They talk techno-gibberish, they are mind-numbingly nerdy (you wouldn’t want most of them at your barbecue) but what they are saying screams to be heard. The trouble is, no one is likely to listen for long; the wealth of statistical and numerical detail has a way of freezing your brain. But they can’t tell it any different, because the field of advanced aeronautics is so complex that only those directly involved can comprehend it.

Well, it turns out that many of these aero-geeks were, and still are, deeply suspicious of the official version of 9/11. A few of them took the trouble to form an association, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, in order to be able to access official documents under the Freedom of Information Act. What they have found is a staggering degree of inconsistency between what the FBI or the 9/11 Commission (see Ambivalent anniversaries II) says took place in the skies that day and what emerges from the records of flight recorders, satellite tracking and flight control logs. Several of them have gone to the trouble of trying to replicate the official versions (I use the plural advisedly, because here too there are contradictions).

Such is the case with expert pilot John Lear. This man is the only living American pilot to hold every licence and certificate that can be issued by the FAA (Federal Aviation Authority). He also holds ratings to fly 23 different types of aircraft. He is the son of Bill Lear, the man who founded the Lear Jet Corporation. He is the kind of pilot other flyers consider an authority. He flew sub-radar missions for the CIA in the 80s. The trouble is, he lives far out in the desert, is a firm believer in extra terrestrials (which of course takes him conveniently out of the category of serious expertise) and owns his own gold mine: so, all in all, Mr Lear is quite an oddball. But he remains, nonetheless, one hell of an old school aviator.

John Lear says he needed around six tries on the simulator to successfully hit either one of the Twin Towers or the Pentagon, following the exact flight paths and flying at the mind-boggling speeds (way above the logged maximum for a 757 at this altitude) recorded by duty flight controllers that fatal day for the planes that hit the New York and Washington targets. He insists there is no way that an Arab with a box-cutter and a few hours in a Cessna 172 could pull off any of these attacks. John Lear’s Wikipedia entry has been removed since he joined Pilots for Truth. It is apparently impossible to write another with the same title as this option is also blocked. And whenever Pilots for Truth posts on YouTube, their videos generally get pulled in a few days, perhaps for excessive dullness, though the most nerdy ones (full flight simulations with voice over), can be found at their website pilotsfor911truth.org/.

One of the nuances that can only be appreciated by professional pilots is the way these inexperienced amateurs not only hit their targets spot on, but even successfully reset real barometric and relative pressures, nautical zero and ground altitudes, all at the correct descent points in absolute text-book fashion while carrying out suicide missions involving complex routes at very high speeds and planes full of screaming passengers. This would seem to have been achieved by American Airways Flight 77 hijacker Hani Hansour if we believe the flight data recorder recovered after the Pentagon attack. Hansour’s approach included a fast, banking turn of 340° to be quite sure of hitting the only part of the building that had been recently reinforced (yes, you read that correctly), rather than the central area that was straight ahead of him and would have required the shortest flight time through what should have been very unfriendly skies, bristling with F16s. But as we now know, Allah had glued all those fighter planes mysteriously to the ground at Dulles, Reagan and Andrews, or at least all those that had not yet been sent out across the Atlantic after a red herring, or else dispatched at short notice to Canada on an unspecified security-related mission that is still too secret to be divulged today, and which appears nowhere on the duty log released to the Commission.

Only automatic pilots, programmed minutely in advance, could be expected to achieve such a degree of accuracy ... except that American 77, according to the error-corrected data analyzed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth was still 450 feet ABOVE the Pentagon at the given moment of impact according to its own flight recorder! It seems that it didn’t hit the Pentagon at the moment and angle they claim, but at a far steeper angle and later time. Why is there a discrepancy? The official version includes a direct flight path and low angle, taking out several lighting poles, a straightforward if spectacularly daring terrorist attack, whereas the flight recorder reveals a significant turn right at the end of a quite different course, followed by a very steep descent in order to impact the newly reinforced area behind the heliport. This agrees with most of the external witness testimony; only Pentagon insiders insisting on the official flight path (as seen from the water cooler?). This angle could possibly explain the small impact area. If most of the plane disintegrated on contact with the heliport, only the central fuselage may have continued partially intact to crash against the concrete wall like an aluminium beer can.

But unfortunately for the cause of truth, the FBI inexplicably decided not to document their research into aircraft components found at the crash sites, other than to state that their experts had ascertained these to belong to the aircraft in question. After issuing this vague and unsupported statement, the bureau apparently returned all components found anywhere near the crash sites to their respective airlines, which have since destroyed them all. Excuse me for thinking this is rather an irregular procedure for material from a crime scene. But in times of crisis I suppose we can’t expect anyone to go by the book ... even if the (automatic) pilots did.

Though it is not directly their field, Pilots for 911 Truth are also of the opinion that even massive jetliner impact would not have collapsed the World Trade Center towers. Their own crash site experts are clear on that. These opinions can be added to the already long roster of structural experts who question the official account, as well as the expertise of the very men who built the towers and maintained them on a daily basis. A white paper released back in 1964 states that the Towers could withstand impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph — a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on September 11th 2001. And then there is this statement from Frank DeMartini (deceased), WTC construction manager at the time of 9/11, who was interviewed some months prior to the attacks: “I believe the towers could probably sustain multiple impacts from jetliners because their structure is like the mosquito netting on a screen door – the jet plane would be just like a pencil puncturing that screen netting.”.

Ten years have now passed, and journalists are generally agreed that the subject, from an investigatory standpoint, is pretty much dead. Not because there aren’t questions to be answered, but because answering them would corrupt the belief system underpinning the American nation in its current incarnation as Great Land of Patriots, brutally assailed on every side by vicious and fanatical enemies, but courageously defending its principles and interests. To deviate from this vision would be catastrophic in time of war. And it will continue to be a time of war for a long time to come.

Renowned journalists such as Dan Rather and Robert Fisk have spoken of the awkward attitude of professional press people who may be ready to rock the boat, but not to call into question the very existence of the ocean, thus only very rarely does a mainstream publication raise the black flag of dissent. In an article published in the highly respected Harper’s Magazine, October 2004, entitled “Whitewash as public service: How the 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation”, Benjamin DeMott dared to write that the Commission Report represented “a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive manoeuvres that infantilize the audience, transform candour into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation.” Now even Harpers either swallows the official lure, or prefers to address other, less toxic matters, such as: Chernobyl 25 years later.

Apparently 89% of Germans do not believe the official version of 9/11, but what the honk do they know about burning Reichstags?


© Edwin Drood, September 2011


< Ambivalent anniversaries I

< Ambivalent anniversaries II

> Ambivalent anniversaries IV