky said that it didn’t really matter who did 9/11, that was when he outed himself as being one of them.

  3. ccuthbert2001 says:

    Letter to Paul Craig Roberts posted on his webpage today at http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/09/09/from-a-reader-2/

    I’m a retired career firefighter, having served over 20 years on a FD in a medium size Midwest city. During those years, I was on many a fire scene, and yes, even a few high-rise fires. Also saw some ‘pancake’ collapse structure fires and NONE of those looked like the WTC collapses. A pancake collapse has the floors falling down on top of each other, looking like a pile of pancakes on a plate, hence the term. A pancake collapse building will fall down in a random, haphazard manner, not free-fall and doesn’t emit a large cloud of pulverized contents hundreds of feet high and blocks long, making it look like a volcano exploded. Neither does a pancake collapse generate enough energy to eject a 20 ton steel beam nearly 400 feet and still have enough energy left over to impale the beam into another building. Nor does a pancake collapse turn humans into tiny bits of nothing, leaving only bone fragments no bigger than a fingernail. Nor does a pancake collapse evaporate thousands of tons of steel and concrete. I’ve read some of the NYFD radio transcripts from that day, from a crew working the fires in one of the towers. They radioed Command that the main body of fire was out, leaving only ‘mop-up’ duty. Mop-up is putting our small fires that aren’t really dangerous, but could reignite the structure, so best extinguish them. They also said they were going to start providing medical care to the victims, which means they inspected the fire floor and determined it was safe enough to provide medical care in place, if the floor had been deemed unsafe, they would of begun moving the victims to a lower level. Then, their world blew up, killing 343 NYFD firefighters. Slowly, the real news behind whathappened on 9/11 is coming out, I just pray that the truth is exposed soon, before all these ME wars that are based on the 9/11 lies, turn into WW III. Thank you for your brave reporting on this literally, life or death situation.

    • 19skydog72 says:

      I wrote that letter to Mr. Roberts and I’ll add my name to the same, Greg Bacon of Boonville, MO.

      I didn’t belong to this site before today, so couldn’t leave a comment, but will definitely do so now.

      9/11 is the Biggest LIE and CON JOB of the century, maybe of all time and it behooves us to keep plugging away at this monstrosity until it is exposed.
      We can’t afford to wait for the truth to dribble out over decades, the way matters are proceeding, we don’t have the time.

      ON 9/11, I watched 343 of my fellow brother and sister firefighters die a horrible death, murdered by their own government and swore that day to never stop asking questions until the real perps are outed.

      Thanks to Mr. Corbett, that is becoming less of a chore.

  4. HomeRemedySupply says:

    — FRIDAY NEWS Sept 9, 2016 —
    House OKs Bill to Let 9/11 Families Sue Saudi Arabia



    New York Times

    Ironically, what nation sponsors the most terrorism?
    This legislation works both ways.

    — Going Bananas —
    Chiquita has been blocking the 9/11 Victims’ Bill
    …Chiquita has spent some $780,000 over the past year and a half lobbying against the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)….


    ……and….it goes deep…
    Leon Black’s father owned United Brands Company (Chiquita bananas) which has a sordid history of corruption, mass murder, drugs and terrorism. (See links below)

    Guatemala – CIA & the United Fruit Company

    Confessions of an economic hitman – John Perkins
    Article via “WeAreChange” – http://wearechange.org/blood-and-bananas-chiquitas-deadly-history-drugs-corruption-coverups/

    The founder of Apollo Global Management is Leon Black. He has a PERSONAL art collection approaching a billion dollars.

    Apollo has had money invested in all types of companies (such as Twinkies, AMC Entertainment, Telemundo, GNC, Coldwell Banker, Century 21, McGraw-Hill Education publishers, Chuck E. Cheeze’s, cloud servers and web hosting, mega real estate holdings and mortgages, etc.)
    Apollo has a variety of masked sister investment arms, some affiliated with Arabian oil money, some affiliated in partnership with the infamous Carlyle Group (see 9/11 research and Soros research) along with its holdings of Carnegie Learning, the University of Phoenix, etc.
    (It should be noted that Wikipedia has expunged/censored some previously written Wikipedia financial escapades of Apollo.)

    Sprouts is like a small Whole Foods offering vitamins, healthy and organic foods.

    In the Spring of 2011, Apollo bought a controlling interest ownership of privately owned Sprout Farmers Market for 214 million.
    IPO stands for an “Initial Public Offering” which means that the company’s stock will be traded on Wall Street. Often investors rush to buy shares on the day an IPO occurs.
    On August 1st, 2013 Apollo took “Sprouts Farmers Market” public to the stock market with an IPO.
    Some reporters estimate that Apollo PROFITED overnight to the tune of way more than billion dollars with the Sprouts IPO. https://www.pehub.com/2013/07/apollo-make-5-3x-its-money-sprouts-farmers-markets/

    — Sprouts Farmers Market, Apollo, NBC, GE, “Autism Speaks” —

    Sprouts Farmers Market has a deception on its support for AUTISM.
    Sprouts will collect donations for Autism at the cash register, but “Autism Speaks” is the organization which receives the funds. https://www.autismspeaks.org/
    “Autism Speaks” is a fraud.
    “Autism Speaks” adamantly refuses to mention vaccines as a possible link to Autism.
    “Autism Speaks” was founded by Bob Wright.
    Bob Wright was the CEO and top executive of NBC for many years and also top honcho for General Electric (which owned NBC, The Weather Channel, Universal Studios, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Wright

    And I should mention that a Plano, TX Sprouts store once had hundreds and hundreds of rats. The Regional Manager had moved his office out of the store because the rat urine was so rank. When a guy in a hazmat suit tore out his office wall, there were more than 50 baby rats in the Regional Manager’s office wall. So many rats, sometimes one would fall on an employee.

  5. bcrsmith says:

    Thank you James. A brilliantly simple idea for a video series. You may never get any awards for your work but it is making a huge contribution and greatly appreciated.

  6. Nick says:

    ccuthbert2001 sorry for the misunderstanding, but guess my wider point is a gatekeeper is more about the effect than the motivation. If Chomsky gatekeeps for ‘moral’ reasons, the gate is kept all the same. I understand though that if your hypothesis on his motivations were correct then it gets trickier, gets back to a more philosophical question we see in MMP type political systems like here in NZ where smaller parties have to work with bigger parties who go against their general principles to achieve anything ie better inside the tent the out, but again thats where the rubber hits the road, if you sell your principles for any price, be it noble or not, then you cant be trusted cause you have declared your principles have a price, and its just a case of meeting that price.

    • ccuthbert2001 says:


      Please don’t apologize. This is a good discussion, if difficult due to the nature of a written forum. 😉

      • m.clare says:

        I don’t care if you think the way I do; what I care about is whether or not you think.

        Having banged my head against the mainstream media wall (CBC) for years, I can’t begin to tell you how encouraged I am by the privilege of interacting with open minded people. Thank you all (especially JC)

  7. russell.m says:

    Well maybe the reason there was no air force response because there were no planes to respond to.
    This was covered in many alternative investigations after 9/11. There are many inconsistencies surrounding the planes.
    1. The amount of wreckage recovered. 2. Amount of damaged caused (pentagon) 3. One or two of the planes was recorded as being grounded that day. Or one bearing the same identity number shows up landing at another airport some time after 9/11. Ect.

    A former CIA employee and pilot by the name of John Lear of Lear Jet fame has information suggesting that the air force prior to 9/11 has military grade holographic hardware that can be mounted on a plane, that can produce and project an image that looks like and sounds like a real plane

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Unfortunately, the “no planes” concept is an infiltrated idea. There are other infiltrated ideas. Historically, I watched many infiltrated concepts develop through people such as CIA asset Morgan Reynolds and deep state sponsored loonies such as Judy Woods.

      Infiltration is really about a meme, a cultural aspect unwittingly swallowed. A concept which kind of manifests itself by behavior which benefits “The Powers That Shouldn’t Be”.

      We now have a regression in some of the alternative “truther” media such as Alex Jones who promotes Trump as the white Obama, and promotes discord, rage, even prejudice against Muslims.

      A valid alternative media will “care” and strive towards unifying people offering solutions and promoting activism in the real world. A valid alternative media cites references. A valid alternative media targets the reality of the type of audience it is presenting itself to. (e.g. a message to a new person should be different (simpler) than a message to an old hat who has kept abreast.)

      Many “awoken” people have been compromised by an infiltrated meme. They spend their days ONLY chatting back-n-forth to the choir, but never taking effective action or solutions to the real world. “The Powers That Be” must be laughing… …lots of forums and chats alone in itself will never change real world scenarios, because it takes real world interaction.

      • ccuthbert2001 says:

        Home, This “were there or weren’t there planes” is a real dilemma. From the very first time I saw the first “plane crashing into the building” I thought the video was fake. It looks like the plane effortlessly flew into steel and concrete and left a hole like Wiley Coyote on the canyon floor–including the wing tips. This is simply ridiculous and could not happen.

        What it means, however, is still a mystery. Were the crashes faked and bombs set off? Did planes really hit, but fake vids were released to confuse us? I don’t know, but I do know that if planes hit, they wouldn’t have effortlessly entered the buildings leaving a perfect silhouette. There are likewise excellent questions about the amazing pix Judy Woods shows in her book, whatever her conclusions are. Were these pix photoshopped and if so, why? So that Woods could come along and “reveal” amazing, magical weapons that tptb have to really scare the hoi polloi into line?

        Be that as it may, you are correct that divide and conquer is continuing to be successful. James certainly helps the situation with this series, avoiding the possible red herrings and going for mainstream video to out the criminals. Follow the money was great in this regard, too.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          Jeremy Rys is good to go to about Judy Woods.
          Steven Jones thoroughly nailed her. I remember when she came on the scene with Fetzer…what a mess. Jones has a good scientific paper on her stuff, but the time line history of Judy Woods and Fetzer would make a person puke at how they tried to hijack the movement and how they caused a big mess.

          The hologram concept is out there to discredit the truth movement. That is what it accomplishes.

          Some people in our truth group hold to the above ideas. That is fine if one wants to hold these ideas. It is still America. Anyone can have an opinion. But those ideas are harmful when approaching a new public with them…it hurts the movement. Our group focuses primarily on sharing Ae911truth with new public. (and we do non 9/11 issues like VAXXED and Fluoride and health, etc)

        • mik says:

          @ccuthbert2001, Russell.m

          Judy Woods might sound ok if you are not familiar with physics, constructions, materials… She is building her story on a premise that plane made of aluminum is soft and fragile, but building made of steel and concrete is hard and tough.

          In case of plane crashing into a building the most important thing is Kinetic Energy.
          Plane had almost 100 tons and it was flying at 400-500 knots. Tremendous energy.
          You cannot apply knowledge of everyday physics in this case. Situation is in fact similar to Kinetic energy weapons, like armor piercing ammunition. The most important characteristic of material used in this ammunition is its density (DU, tungsten), to get big mass, since kinetic energy is a product of mass and velocity squared.
          Projectile simply gets through, passes through obstacle, because of kinetic energy.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top