Episode 346 – 9/11 War Games

09/11/201875 Comments

Little did we know at the time, 9/11 was not a normal day of blue sky aviation. On the contrary, it was one of the busiest days in the history of American aviation, a dense forest of live fly exercises, drills, simulations, fake radar injects and utter confusion. And that was before the attacks even began. This is the story of 9/11 that you didn’t watch unfold on your TV that fateful day in 2001. This is the story of the 9/11 War Games.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

Watch this documentary on BitChute / Dtube / YouTube

TRANSCRIPT

When we remember the events of 9/11, we are often invited to reflect on how the attack came out of the clear, blue sky. Until the terror began to unfold in real time on everyone’s television screen, it was just another beautiful, blue sky day, a perfect day for aviation.

CNN ANCHOR: It is 8 AM in Salisbury, North Carolina, 7:00 a.m. in Chicago, 5:00 a.m. in Calaveras County, California, where the news is being made on this Tuesday, September 11th.

CNN ANCHOR 2: From CNN…

MATT LAUER: Anyway, that’s all coming up. 8:01 let’s get to the top news stories of the morning. For that we turn to Anne Curry.

ANN CURRY: Because now we have a camera. Katy, Matt and Al, thank you so much this morning. Good morning, everybody, again.

SARAH FERGUSON: …but isn’t in America, in politics, isn’t spinning…What is spinning, Charlie?

CHARLIE GIBSON: Well, spinning is getting out your point of view, trying to put your interpretation on something.

FERGUSON: So do you think there is a lot of spinning done in politics…

FOX ANCHOR: …Miss America pageant, but this year things are different. Contestants will be quizzed on current events, US history and government. 10 of the 51 contestants got a preview. Among the questions: Naming the current vice president, and knowing what happened December 7th, 1941. Two contestants didn’t know Dick Cheney was the vice president and four missed the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

EARLY SHOW: Miles and miles of sunshine. Miles Davis. Going to put Miles out there today. Nice as it could be across the Northeast. Rough seas still from from the chop from that hurricane, but other than that it’s kind of quiet around the country. We like quiet. It’s quiet. It’s too quiet.

SOURCE: “It’s Too Quiet” The Early Morning Television of 9/11/2001

But that was merely the public’s impression of the events from ground level. Little did we know at the time, 9/11 was not a normal day of blue sky aviation. On the contrary, it was one of the busiest days in the history of American aviation, a dense forest of live fly exercises, drills, simulations, fake radar injects and utter confusion. And that was before the attacks even began.

This is the story of 9/11 that you didn’t watch unfold on your TV that fateful day in 2001. This is the story of the 9/11 War Games.

PART ONE – WAR GAMES

It only stands to reason that government employees, armed forces and first responders spend a considerable amount of time every year training to respond to crises. A major, catastrophic event may only happen once in a lifetime, but if and when it does occur, the appropriate personnel need to know how to respond.

Not all military exercises and government drills are the same, however. These training events can range all the way from computer simulations and war games—where no personnel are deployed and no physical resources are committed—to live field exercises where real people use real equipment and even real munitions to practice responding to real-world emergencies or simulate real warfare.  And as these drills and exercises move from abstract models to real-life exercises, the line between reality and simulation can become blurry.

What does it mean, then, when a simulation of an emergency takes place at the exact same place and time as that real emergency is happening in real life?

PETER POWER: Today we were running an exercise for a company—bearing in mind I’m now in the private sector—and we sat everybody down in the City. A thousand people involved in the whole organization, but the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on that underground and mainline station so we had to suddenly switch an exercise from fictional to real.

[. . . ]

INTERVIEWER: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?

POWER: Almost precisely.

SOURCE: Peter Power 7/7 Terror Rehearsal

In the hours after the July 7th, 2005 bombings in London, Peter Power gave a series of interviews to various outlets confirming that he had been running an exercise at the exact time of the attack. That exercise envisioned bombs going off at Liverpool Street, King’s Cross, and Russell Square at exactly the same time as real bombs were going off at those very locations.

PETER POWER: At half past 9 this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely.

SOURCE: Peter Power 7/7 Terror Rehearsal

What are we to make of this? Is this just a remarkable coincidence? Proof of the the keen insight of advisors like Peter Power in correctly predicting the locations and times of likely terror attacks? Or something altogether different? And, if this was set up by some intelligence agency or someone with advance knowledge of the real attack, what would be the point? Why would they bother to schedule a drill “rehearsing the event” at the same time as the event itself?

Just as there are various kinds of drills, war games and exercises, so, too, are there different ways that such simulations could be used to help facilitate an actual event. A drill could be used to distract security services and hinder responses, for example, thus helping an attack to succeed. Or the exercise could act as an alibi in case the plot is discovered before it can take place. Or, in an even more chilling scenario, a war game or training event could be used to recruit patsies who, believing they are only taking part in an exercise, unwittingly move people or equipment into place for a real attack.

KIMMY: Yes! I am the king! Numero uno, baby. Mmmm mmmm.

(The Gunmen walk over to Kimmy.)

BYERS: Find something?

KIMMY: Yep. I wound up in some government think-tank’s upload directory. Here’s your scenarios, ladies.

BYERS: It’s in clear. Counter-terrorism scenarios. War games developed for the Defense Department.

FROHIKE: What’s Scenario 12-D?

(Kimmy clicks on the file. A dialog box on the screen opens.)

FILE INFO
scenario_12D.txt
Domestic Airline In-Flight Terrorist Act

LANGLY: Airline terrorism? That doesn’t make sense. Your father was murdered over a war game?

BYERS: Download it.

SOURCE: 9/11 X-Files – The Lone Gunmen Pilot (Predictive Programming)

Incredibly, the plot of the pilot episode of “The Lone Gunmen,” a spin-off of the popular X-Files television program, aired in March 2001, depicted a scenario in which a group of government insiders piggy-backed on a military war game involving a hijacked airplane to remote control a civilian passenger jet into the World Trade Center.

BYERS SNR: What the hell are you doing? Why can’t you stay out of this. Leave me buried.

BYERS: What is scenario 12-D?

(BYERS SNR doesn’t respond.)

BYERS: We know it’s a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.

BYERS SNR: Because it’s no longer a game.

BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?

BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.

BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You’re saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?

BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction …

BYERS: For what possible gain?

BYERS SNR: The Cold War’s over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market’s flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you’ll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamoring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.

But as outlandish as this idea seems to those not immersed in military history or strategy, the idea of a war game “going live” is not limited to the world of fiction. In fact, it is a real and openly-acknowledged secret among military planners that such exercises can be used as an operational cover for a real attack. Reflecting on lessons learned from his tenure as Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, Casper Weinberger observed that “the difference between a realistic exercise or maneuver and what could be preparations for an attack, that line is sometimes quite blurred.”

And Weinberger should know. It was under his watch that a “fictional” war game scenario brought the world to the brink of a very real global thermonuclear war.

In 1983, at the height of Cold War tensions over the Reagan Administration’s moves to increase the US nuclear arsenal and his national security directive calling for the ability to win a nuclear war, NATO decided to simulate a first-strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in an exercise dubbed “Able Archer 83.” As recently declassified documents show, the exercise was unprecedented in its scale and scope, even involving a very real radio-silent air lift of 19,000 US troops to Europe. So realistic was the build up of forces and the preparations for nuclear strikes during these “war games” that, as we now know from these documents kept hidden from the public for 30 years, Able Archer 83 very nearly caused a real nuclear exchange.

But these concerns about war games going live did not end with the break up of the Soviet Union. On September 10, 2001, the Russian Air Force began a week-long training exercise over the North Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. The exercise simulated a Russian bombing attack in response to NATO aggression. On September 9, 2001, NORAD announced they would be deploying additional fighter aircraft to Forward Operating Locations in Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor the exercise and “ensure that our air sovereignty is maintained.” The Russians called off their war game when the 9/11 attacks began to unfold.

Military planners know that simulations and war games can be used as cover for real attacks. But what about 9/11? Were there any exercises, simulations or drills that had a bearing on what was happening on that fateful day?

PART TWO – PREPARATIONS

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration’s mantra became that no one could have imagined such an attack before it took place.

REPORTER: Why shouldn’t this be seen as an intelligence failure, that you were unable to predict something happening here?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Steve, I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.

SOURCE: Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice, May 16, 2002

DONALD RUMSFELD: First, I must say, I know of no intelligence during the roughly six plus months leading up to September 11 th that indicated terrorists intended to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into the Pentagon or the World Trade Towers. If we had had such information, we could have acted on it.

SOURCE: September 11 Commission: Defense

GEORGE W. BUSH: Nobody in our government, at least, and I don’t think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.

SOURCE: President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference, April 13, 2004

But, like everything else the Bush Administration told the public about 9/11, this, too, was a lie. Not only had government officials “envisioned flying airplanes into buildings” or “using an airplane as a missile,” but multiple agencies trained for just such an event prior to 9/11. In fact, as General Richard Myers—Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2001 to 2005—went on to tell the 9/11 Commission, this precise scenario of a hijacked jet being flown into a high value target was drilled by NORAD not once or twice but five separate times in the run-up to September 11th.

On November 6th, 1999, they simulated an event in which terrorists hijacked a passenger jet flying out of JFK with the intention of crashing it into the United Nations building in New York.

On June 5th, 2000, they simulated two hijackings, one in which the terrorists intended to fly the plane into the Statue of Liberty, and the other in which the intended target was the White House.

An October 16th, 2000, NORAD drill saw a hijacker once again targeting the UN building, as did a nearly identical exercise on October 23rd of that year.

One of NORAD’s pre-9/11 hijack drills even saw the World Trade Center itself become the intended target.

Other exercises involved not just hijacked jets as weapons, but tested NORAD’s response to simultaneous hijackings being used in a coordinated attack on American airspace.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, obviously it would be hard to imagine posturing for the exact scenario. But isn’t it a fact, sir, that prior to September 11th, 2001, NORAD had already in the works plans to simulate in an exercise a simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States?

GEN. MCKINLEY
: Colonel Scott, do you have any data on that? I’m not aware of that, sir. I was not present at the time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: That was Operation Amalgam Virgo.

SOURCE: Terrorist Attacks and Response

Amalgam Virgo is an annual NORAD field training exercise, meaning that real aircraft are deployed and actual personnel are used to “simulate” real-life situations.  The planning document for Amalgam Virgo 01, which took place in June 2001, featured a picture of Osama Bin Laden surrounded by airplanes. Amalgam Virgo 02, which was already in the planning stages on 9/11 and actually took place in June 2002, involved a simulated hijacking of a real Delta Airlines 757 by “military personnel acting as civilian passengers” and ran through multiple scenarios for stopping the plane from reaching its target, including a shoot down.

But as uncanny as these similarities are to real life events, declassified documents from the 9/11 Commission archive show that many other types of hijack scenarios were practiced in the three years before September 11th. These documents prove that many of the lies told about the “confused” response to the 9/11 attacks are just that: lies.

We have long been told, for instance, that NORAD wasn’t set up to deal with a domestic hijacking threat because the agency was solely focused on outward threats.

RICHARD MYERS: It’s the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward. Those were the orders that NORAD had and has had for — ever since the end of the Soviet Union when we had at that time I think it was 26 alert sites around the United States and we’d gone down to seven.

SOURCE: September 11 Commission Hearing, June 17, 2004

But time after time between 1999 and 2001, NORAD simulated so-called “inside-inside” events, where domestic airliners bound for domestic destinations were hijacked en route. General Myers simply lied when he said that NORAD’s defenses were only directed toward outside threats. As these documents show, NORAD was actively engaged in modeling domestic terror threats, not only domestic civilian airliner hijackings but even one scenario, dubbed “Fertile Rice,” in which Osama bin Laden directed an attack on Washington using a drone aircraft laden with explosives.

And these were not the only pre-9/11 “training” events that bore a striking resemblance to the actual attacks. The specific scenario of a plane crashing into the Pentagon was drilled not just once or twice, but at least three separate times in the year prior to September 11th.

In October 2000, a Pentagon mass casualty exercise, or “MASCAL,” envisioned a scenario in which a passenger jet hit the Pentagon. Army medics, the Arlington Fire Department and other emergency responders participated in the drill.

In May 2001, another Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise tested responses to a passenger jet crashing into the Pentagon’s courtyard. This time, the tri-Service DiLorenzo Health Care Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic participated in the training. Lieutenant Colonel John Felicio, deputy commander for administration of the DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic, later remarked: “You know, it was kind of eerie. The scenario we had for these MASCALS was very similar to what actually happened. Our scenario for both MASCALS was a plane flying into the Pentagon courtyard.”

Then, in August 2001, just one month before 9/11, yet another Pentagon mass casualty exercise practiced building evacuation. As General Lance Lord, Commander of Air Force Space Command, later noted: “Purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building.”

“Purely a coincidence.” Time after time after time after time after time in the months leading up to the attacks, military personnel and first responders were trained to respond to the very events that the public is asked to believe actually took place on the day of 9/11. Some of these training exercises even involved real aircraft being “pretend” hijacked by real military personnel “acting as civilian passengers.”

Purely a coincidence.

As we can see, the idea that no one could have predicted the attacks of September 11th is not just a lie, but an absurd lie. In fact, the sheer number of times those very scenarios were exercised before they took place by itself raises the question of what these war game planners knew about what was set to take place that day.

But as remarkable as all of these drills and exercises are, more remarkable still are the similarities between the events of 9/11 and the war games that we now know were taking place that very morning.

PART THREE – TRAINING DAY

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawns temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States. A perfect day for aviation.

Meanwhile, all around the country, military personnel, first responders and government officials prepare for one of the busiest days of “simulated” terror in history.

In New York City, preparations continue for “Operation Tripod,” an exercise run by the New York City Office of Emergency Management involving hundreds of personnel from FEMA and other disaster response agencies. The exercise simulates a bioterrorist attack on New York, and on the morning of September 11th equipment is already in place at Pier 92—just four miles north-northwest of the Twin Towers—to treat the “victims” of this pretend attack.

RUDY GIULIANI: … on September 12th, Pier 92 was going to have a drill. It had hundreds of people here from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State Emergency Management Office and they were getting ready for a drill for a bio-chemical attack. So that was going to be the place they were going to have the drill, the equipment was already there.

SOURCE: 9/11 Commission Hearings May 19, 2004

And on the 97th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, a team of technology consultants who have flown in from California for the occasion are running an emergency drill in the offices of Fiduciary Trust.

Meanwhile in Washington, members of the 12th Aviation Battalion, in charge of “aviation support for the White House, US government officials, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and other government agencies” are two hours away from their base, participating in their annual weapons training.

12 miles south of the Pentagon, Fort Belvoir begins a garrison control exercise drilling the base on its response to a simulated terrorist attack.

Firefighters at Fort Myer, just 1.5 miles from the Pentagon, are sitting down for an “aircraft crash refresher class.”

Matthew Rosenberg—an Army medic at the DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic—sits down in Corridor 8 of the Pentagon to “study a new medical emergency disaster plan based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the place.”

And in Chantilly, Virginia—just four miles from the runway of Dulles Airport—the military and CIA personnel who staff the National Reconaissance Office are beginning an exercise in which a plane crashes into their building.

Members of the Joint Special Operations Command (the US military’s “top counterterrorism unit”) are in Hungary preparing for “Jackal Cave,” a highly-classified joint readiness exercise.

Fighter pilots deployed to monitor the Russian Air Force’s training exercise in the Arctic are readying themselves for a day of maneuvers in Alaska and Northern Canada.

And at NORAD’s combat operations center at the Cheyenne Mountain Complex in Colorado, military commanders are preparing for one of the busiest days of war games and exercises in the history of the United States.

BARRIE ZWICKER: Michael Ruppert is standing by at his office in Sherman Oaks, California. Michael, thanks for this. What is the reason for the failure of US military jets to show up in a timely fashion on 9/11?

MICHAEL RUPPERT: Well, the simple fact is, Barrie, that they didn’t know where to go. The reason that they didn’t know where to go was because a number of conflicting and overlapping war game exercises were taking place, one of which, Northern Vigilance, had pulled a significant number of North American fighter aircraft into Canada and western Alaska and and northern Alaska in a mock Cold War hijack exercise. There was another drill, Vigilant Guardian, which was a hijack exercise, a command post exercise, but it involved the insertion of false radar blips on to radar screens in the NorthEast Air Defense Sector. In addition we have a confirmation thanks to General Richard Myers who was acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who told Richard Clarke, as reported in Clarke’s book, that there was another exercise, Vigilant Warrior, which was, in fact, according to a NORAD source a live fly hijack drill being conducted at the same time.

With only eight available fighter aircraft, and they have to be dispatched in pairs, they were dealing with as many as 22 possible hijacks on the day of 9/11 and they couldn’t separate the war game exercises from the actual hijacks.

SOURCE: The Great Deception

Yes, on the morning of September 11, 2001, the stage was perfectly set for an unprecedented day of simulated terror throughout the northeastern United States.

And then it all happened for real.

PART FOUR – THIS IS NOT AN EXERCISE

08:37:52

BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?

BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

SOURCE: Vanity Fair

Confusion.

08:52:40

NASYPANY: This is what I got. Possible news that a 737 just hit the World Trade Center. This is a real-world. And we’re trying to confirm this. Okay. Continue taking the fighters down to the New York City area, J.F.K. area, if you can. Make sure that the F.A.A. clears it— your route all the way through. Do what we gotta do, okay? Let’s press with this. It looks like this guy could have hit the World Trade Center.

SOURCE: Vanity Fair

Chaos.

09:49

HERNDON CENTER: Ah, do we wanna think about, ah, scrambling aircraft?

FAA HEADQUARTERS: Ah, (sighs) oh God, I don’t know.

HERNDON: Uh, that’s a decision someone is gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.

FAA HQ: Uh, you know everybody just left the room.

SOURCE: Rutgers Law Review

Paralysis.

There are many ways to describe the FAA, DoD and NORAD response to the events of 9/11. But given that, according to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, not a single fighter jet was able to intercept a single hijacked airliner between the first hijacking report at 8:20 AM and Flight 93’s downing nearly two hours later at 10:03 AM, the claim that the response to these events was actually enhanced by the war games and exercises taking place that morning is downright absurd.

REP. CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: The question was we had four war games going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not activities of the four war games going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response. In fact, General Eberhart, who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission, I believe—I believe—he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn’t have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility.

SOURCE: Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Budget

MR. ROEMER: General Eberhart, a question about our training posture on the day of 9/11. On page five of our Staff Statement, the FAA says at 8:38 in the morning, “Hi, Boston Center, TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York and we need you guys to — we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there. Help us out.” NEADS says, “Is this real world or an exercise?”

My question is, you were postured for an exercise against the former Soviet Union. Did that help or hurt? Did that help in terms of were more people prepared? Did you have more people ready? Were more fighters fueled with more fuel? Or did this hurt in terms of people thinking, “No, there’s no possibility that this is real world; we’re engaged in an exercise,” and delay things? Or did it have both impacts?

GEN. EBERHART: Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews — they have to be airborne in 15 minutes. And that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.

The situation that you’re referring to, I think, at most cost us 30 seconds — 30 seconds.

SOURCE: September 11 Commission Hearing, June 17, 2004

These lies have been carefully crafted over years and presented in such densely-packed soundbites that it is difficult to deconstruct them all.

General Myers’ assertion that it was not NORAD but the FAA that had the responsibility to respond to the attacks that morning is one such lie. In reality, 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].”

And General Eberhart’s assertion that the confusion over whether the events that were unfolding were real world events or merely exercises “cost us 30 seconds” is belied by the actual audio recordings of the FAA and NORAD response that morning. Time and time again throughout the entire morning, air traffic controllers and military operators are forced to clarify that the events being reported are not part of an exercise.

08:37:52

BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?

BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

SOURCE: Vanity Fair

08:37:56

WATSON: What?

DOOLEY: Whoa!

WATSON: What was that?

ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?

DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.

WATSON: Cool!

SOURCE: Vanity Fair

08:42:59

NASYPANY: Fourteen forty three, look for it, right there, ok, mode three, fourteen forty three, last known. No, this is real world. Ok, we’re in the high chair.

SOURCE: Rutgers Law Review

08:43:06

FOX: I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.

SOURCE: Vanity Fair

08:57:11

NASYPANY: Think we put the exercise on the hold. What do you think? [Laughter.]

SOURCE: DRM1_DAT2_Channel2_MCC_Op [TRANSCRIPT]

This persistent confusion over the reality of what was happening that day is hardly surprising. Although the exact details are still shrouded under a cloud of official secrecy, on the morning of 9/11 NORAD was in the middle of a week-long war game that “coincidentally” included simulated hijackings of passenger jets.

“Vigilant Guardian” is an annual command post exercise involving all levels of NORAD command. Vigilant Guardian 01 was a week-long war game described as a “simulated air war,” and, just two days before 9/11, it had involved a simulated terrorist hijacking of a civilian passenger jet by terrorists intending to blow the plane up with explosives over New York City. Even more remarkably, on the very morning of September 11th, they were planning to simulate another passenger jet hijacking just one hour after the attacks began to unfold.

In 2006, Vanity Fair reporter Michael Bronner was the first journalist given access to the tapes of NORAD operations that morning. In his subsequent article on the subject, “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes,” Bronner talked to Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Nasypany, the mission-crew commander on the “ops” floor at the Northeast Air Defense Sector on the morning of 9/11.

“When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was ‘Somebody started the exercise early,'” Nasypany later told me. The day’s exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a “traditional” simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. “I actually said out loud, ‘The hijack’s not supposed to be for another hour,'” Nasypany recalled.

As a command post exercise, Vigilant Guardian was not conducted with real airplanes but what’s known as “sim over live,” where simulated aircraft are injected into NORAD’s air traffic system. Although the official narrative holds that the simulated injects were cleared from NORAD’s radars as soon as they appeared, thus causing no confusion, the actual NORAD tapes tell a different story.

At 9:04 AM, directly after Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, two officers monitoring the events at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) can be heard to refer to the events as potential exercise “inputs.”

09:04:50

SPEAKER 1: Is this explosion part of that that we’re lookin’ at now on TV?

SPEAKER 2: Yes.

SPEAKER 1: Jesus …

SPEAKER 2: And there’s a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines …

SPEAKER 1: Two planes?…

SPEAKER 2: Get the fuck out …

SPEAKER 1: I think this is a damn input, to be honest.

SOURCE: Vanity Fair

At 9:09 AM, one NEADS technician complains about the exercises taking place and the confusion with real world events.

BACKGROUND MALE SPEAKER: Langley’s on battle stations.

FEMALE SPEAKER: Fuck.

FEMALE SPEAKER 2: What?

BACKGROUND MALE SPEAKER: Battle stations.

FEMALE SPEAKER: Langley.

FEMALE SPEAKER: LFI.

FEMALE SPEAKER: I know. I hope they cancel the exercise, because this is ridiculous.

SOURCE: DRM1_DAT2_Channel_4_ID_Op [TRANSCRIPT]

And at 9:15 AM, an off-duty NEADS technician calls in to ask about the day’s events and the ongoing exercise.

SGT. ZUBON: You guys watching the news?

NEADS TECHNICIAN: Yeah, they’ve got it on in the battlecab right now.

ZUBON: Oh, do they?

NEADS: Yeah.

ZUBON: Yeah, I’ve been watching it for about ten minutes, and I said “I wonder if they’re—did they suspend the exercise?”

NEADS: Not at this time, no.

ZUBON: Not yet?

NEADS: But I think they’re going to. I don’t know. (Laughing).

ZUBON: Yeah, I would imagine.

NEADS: Things look pretty horrific out there.

SOURCE: 0915 Not at this time

Remarkably, at 9:30 AM, a full hour and ten minutes into the attacks, simulated aircraft were still being injected into the radar screens at NEADS. One frustrated staff member directing the response on the NEADS operations floor had to order his coworkers to “turn their sim switches off,” stopping the fake simulations from confusing the radar operators.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You know what, let’s get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let’s get rid of that crap.

SOURCE: RM1_DAT2_Channel2_MCC_Op [TRANSCRIPT]

Even worse, at the same time as these false inputs were distracting the radar operators, real military aircraft that are taking part in the live-fly exercises that day are further complicating the response to the attacks.

MALE SPEAKER: Boston Center T.M.U., yeah, we’ve got a question for you.

BACKGROUND MALE: Yes, sir.

MALE SPEAKER 1: We’re wondering if we should tell them to return to Base if they’re just on training missions, or what you guys—

BACKGROUND MALE: No, no. They’re actually on the active air per the DO out there.

BACKGROUND MALE: Is this guy launched (inaudible)?

BACKGROUND MALE: Everybody’s who’s up, you want them up?

BACKGROUND MALE: Yes, we did send the ones home that were on the training mission.

BACKGROUND MALE: OK.

BACKGROUND MALE: They are sent home.

(Simultaneous background conversations)

BACKGROUND MALE: But the Pantas are out there from Otis.

MALE SPEAKER: Right. I understand that. I’m talking about— I think there’s somebody training up in the Falcon Acts area right now.

BACKGROUND MALE: No.

BACKGROUND MALE: Falcon. Stand by. Let me—

MALE SPEAKER: Just in general anybody that’s training.

BACKGROUND MALE: Anybody in training, send them home? Missions are Falcon send them home?

BACKGROUND MALE: Right.

BACKGROUND MALE: Yeah, go ahead and send them home.

MALE SPEAKER: OK, fine.

SOURCE: RM1_DAT2_Channel2_MCC_Op [TRANSCRIPT]

Even more incredibly, false radar injects continued to show up on radar screens at NORAD’s Operations Center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, at 10:12 AM, a full nine minutes after the attacks had ended.

CAPT. BRIAN NAGEL: Sim…or, sorry, northeast weapons.

CAPT. TAYLOR: Hello, this is Captain Taylor calling from Cheyenne Mountain test control.

NAGEL: Yes.

TAYLOR: What we need you to do right now is to terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain.

NAGEL: Yes. Can you call 6180 extension for that, please?

TAYLOR: 6180?

NAGEL: You bet, he’ll give you that.

TAYLOR: I’ll do that.

NAGEL: OK, thank you.

SOURCE: DRM2_DAT1_Channel_20_SD2_TK.zip [TRANSCRIPT]

In the face of this overwhelming documentary evidence that the exercises taking place that morning were a persistent source of distraction that significantly complicated response efforts, the retort of the 9/11 Commission and its proponents that these false radar blips were a minor issue that “at most cost us 30 seconds” rings exceedingly hollow.

But that official story becomes even more implausible when it is learned that air traffic controllers and military personnel were not responding to four, clearly reported hijacked aircraft, as the public now imagines it, but as many as 29 potential hijackings.

MAJ. GEN. LARRY ARNOLD: We were in the process of launching aircraft all over the country during that timeframe. We had multiple aircraft called hijacked all over the country.

SOURCE: September 11 Commission Hearing, June 17, 2004

GEN. MYERS: In fact, as General Arnold said, we fought many phantoms that day. […] We got many aircraft calls inbound that morning that turned out to be phantoms.

SOURCE: September 11 Commission Hearing, June 17, 2004

These false reports included:

  • United Airlines Flight 177, which was inexplicably reported as hijacked at 9:25 AM despite still being on the ground at Boston’s Logan International Airport.
  • Delta 1989, a 767 flying from Boston to Los Angeles that was repeatedly identified as suspicious on the morning of 9/11 and ordered to land at a secure, remote area of Cleveland Hopkins Airport, where the pilot signalled “all clear” to the SWAT team outside the plane with blood running down his face.
  • Continental Airlines Flight 321, which had inexplicably “squawked” the hijack code from the plane’s transponder three times before being safely brought down in Peoria.
  • KAL 85, en route from Seoul, South Korea to New York, which inexplicably sent “five separate and ongoing indicators of a hijacking situation” before being intercepted by NORAD fighters over Alaska and directed to land at Whitehorse in northern Canada or be shot down.
  • And literally dozens of other suspicious aircraft, inexplicable hijack indicators, false reports of planes that “never existed,” and other bizarre incidents, some of which have still never been explained to the public to this day.

But the most baffling of all of these reports involved American Airlines Flight 11, the Boeing 767 en route from Boston to Los Angeles that, according to the official government conspiracy theory, was hijacked by Mohamed Atta and flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Incredibly, air traffic controllers and military fighter jets spent much of the crucial time in the midst of the 9/11 attacks dealing with a completely false report that Flight 11 had not crashed into the World Trade Center at all, but was instead still airborn and heading towards Washington.

COLIN SCOGGINS: Scoggins, (FAA) military (operations specialist), Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air and it’s on its way towards — heading towards Washington.

NEADS TECHNICIAN: American 11 is still in the air—

SCOGGINS: Yes.

NEADS: —on its way towards Washington?

SCOGGINS: It was another aircraft that hit the tower. That’s the latest report we have.

NEADS: Okay.

SCOGGINS: I’m going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would assume he’s somewhere over either New Jersey or somewhere further south.

NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn’t a hijack at all, then, right?

SCOGGINS: No, he is a hijack.

NEADS: American 11 is a hijack?

SCOGGINS: Yes.

NEADS: And he’s going into Washington.

SCOGGINS: This could be a third aircraft.

SOURCE: NEADS Tapes: The “Phantom Flight 11 Call” on 9/11

This completely false report, phoned in by FAA military operations specialist Colin Scoggins, further confused the already overwhelmed NEADS technicians. In response, NEADS Mission Crew Commander Kevin Nasypany scrambled some of the only fighters in the entire defense sector to chase after this phantom flight.

09:21:50

NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He’s heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m—I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

SOURCE: Vanity Fair

So confusing was this series of events that even years later at the 9/11 Commission hearings, both commissioners and military commanders struggled to even communicate about the problem itself, let alone determine how such a false report persisted for so long.

MR. KEAN: Commissioner Gorelick.

MS. GORELICK: A couple of follow-up questions. First, for General Arnold, you testified before us before that the jets were scrambled in response to Flight 93, not American 11, and when you were asked about—

GEN. ARNOLD: I was wrong. I was wrong.

MS. GORELICK: Yeah. But—but the question about that is, and I want to be fair to you and give you an opportunity to respond, you said that the reason that you were wrong was that you hadn’t had an opportunity to listen to the tapes, or the tapes were not accessible. But, I mean, we have—I’m just holding four of them — different headquarters and CONR logs that are—that clearly reflect that the scrambling was done in response to this phantom American 11, which didn’t exist anymore. And it was responsibility, as I recall, to do the after-action report, or to lead it, or to be in part responsible for it. Did you not look at the logs in that process?

GEN. ARNOLD: Well, you refer to an after-action report that I was—that we didn’t do. I mean, I don’t recall doing an after- action report—

SOURCE: September 11 Commission Hearing, June 17, 2004

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Why did no one mention the false report received from FAA that Flight 11 was heading south during your initial appearance before the 9/11 Commission back in May of last year? And why was there no report to us that contrary to the statements made at the time, that there had been no notification to NORAD that Flight 77 was a hijack?

GEN. LARRY ARNOLD: Well, the first part of your question—Mr. Commissioner, first of all, I would like to say that a lot of the information that you have found out in your study of this of this 9/11, the things that happened on that day, helped us reconstruct what was going on.

And if you’re talking about the American 11, in particular, the call of American 11, is that what you are referring to?

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Yes.

GEN. ARNOLD: The American 11, that was—call after it had impacted, is that what you’re referring to?

MR. BEN-VENISTE: No. I’m talking about the fact that there was miscommunication that Flight 11 was still heading south instead of having impacted—

GEN. ARNOLD: That’s what I’m referring to. That’s correct.

[…]

MR. BEN-VENISTE: General, is it not a fact that the failure to call our attention to the miscommunication and the notion of a phantom Flight 11 continuing from New York City south in fact skewed the whole reporting of 9/11, it skewed the official Air Force report, which is contained in a book called “The Air War Over America,” which does not contain any information about the fact that you were following, or thinking of a continuation of Flight 11, and that you had not received notification that Flight 77 had been hijacked?

GEN. ARNOLD: Well, as I recall, first of all, I didn’t know the call signs of the airplanes when these things happened. When the call came that American 11 was possible hijacked aircraft, that aircraft just led me to come to the conclusion that there were other aircraft in the system that were a threat to the United States.

SOURCE: September 11 Commission Hearing, June 17, 2004

PHILIP ZELIKOW: In their testimony, and in other public statements, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77 and/or United 93. These statements were incorrect as well. The report of American 11 heading south as the cause of the Langley scramble is reflected not just in taped conversations at NEADS, but in taped conversations in FAA centers, on chat logs compiled at NEADS, continental region headquarters, and NORAD, and in other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft, American 11, is not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by FAA or DOD. Instead, since 9/11, the scramble of the Langley fighters has been described as a response to the reported hijacking of American 77, or United 93, or some combination of the two. This inaccurate account created the appearance that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.

SOURCE: September 11 Commission Hearing, June 17, 2004

False radar inputs. Military aircraft participating in exercises in the middle of a crisis. Civilian aircraft squawking false hijack reports. Fighter jets chasing phantom planes.

Which of these reports were merely the “fog of war” so often referred to by promoters of the official 9/11 story, and which were part of the exercise themselves? Were there field exercises of hijackings taking place that morning that were then mistaken for the real thing? What part did these war games and exercises play in hampering the response of the many military officers who had spent their whole careers training to protect American airspace?

Did the war games help the perpetrators of 9/11 in their attack?

The answers to these questions, like so many other questions about the events of September 11th, remain shrouded under a veil of official government secrecy.

PART FIVE: BEYOND COINCIDENCE

“Purely a coincidence.”

According to the official story of 9/11 itself, we are told that simulated hijackings were taking place at the same time as real-life hijackings. That an airplane-into-building drill was occurring at the same time as airplanes were flying into buildings. That false radar blips and fake hijack reports were competing for the military’s attention with real-world radar blips and hijack reports. And throughout it all, technicians, operators, military personnel and air traffic controllers were constantly seeking reassurance that what they were seeing was not part of an exercise.

Purely a coincidence? Or part of a pre-meditated plan?

And if this unprecedented tangle of exercises, drills and simulations was part of a pre-meditated plan, what was that plan? What would be the point of simulating the attacks even as the attacks themselves were taking place?

MICHAEL RUPPERT: For me, the pivotal evidence absolutely demonstrating direct government complicity in and management of the attacks was found in a number of undisputed yet virtually unaddressed war games that I have shown were being conducted, coordinated, and/or controlled by Vice President Dick Cheney or his immediate staff on the morning of September the 11th.

The names of those wargames are known to include: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and Tripod. There is a possibility that Northern Guardian is a duplicate name, but the remaining exercises are indisputably separate events with different objectives. All have been reported by major press organizations relying on undisputed quotes from participating military and FAA personnel. They have also been confirmed by NORAD press releases. All, except for Northern Vigilance and Tripod II, had to do with hijacked airliners inside the continental United States, specifically within the northeast air defense sector or NEADS, where all four 9/11 hijackings occurred.

According to a clear record, some of these exercises involve commercial airline hijackings. In some cases, false blips or “injects” were deliberately inserted into FAA and military radar screens, and they were present during at least the first attacks. This effectively paralyzed fighter response because with only eight fighters available in the region, there were as many as 22 possible hijackings taking place.

Other exercises, specifically Northern Vigilance, had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast US just before 9/11 into northern Canada and Alaska. In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were live-fly exercises, where actual aircraft—likely flown by remote control—were simulating the behavior of hijacked airliners in real life. All of this as the real attacks began.

The fact that these exercises have never been systematically and thoroughly explored in the mainstream press or publicly by Congress—or at least publicly in any detail whatsoever by this so-called “independent” 911 Commission—made me think that they might be the holy grail of 9/11. And that’s exactly what they turned out to be.

Only one war game exercise, Vigilant Guardian, was mentioned in a footnote to the Kean Commission report, and then it was deliberately mislabeled as an exercise intended to intercept Russian bombers instead of a hijack exercise in the northeast sector. Even then a deliberate lie was told to the American people as NORAD commander General Ralph Eberhart testified to the Commission that the exercise actually expedited US Air Force response during the attacks.

Before the Commission’s final hearing I undertook a direct investigation in an attempt to learn more details about each of the exercises and specifically who was controlling them or had planned them to take place on September the 11th, where it’s abundantly clear based upon the record of statements made by the US Air Force and FAA personnel that the games had effectively paralyzed fighter response during the attacks.

SOURCE: 9/11 Omission Hearings – Michael Ruppert On Dick Cheney – 9/9/2004

The exercises taking place on 9/11 could only be to the benefit of the attackers. No stand down order would have kept any dedicated fighter pilot worth his salt grounded during the only attack on his country’s air space in his lifetime. But if those fighter pilots and their commanders had no idea what was real and what was fake, what was an actual threat and what was just a phantom blip, then their response could be effectively contained.

And it was. The utter “failure” of the air response that morning is proof of that.

But if the simulations and war games on the morning of 9/11 were part of a pre-meditated plan on the part of the attackers, then the obvious question is who were the attackers? Are we to believe that the dastardly Al Qaeda masterminds not only perpetrated the simultaneous hijacking of four civilian airliners, turning off the plane’s transponders and putting them through a series of maneuvers that even advanced pilots could not replicate to hit their targets with pinpoint accuracy, but also penetrated the command structure of the US military and NORAD itself to direct the planning and scheduling of simultaneous war games mirroring their own plot to confuse the air response to the attacks?

Because if that sounds like outlandish comic book fantasy, then there is only one other possible conclusion: That members of the National Command Authority, the US military and NORAD in a position to plan and schedule such exercises were the attackers themselves.

BYERS: What is scenario 12-D?

(BYERS SNR doesn’t respond.)

BYERS: We know it’s a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.

BYERS SNR: Because it’s no longer a game.

BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?

BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.

BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You’re saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?

BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction …

BYERS: For what possible gain?

BYERS SNR: The Cold War’s over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market’s flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you’ll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamoring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.

But that’s “just fiction” and the fact that it all happened in real life a few months later is just another “pure coincidence.”

The truth of what happened that morning would be remarkably easy to come to if those involved in the planning and execution of the day’s training events were to open the records and allow independent examination of the precise situations that were being trained that day, how those scenarios were arrived at, who planned them, who was in charge of them, what radar injects and false reports and live-fly simulations were taking place, how these exercise inputs were relayed to technicians and air traffic controllers, and what steps were taken at what times to allow those events to continue even as the attacks they were supposed to be simulating were actually happening in real life.

But we shouldn’t expect the guilty parties to indict themselves, and so it is no surprise at all that the official government investigation into 9/11 studiously avoided facing any of these issues head on.

VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Ask about the war games that were planned for 9-11.

MR. KEAN: Commissioner Gorelick.

MS. GORELICK: Um.

VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Tell us about the 9-11 war games.

MS. GORELICK: Could you please be quiet, we only have a few minutes with General Myers, and I would like to ask a question.

VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: Tell us about the war games.

MS. GORELICK: I’m sorry.

MR. KEAN: I would ask please for the people in the audience to be quiet if you want to stay here.

SOURCE: 9/11 Commission hearing June 17, 2004

So what does it mean when a simulation of a catastrophic and catalyzing event takes place at the exact same place and time as that event is happening in real life?

This is one of the many crucial questions of 9/11 that have been swept under the rug over the past 17 years. But it is not a rhetorical question. It is a very real question with a very real answer. And until that question is answered, we will never find justice for the victims of 9/11.

FOX: I’ve never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Filed in: Podcasts
Tagged with:

Comments (75)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. beadbud5000 says:

    One of the things that never gets discussion is how children in the 1960’s and 1970s were exposed to terrorism almost daily via Patty Hurst, IRA, etc.

    The media and Wikipedia seems to drive home the weird idea that terrorism started with 9-11 subconsciously. As I edit on Wikipedia, I posed that question on the talk page related to Terrorism and no one ever address it. Very strange.

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      The media and Wikipedia seems to drive home the weird idea that terrorism started with 9-11 subconsciously. As I edit on Wikipedia, I posed that question on the talk page related to Terrorism and no one ever address it. Very strange.

      Not really strange.
      Wikipedia is bought and owned by TPTB.
      Google “September 11 attacks” and read the Wikipedia page to find out what happened on that day. It should make you sick. Oh and try to inject some truth into the article. Good luck! Your edit might last for a minute or two maximum!

  2. calibrator says:

    Stellar video – as always!

    HIGHLY appreciated!

    Probably the best summation about all the exercises around 9/11 – presented in a highly approachable manner.

    This is yet another example why I gladly support The Corbett Report.

    Edit: And if you wonder which CR videos to recommend for 2018…

  3. Broc West says:

    My personal and sincerest thank you to every single subscriber for their continued support of The Corbett Report. This type of work literally DOES NOT exist without you. Thank you all again. I humbly ask that you please share, show & spread this to as many as you can. Looking forward to your feedback on this incredibly important episode.

    Peace, Broc.

    • calibrator says:

      No – thank you, Broc, for making such videos even dolts like me can digest them after the regular sheeple work!

      Without your work this channel wouldn’t attract as many people.
      Undoubtedly.

    • Stronghorse says:

      Thank you Broc, for the craftsmanship and fine details you put into your work. It shows, and we appreciate it.

    • candlelight says:

      Dear Broc,

      I’ve never seen you post a comment on this board before, though perhaps I’ve simply never noticed any of your posts in the last half year since I began in earnest (semi-earnest?) reading the comment section – but, the reason I mention this is that I find it quite interesting that you had felt compelled to enter a comment for this particular episode, as well as the sentiment you expressed concerning, as you say, its incredible importance.

      I have yet to watch the episode, but this morning I read through the transcript, and I have to say that I wholeheartedly came away feeling the exact same sentiment about this particular episode as you describe – as being incredibly important.

      Before seeing your post, I had intended my post to address James directly to tell him that his summer was well worth his efforts! No matter how dragged out he may have been feeling at times. 🙂

      After reading this incredibly succinct compilation of information, some of which I’ve been aware of for many years, and much I have not, I couldn’t help to conclude the damning nature of such a summary of documented and historical facts. Facts that are, indeed, on the record, but never placed together as coherently as only your mate, James Corbett, can do. The material contained in this episode, formatted as it is, taken in hand, should be enough by itself – in a sane world at least – to demand a new and thorough investigation of the true conspiratorial criminality of 9/11.

      There is another reason I’ve taken this opportunity to address you directly, and that is to offer you my many thanks for your own very fine work, and further, and still more importantly, for your forming an obviously lasting and trusting bond of friendship with James through your many years of collaborative efforts together.

      I thank you, again, and

      Cheers!

      • candlelight says:

        To James and Broc,

        I’d like to say that after having now viewed “9/11 War Games”, my initial impression of the episode from reading its transcript – that it represents a very important work – is fully solidified. In fact, as excellent and as thought provoking as literally all of The Corbett Report videos are, the truly substantive nature of “9/11 War Games” hits, I truly believe, the highest water mark among them all, which is quite a high achievement to say the least.

        It is a brilliantly conceived work, which is of course further brought home with accompanying expert videography.

        Odd that I never use the phrase “brought home”, but in this instance, it’s very fitting, because there’s an uncanny immediacy that this video imbues. And I believe this imbuing of immediacy is really none other than what it conveys; which is the visceral, cognitive understanding of the truth.

        And in so doing, it becomes a healing video, an unfogging of the fog of war…. An unfogging of the fog of unbeknownst deception that enveloped our world on that fateful day.

        The true and simple brilliance of “9/11 War Games” is that its sole source of weaponry consists simply of the facts…on the public record, irrefutable and undeniable facts. As like under a halogen light, in wisely providing cohesively and intelligently to the greatest extent, the use of these facts, the expose we see, of military officials lying before congress and lying before the 9/11 Commission is inexorably dead-on and beyond conclusive.

        I will state again, with “9/11 War Games” in hand, it is by itself, powerful enough and persuasive enough to prompt a new investigation.

        All it truly needs, and only needs, really, is the right set of hands….

        I sincerely thank you both, and am grateful for what I can only honestly and truthfully describe as the vindication of what is true, and to that end, for your very righteous and excellent efforts your work has afforded all of us.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Here is…
      Broc & Corbett sitting together discussing “The Palestinians cheered” hoax.
      https://hooktube.com/watch?v=WxBZ4i9qCaE

      Note: At the 6 minute mark, Howard Stern is yelling “Drop the nuclear bomb on them”.

    • Mielia says:

      Thank you Broc.

      Usually resteem is what I do these days – apart from talking to people in my surrounding.

  4. mkey says:

    Pardon my French, but what a clusterfuck this was. As detailed and elegant this expose is, I’m sure it barely managed to scratch the surface of all the confusion going on that day. I’m betting service people of the jour scoured their recollections for any semblance of logic and continuity ad nauseam.

    Great work on keeping this under one hour in duration.

  5. keithk says:

    Absolutely amazing work James, thank you. As good as 9/11 Trillions.

    ICYMI Chris Hayes of MSNBC plugged The Century of Enslavement movie in his rant on how ‘YouTube must change their algorithm, look what come up when you search federal reserve! What if high schoolers see this while doing research! This is deeply concerning.’

    https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1037831503101579264

    You’re getting their attention, and pissing them off, keep up the good work.

  6. ztaco says:

    Hello, I just wanted to know people’s opinions on certain articles pertaining to 9/11.

    Article 1: https://isgp-studies.com/911-pentagon-flight-77-impact-hole-size-calculated

    Article 2: https://isgp-studies.com/911-no-plane-at-pentagon-promoters (this is one where he calls out Corbet and people Corbett has been associated with

    I’ve always been under the belief that no plane could of hit the Pentagon, but this man begs to differ. Anyone willing to refute what the man in the articles has to say?

    • zyxzevn says:

      Pilots for 911 truth state that there were witnesses that saw the plane
      flying over the pentagon. The fire and explosion in the pentagon
      was probably prepared, to destroy the evidence of the trillions.
      So both can be right: there as plane + no impact/ fake hole.
      The plane is probably military version that was switched during
      the transponder and radar black-out.
      I was much more agile than commercial airliners as we can see from
      the spiral-maneuver it performed.
      See my other post below for more info.

    • mkey says:

      When I see any of these guys confront anything that’s not related to planes and buildings I’ll give it a look. They just keep pulling these analysis out of their ass and insist THEY know the truth. Well, do they? I think not.

    • candlelight says:

      aztaco,

      With regard to your Article 2 link, it offers a fascinasting amount of “information” detailing in quantum depth, at times, many, many facets of the many, many individuals who have played roles in around the 9/11 Truth movement for the last 17 years. I see that the article was updated in the spring of this year. I suppose the author, Joel v.d. Riëjden, was focusing, or trying to focus, on each individual’s take on the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon-theory. The author claims, by and large, anyone who has or does promote such a theory is promulgating disinformation. And, yes, James Corbett is “listed” among these individuals, yet (and this put a smile on my face) as far as I can tell, James is the sole individual who was pinned with the following caveat: “Corbett is a tricky one to label….”. Meaning, James, to use the author’s terminology, is a hard one to label either as a “no-planer” or “planer”…. Ah, yes, indeed, Mr. Riëjden, yes, indeed! LOL

      That James is described as shying away from committing himself to either side of the controversial subject, the author takes it upon himself to denigrate James’ character by pronouncing, if I may paraphrase, that James weasels around subjects such as this, as well as weasels around conspiratorial subjects that are bogus in the author’s mind such as chemtrails, where James audaciously goes as far as to prefer calling it “geo-engineering”, instead! Oh, goodness gracious!

      I have to stop right here for a moment to make a declaration: For the most part, I believe Mr. Riëjden, for all the details he copiously provides, is a laughable ass. And is most likely a disinformation agent, himself, only for dummies.

      The issue of whether or not American 77 hit the Pentagon has been described by some as a red herring and a distraction. Which is one of the reasons AE9/11Truth won’t go near it. Personally, I like to trust my eyesight and logic, and do wonder why, that except for individual photos of individual airplane parts, e.g., a wheel, a piece of engine, etc., photos that cannot necessarily be tied to the larger scene, save for one (1) painted piece of fuselage on the unscathed lawn, there are no wing sections, tail section, luggage, or bodies. As a news reporter vocalized very early on, he saw absolutely no hint of an aircraft having hit anywhere near the Pentagon.
      But, we don’t know, do we? Let’s subpeona the FBI for the conficated videos, and we’ll see in a court of law what hit the Pentagon.

      The author, besides being ignorant, deluded, or worse, is also sloppy.

      For some reason, he decided to label Sander Hicks as a “no-planer”. And that is false. In Sander’s book “The Big Wedding: 9/11, The Whistle-blowers And The Cover-Up” Sander, on page 104, begins to describe the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon theory as a red herring, and offers advice to be cautious – his own mother apparently said that two people she knows saw the “PLANE (not a missile) go into the building”. In part, his advice and argument was this: “How can this movement advance when people who are skeptical and smart find an unacceptable illogical theory? They will be turned off, and run from the entire inquiry.”

      Sander makes a good point. Obviously, evidence that can generate the least amount of controversy is the hardest evidence to refute, and will gain the most miliage. And I would characterize this episode, “9/11 War Games” that James put together in a very logical framework of interconnected events as being just such a gainful, worthwhile, and important piece of evidence.

      By the way, along with “chemtrails”, our Mr. Riëjden seems to also pan the multiple war games going on the day of 9/11 as being some sort of bogus argument, as well, believe it or not.

      I can only wonder who he may be working for. But, anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Riëjden’s a laughable ass.

      Thanks for the link, aztaco!

      • Mielia says:

        thank you very much for that comment!
        (above I mentioned what David Chandler from ae911truth put out this end of August regarding the pentagon event)

    • Mielia says:

      David Chandler recently (end of this August) put out a playlist lecture concerning the pentagon. Must watch imo. He is narrating what a colleague put together.

      Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbO7FuVJPzY&list=PLQDv-sbExGyUlhn_ir15tet5HAGM_eCBA

  7. Lumen says:

    Great Work James! It provides clarity to the purpose of Drills during False Flag Events. The whole plan would have fallen apart if the fighters were dispatched on time and found no planes in the sky. I can foresee ‘911 POPPY FLOWERS complete with a NATIONAL HOLIDAY and a NEVER FORGET MESSAGE along with the emotionally charged rhetoric that occurs on Veterans Day, where the Poppy-Wearers are the Patriots. Another divisive symbol. Are we to Remember the Soldier or the War-Monger? We have to learn to ‘handle the truth’ that our Loved Ones did die in vain because they did not know what they were fighting for. I believe the best war-movie of all times is Hacksaw Ridge, which I saw as a veiled, anti-war movie. No wonder that it did not get even one Oscar.

  8. zyxzevn says:

    Planes were switched

    I stated this before, but some new info came in.
    And the information fits with this video.

    Live video shows grey planes, not commercial airliners
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djKIlXz8WJs

    In identify (pilots for 911 truth), we see that the remains
    of the planes were indeed from different (military planes).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUuPs91xjiY

    In intercepted (pilots for 911truth) we see that there
    was no iterception of the hijacked planes
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WSDxErgBE

    In skygate (pilots for 911truth) we see many other lies in
    the government narrative
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3NyFX9ZJsQ
    The flight brakes many protocols and laws. There is enough
    evidence to start criminal trials.
    The pentagon plane has been seen flying over the pentagon.

    There is also a temporary switch-off of the transponder inside
    a dark-spot for commercial radar. This happens while a plane from
    a military base is near. Then the flight changes and the transponder
    goes on again. The flight then continue to the targets.
    The planes move faster and more agile than possible with
    the original commercial planes.
    The transponder code for the commercial planes have been seen again
    after the impacts.
    What really happened with the passengers is unknown.

    This all clearly shows that they followed the
    CIA plans “northwoods” for fake hijacking in Cuba.
    https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//news/20010430/doc1.pdf (PDF!)
    Via: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5rBc4GS06s (truthstream media)

    It is amazing that by following just one of so many paths, one
    can uncover so much of this 911 crime.
    1 – follow the money.
    2 – physics of the collapse.
    3 – traces of thermite / explosive materials.
    4 – free entrance for foreigners marked as terrorists.
    5 – films and remains of the planes
    6 – NIST’s predetermined reporting
    7 – CIA’s document / CIA pre-knowledge
    8 – Prepared press releases and fake narratives
    9 – Insurance and passports
    10 – DNA remains of fire-fighters
    11 – Prepared patriot act
    12 – Script for invading middle-east
    13 – Refusal of press and many scientists to state truth
    14 – Witness reports of fire fighters and such
    15 – Dancing Israelis
    16 – No interception of the planes
    17 – Deactivation of Pentagon’s anti-air
    And probably more

    Almost every angle leads to the 911 crime.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      zyxzevn, A lot of folks I know lean with you about the plane switch idea.

      • calibrator says:

        To me the likeliest explanation is a plane switch.

        Which will explain the mismatching turbine(s) they found.

        It’s also the easiest way to get exactly the result they wanted:
        A precise entry – exactly where they wanted it – and a big fireball inside and flying out on the other side.

        The plane was rigged for remote flying and for remote detonatation.
        It was also prepared for the fireball for maximum effect. Definitely a fluid to get a big moving fireball.

        The buildings were also prepared. The more I look at the videos the more I get the impression that the outer steel pylons were exactly prepared by cutting them into “blocks” (likely beforehand) that can get shoved inside — to let the planes literally *slide* into the buildings.

        They wanted to make sure that they completely vanish into the buildings – and then they detonated them.

        In other words: The planes entered the buildings at exactly the height that was prepared.

        I don’t believe in rockets (except *perhaps* in the case of the Pentagon – but even here I’m skeptical).

        And I surely don’t believe in energy weapons or even holograms used in 9/11.

        • Fawlty Towers says:

          I’m with you all the way calibrator with your take of the events except for perhaps the last line.
          If you were referring to Judy Wood’s DEW, sure I’m with you there too.
          But nuclear devices are also a form of an energy weapon.

          Please stay the course and wait until I finish my series on nukes in the ‘Voluntaryism and Conspiracies’ thread.

          • calibrator says:

            There’s clearly a lot of disinfo going on (which is a given in such a scenario and and especially “important” with the internet becoming increasingly more important over the years).

            With energy weapons I was referring to the more outlandish ideas like energy beams from space etc. that I had to read over the years.

            I wasn’t referring to “nukular” bombs – and in fact I can’t rule them out (I still argument against a traditional nuke, though).
            While I don’t know too much about them – except the usual stuff – we now have news that nearly 10,000 first responders have cancer and likely got it from the asbestos used in the buildings? Really?

            Molten steel for weeks(!) in the ground?

            Fact is, though, that the even the MIC-friendly Lawrence Livermore Lab found high trace levels of tritium on the site, in the basement of WTC 6 and in the storm sewer.
            As we now know there was a whole lot of other stuff in the dust that points in additional directions (nano thermite):
            https://www.intellihub.com/secret-barometric-bomb-technologies-nuclear-technologies-wtc-towers-proof/
            See at least the first video linked in this article, even if it relates to the Oklahoma City Bombing.

            No wonder that they exported the rubble faster to China than you can say “Giuliani!”.

            There have been also different explosions over the last few years that reek of lies and deception, whether it was in Yemen or in a Chinese harbour…

            What I have also noticed over the years is that we have had many exhibitions of photos and videos of explosions of the “classic” atomic bombs, for example in desert tests or at Muroroa.
            And again and again another slew of old photos is dug up and shown around, in nice colorful books, often presented on TV (in culture magazines, for example, or commemorations of Hiroshima/Nagasaki).
            What this results in is the imprint of the classic atomic cloud in the people’s minds. A kind of predictive programming as whenever you hear “atomic bomb” you associate these cloud pictures with it.
            But as nobody saw those clouds on 9/11 “obviously” no atom bombs could’ve been used…

            Fact is, too, that only a very very tiny part of the general population has any deeper knowledge about advanced weapon tech — and the ones that actually do shut up (for fear of their lifes or because they either agree or don’t care about the effects of this tech).

            What happens if they don’t shut up?

            Danny Jowenko, a leading Dutch demolition expert claimed vehemently that WTC7 obviously was a controlled demolition. He didn’t shut up and shared this opinion. Wanna guess what happened to him?

          • zyxzevn says:

            Thermite was actually found in the dust.
            The fire burned under water for weeks. This is only possible with oxidizers.
            The dust was corroding steel of cars and buildings.
            The collapse was very precise, and you can see matter being
            ejected during the collapse. There have been explosions.

            There was molten steel, vaporized steel (>2862 °C), molten Molybdenum (>2623 °C), reported in a insurance court-case(?)
            about the corrosive damage on a building.
            Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/6ft66s/4753_fahrenheit/

            Nuclear or DEW are very crude weapons in any form.
            The range is very wide. Nuclear leaves a lot of
            traces with all kinds of different isotopes.
            Both do not produce a series of explosions,
            nor a clean demolition.
            Deuterium is commonly used in emergency signs, because just
            like radium it glows in the dark.

            The demolition was very well done. Almost perfect.

            The DEW and nuclear theories came up just when the public
            started accepting the thermite theory.
            For me it seems like a information injection strategy
            to distract the public and to create an easy strawman.

            • Fawlty Towers says:

              Thermite was actually found in the dust.

              I will deal with thermite also in my nuclear series.
              The theory is nukes + thermite, nukes doing the major destruction.

              Nuclear or DEW are very crude weapons in any form.
              The range is very wide. Nuclear leaves a lot of
              traces with all kinds of different isotopes.
              Both do not produce a series of explosions,
              nor a clean demolition.

              Nuclear devices come in all different shapes, sizes and yields today and different flavors too. 🙂

              There are nuclear bombs more than 1000 as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb and micro-bombs that are less than a 20th the yield of Hiroshima.

              The smaller yield devices are anything but crude.
              They can be very precise in their damage.

              There are also clean and dirty bombs today, with some clean bombs leaving relatively little radiation.

              Some small yield nukes can produce a series of explosions and a very clean demolition.

              • zyxzevn says:

                I support you following a alternative theory, and please work it out. But I do not think that it gives the right answers in this case.

                I have studied some nuclear weapons and energy.
                Any nuclear reaction causes fallout in some way.
                This fallout would clearly be visible in the dust,
                remains and bodies of the bystanders.
                The radiation (decay and gamma) would be clearly
                visible on the photographs and cameras.
                You would have x-rays of people on camera.
                Even very small traces of isothopes are visible
                in scans, that is how they found the deuterium
                (commonly used by emergency signs).
                But they also found nothing else.

                Sorry, it is Tritium, not deuterium.
                Here is how you make a glowing ring with it:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ublt-4GkVoA

                Your argument that they are “in all different shapes”,
                does not make them more useful. You would need clean
                bombs, so why not use normal military grade
                explosives. They do they job just as well.

                Even explosives are very crude, but in demolitions
                they have been tested extensively. And they
                are now easy to use and to install without
                people noticing.

                The first reason why people go nuclear or DEW is because
                a lot of energy is seen. But on the other hand, the military have very good explosives too.

                In this video you can see how a spectator almost gets hit by debris:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwMe_ZgYgwI
                The amount of explosives are comparable with what
                was used on 911, not much more than that.
                Some extra was used to remove the walls.
                And that is all.
                The amount of energy is exactly what you can expect
                from a normal demolition.

                Now the second reason is that demolition needs time,
                space and people to work on it.

                And this has actually been noticed:
                https://shoestring911.blogspot.com/
                (security alerts and suspicious events before 911)
                There is also the “art-group” who might have placed
                the demolition cables, while making photographs
                of people “jumping of buildings” while hanging on
                a cable.

                A third reason is that normal explosives would be
                too much in the face for most people.
                Scientists and experts would have noticed that
                immediately.
                And they actually did.
                ae911turth.org is an organisation.
                demolition expert sees demolition:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k82vowo7doE

                The reason why most lies have been accepted by the majority of scientists and other experts, is because they have the tendency to follow authority without questioning. Many even try to defend authority, and call themselves “skeptics”.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                Any nuclear reaction causes fallout in some way.
                This fallout would clearly be visible in the dust,
                remains and bodies of the bystanders.

                Correct, I will be addressing this soon in my series.

                The radiation (decay and gamma) would be clearly
                visible on the photographs and cameras.

                I wasn’t planning to cover this in my series, but will, now that you have mentioned it.

                Your argument that they are “in all different shapes”,
                does not make them more useful. You would need clean
                bombs, so why not use normal military grade
                explosives. They do they job just as well.

                I won’t be going into the “why they did this”. Someone else may want to cover that.

                In this video you can see how a spectator almost gets hit by debris:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwMe_ZgYgwI
                The amount of explosives are comparable with what
                was used on 911, not much more than that.
                Some extra was used to remove the walls.
                And that is all.
                The amount of energy is exactly what you can expect
                from a normal demolition.

                Do you see pyroclastic dust clouds, the signature of a volcanic eruption or nuclear explosion?

                In your video we see a small chunk of concrete the size of a fist, shot laterally a few hundred feet.
                On 9/11 we had multi-ton steel beam assemblies hurled laterally hundreds of feet!
                You don’t see the difference?

                Now the second reason is that demolition needs time,
                space and people to work on it.

                Yes standard demolition does indeed need time.
                But I don’t follow your argument with this?

                A third reason is that normal explosives would be
                too much in the face for most people.
                Scientists and experts would have noticed that
                immediately.

                Not really sure what you are saying here?
                What type of explosive do you think was used?

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              zyxzevn,
              I agree with you about the thermite. That is cold, hard evidence.
              You make a very important point…
              For me it seems like a information injection strategy
              to distract the public and to create an easy strawman.

              I get hot under the collar when wild theories are tossed at new public about 9/11.

              As far as a discussion goes amongst “truthers”, I am okay with looking at viable information about ‘small’ explosive devices based on nuclear technology.
              I am used to these types of discussions in our 9/11 Group.
              But when disseminating to new people, we always stayed with the basics, such as thermite.

              • Fawlty Towers says:

                But when disseminating to new people, we always stayed with the basics, such as thermite.

                I had also been solidly in the ‘thermite camp’ up until a year ago, in terms of what was used to bring down the towers.

                But a lot has changed for me since then.

                I have learned that thermite (in any of its forms) can not throw steel beams laterally hundreds of feet.
                It can not turn the inner contents of the towers to dust.
                It can not burn dozens of car engines of vehicles that surrounded to towers.

                I have learned that the originator of the ‘thermite theory’
                was Dr. Steven Jones.
                Dr. Jones just so happened to work for the U.S. government for years doing research on (of all things) nuclear fusion processes and coincidentally refuses to discuss the possibility that nukes were used on 9/11.

                I agree with you about the thermite. That is cold, hard evidence.

                Don’t worry, there is cold hard evidence for nukes too.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Our 9/11 Group has many discussions about different topics.
                Here is a video of our group discussing an important conspiracy.
                (3 minutes)
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PSueHOY-Jk

      • zyxzevn says:

        Thanks.

        With the flight-logs, we can put people to prison,
        because they broke many air regulations.

  9. Lumen says:

    Thnx for this info. I did not know they were any remains of planes. I’ll check-out the videos you mentioned.

  10. scpat says:

    Thank you James and Broc for the hard work you guys put in to produce material like this. This was/is a dimension of the 9/11 false flag I was not clear on. James’ work is always extremely impressive but I want to give a shout out to Broc for the video editing and graphic design production particularly within the last year or so. Very impressive work you are doing in my opinion. I think it goes a long way toward projecting the intended message.

  11. Waterbear says:

    In the lone gunmen clip the character says “It’s a small faction”. It’s more like, at a certain level and up, was there anyone who didn’t know?

    • mkey says:

      I found that interesting, too, and it goes hand in hand with what James keeps repeating, that there is no monolithic conspiracy. Factions in politics (i.e. webs of corruption, threats and deceit) can be very efficient. Often times talking about something one knows about probably needs to be ballanced with wanting to stay above ground.

    • Octium says:

      My observation of “Public Servants” is they have an innate ability to know when it is not time to ask questions. People who do not have that ability would probably not make it past the “aptitude” tests to gain employment or if they did, would not last very long.

      Those that make it at a higher level have too many skeletons in their own closets.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        I hear ya about “Public Servants”.

        In fact, I often notice the permeation throughout society of an attitude “go along, get along, don’t rock the boat, grab what you can”.

        Another thing…

        There must be an AXIOM somewhere to the effect of…
        Anything the government touches, turns to shit.

        Government agencies have always seemed like a quagmire of ineffectiveness, where the competent, ethical individuals sink to the bottom under the weight of the status quo mindset of “career government job”.

  12. heartruth says:

    “there is only one other possible conclusion: That members of the National Command Authority, the US military and NORAD in a position to plan and schedule such exercises were the attackers themselves.”

    James and Broc – your robust and exemplary work on 9-11 has done this time and again. But, if I have to choose one statement that throws down the gauntlet, truly this is it!

    Bravo!

  13. heartruth says:

    Side note: Michael Ruppert (quoted in the video/article) died in 2014.

    The unbelievable life and death of Michael C. Ruppert, by Matt Stroud
    https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/22/5881501/the-unbelievable-life-and-death-of-michael-c-ruppert

    Is there any substance to Cheri Roberts’ claim that Ruppert visited Gary Webb’s house after Webb’s death? And what of Ruppert’s own demise?

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      I was greatly saddened when I learned of Ruppert’s demise. What a tragedy, a great loss.
      Despite making several posts about it online not a single person made a follow-up comment.

      A fellow who was close to Ruppert did a short video giving his viewpoint of what happened the day he died.
      Although it was quite detailed, in the end I was still not convinced it was suicide.

      • heartruth says:

        I was not aware of the man or his work until watching this episode. (Although I’ve probably encountered both watching other TCR episodes.)

        Having just skimmed the Stroud article, I was skeptical precisely because of the level of detail (like the video you mention?). How much of it was just a ‘best guess’ on part of the writer/videographer?

        Just my first impressions, sounds like a very sad situation regardless.

  14. HomeRemedySupply says:

    9/11 War Games is the best summary I have ever seen explaining the 9/11 War Games.
    It walks the viewer through the information with visual clarity, evolving the story into a digestible whole.
    Another landmark in the everyday person’s understanding of 9/11.

  15. lhartford says:

    I sat my wife and 5 at-home kids down last night to watch this video, to properly memorialize 9/11. James and crew did an excellent job connecting the dots and most importantly (for me), explaining why THIS MATTERS. Then I sent it to my family and friends. Thank you guys for doing such excellent and important work.

  16. sTevo says:

    What an outstanding work!

    I am finding each essay to be a puzzle piece and the piece that brings the 911 tragedy info focus, for me, is the “PTech and the 9/11 Software” post.

    I have used Remote Desktop, UltraVNC and a couple of other remote control computer software programs in a commercial setting to know how easy it could be to remote control a jet liner, given higher levels of programming in a military context.

    The Occams razor conclusion I come to is this: A Cave Dweller in Afghanistan did not just pick a lucky day to execute his evil plan.

    The simple obvious conclusion is weak minded religious zealots were duped into a martyrdom to cover the tracks of a more sinister plan. I don’t know it all but enough facts have been uncovered that I can see that there is more here than meets the eye, than that as moronically explained away in the official 911 report.

    The consequence I now willing accept is to be labeled a conspiracy kook for skating off the government plantation.

    Thank you for that!

  17. calibrator says:

    As for the missing information about the exercises:
    Somebody surely put in some FOIA requests, didn’t they?

  18. manbearpig says:

    I’m violating the “three-beer” policy here but

    Having finally had the opportunity to watch this documentary I must say

    Congratulations are in order. An epic work. One of the most succinct and irrefutable documents unmasking the absurd claims made by “officials” concerning the mass murder of September 11th, 2001.

    Perhpas a bit dense to convince the total novice, but I sure would like to be there when this doc brings the uncertain or relatively uninformed around to the facts.

    Uninformed of varyng degrees, plenty out there, but do the uncertain exist? Or for the most part, once exposed

    either you see or you decide not to?

    Got to up my contributions to this unbelievable and totally unique site.

    Chapeau très bas aux messieurs Corbett et West.

    And a heartfelt thank you.

    -mbp

    • Fawlty Towers says:

      either you see or you decide not to?

      I think this is the key.

      I have spoken/written to extremely intelligent people about 9/11.
      Many simply have decided not to believe anything but the official story.
      Some will allow me to give my side of the story and then politely disagree.

      Most however won’t have the patience to listen for even a minute.
      They have closed their minds on this permanently and won’t consider any evidence whatsoever.

      • manbearpig says:

        or people intuitively know it’s anecdotal…

        and pragmatically decide they won’t dwell on what they can’t do anything about…

        so they pragmatically embrace Disney world with its jedis and stormtroopers…

        where Ken and Barbie are as good, moral and wise as they are telegenic…

        so they don’t have to take a good hard look at themselves…and wonder…

        I guess, to a large extent, the context makes the man… Just ask Christine Todd Whitman…

        Are we all our own worst boogey man?

  19. wall says:

    I will spam this again as I have no other way to get it out. And I think youtube would pull it down even if I did manage to upload it.

    This has the video of the student who claimed 1 shooter was coming in from 1 entrance, and that when they ran to the other entrance another shooter came through that entrance. This proves that there was more than 1 shooter.

    Mass shooting: questions, curiosities, statements and solution

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/XmMoxsDhV5xU/

    Here it is on minds.com if the above link doesn’t work.

    part 1
    https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/875263159189942272

    part2
    https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/875266535273312256

    part 3
    https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/875269992244809728

  20. wall says:

    Um, corbett, you probably should consider upgrading your server and connection. I am having a hard time downloading it.

  21. AnimalsArentFood says:

    Really great documentary. A ton of work must have gone into it.
    I tried sharing it but the shills and their vote manipulation were heavy this 9/11. They made sure it got buried.
    Thank you so much for making this and continuing to keep the 9/11 truth movement alive.

  22. Mielia says:

    version of comment on steemit
    Related
    Cocktail Geoengineering: How 9-11 Changed the Sky Forever, 34 min (5min outro or such) Jim Lee and his colleague from weathermodificationhistory . com
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPO3JQZDYwA

    David Chandler recently (end of this August) put out a playlist lecture concerning the pentagon. He is narrating what a colleague put together.

    Explanation of the Evidence at the Pentagon on 9/11
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbO7FuVJPzY&list=PLQDv-sbExGyUlhn_ir15tet5HAGM_eCBA

    Thank you for this extensive work on this small side-chapter on 9/11!

  23. Chris_in_CHS says:

    How about that Pearl Harbor reference in the morning news clips? My first time catching that.

  24. BennyB says:

    I’m still reviewing some of the comments here in this lively and constructive conversation, but I just wanted to take a minute before I say anything else to say:

    THANK YOU James and Broc for this excellent work! The presentation and production quality continues to exceed my already high expectations and to paraphrase what someone else said earlier, make me feel proud and enthusiastic about continuing to support the important work you guys do.

    As always, massive respect =]
    ~Benny

  25. HomeRemedySupply says:

    At 911blogger.com, the stellar 9/11 researcher ShoeString says: “The Corbett Report… on “top form”!”
    http://911blogger.com/news/2018-09-12/911-war-games-corbett-report#comment-265153

    Shoestring goes on to say:
    “I highly recommend people check out this new Corbett Report documentary/podcast. It is very informative and covers a lot of important information. It is also clear and easy to follow, so would be a good introduction for anyone new to the subject of the 9/11-related training exercises.

    “If anyone wants to learn more about this aspect of 9/11, I have a lot of articles on my blog (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com) that deal with the training exercises taking place on the day of 9/11 or that took place in the run-up to 9/11. These include:

    “Rehearsing 9/11: How Training Exercises Foretold the Attacks of September 11”:
    http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/01/rehearsing-911-how-training-exercises.html

    “NORAD Exercise a Year Before 9/11 Simulated a Pilot Trying to Crash a Plane into a New York Skyscraper–The United Nations Headquarters”:
    http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2010/07/norad-exercise-year-before-911.html

    …and much, much more.

    ~~~~
    “9/11 War Games” made the front page of 911blogger.
    Other Corbett Episodes are listed in the blog entries.
    http://911blogger.com/blog

  26. wall says:

    Why is everyone worried about the asbestos, but no one comments on the tons and tons of mercury filled fluorescent lighting? I am not saying that is part of a conspiracy or something, I just always found it odd. I mean, there were so many toxins expelled by those buildings when they collapsed.

    • Octium says:

      Or perhaps it is a conspiracy…

      Australia was one of the first countries to place a ban on Incandescent lights. Well at least above any wattage to make them practical for anything other than decorations.

      The very symbol of bright ideas itself was banned.

      The ban was put in place by the then Environment minister Malcolm Turnbull. His background was as ex manager of Goldman-Sachs and personal mates with the Rothschilds. Over a decade latter he back-stabbed his way all the way up to being the prime minister.

      About the only viable alternative for incandescent lights at the time where Compact Fluorescent Lights which are full of Mercury.

      Kind of hard to mount a resistance when everyone is sick or mad in the head.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      TOXIC DUST
      Confronting the Evidence – DVD
      (QUEUED on the description of the toxic dust)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozn0TKphY7U&feature=youtu.be&t=11m37s

      Confronting the Evidence – A call to re-open the 9/11 investigation
      Hosted in part by Ed Begley, Jr.
      The DVD was distributed in 2005.
      This was one of the very first DVDs which came out about 9/11.
      Jimmy Wolters (of the ‘Wolter’s Homes’ business) spent tremendous amounts of his own money trying to get the word out.
      He even gave away free DVDs.
      I have one of the original DVDs in its sleeve.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top