Aerial infiltration

The practise of infiltration began in WW1 when the german army sought a way to break the deadlock of trench warfare, without incurring the huge casualtys that would result from conventional infantry charges. This would entail a significant shift in how the enemy force was confronted. Rather than sending a large force of men against the most formidable defensive positions (in a bid to break the enemys back), the germans would use specially trained pioneer formations, who would make low profile attacks against soft spots in the enemy lines and occupy them. This avoided a high level response from allied command. The premium here was on mobility, stealth, and combined arms tactics. Divided into single squads, and approaching enemy lines by creeping along terrain features, the men were instructed not to open fire until they had already penetrated into the enemy trenchs. Upon the seizure of the position, the men would hold their ground and set up a base of operations for follow up forces. In this way, the pioneers acted as a foothold which would enable german reserves to safely flood into enemy lines, and launch a wider attack against the allys.

But contrary to popular belief, infiltration is not something used solely by land forces. It has applications in the air forces as well. Although the details of application differ, the overall motive remains the same. Strike platforms will approach as closely as possible to the objective using whatever means of concealment are available: Once they get into range of the respective target, the platform will dispense with its cover and lash out at it with every weapon on hand. Retrieval methods of the strike platform have varied throughout history, but with the advent of remote control, the platform can for all intents and purposes be disposable. With no need to put skilled pilots in harms way, the aircraft can be self destructed after its mission is completed. Aerial infiltration is a viable practise when the target in question is deep behind enemy lines, and the air defenses are capable of repelling or attiring KNOWN hostiles. The key to success, therefore, is to keep their origins UNKNOWN for as long as possible. Under this minimalist definition, we can see that aerial infiltration actually has a fairly long history of employment in various armed forces.

For example, it was independently adopted on at least two separate occasions by pilots of the italian air force. Entirely on their own initiative, these men managed to acquire captured p-38 fighters: This enabled them to masquerade as a friendly aircraft, and fly into the middle of allied bomber formations without raising suspicions. Once they got within weapons range of a particular aircraft, the men would open fire and shoot down bombers, then fleeing from the formation before the other planes could get their wits and mount a counter attack. Such missions were risky, but the payoff was worth it, given the effect on morale it had amongst the allys. Some german units like kampfgeschwader 200 actually specialised in this trojan horse tactic, using captured allied planes to penetrate into rear areas without having to face interception. Most of their missions were limited to resupply of special forces units, suppression of air defenses, or to harassment bombing (though there were a few bizarre reports of lone b-17s following allied bomber squadrons at a distance, apparently reporting on their behaviour).

Aerial infiltration has seen even more vigorous use in recent times. In the prelude to the bay of pigs invasion, a gaggle of b-26 bombers crewed by cuban exiles (and sponsored by the CIA) managed to bluff their way through cuban air defenses, giving them the chance to launch a pre-emptive attack on three separate airfields. Masquerading as FAR (fuerza aerea revolucionari) aircraft, the exiles penetrated 200 km into cuban territory and carried out strafing runs, before retreating along pre planned flight paths. This strategy was done to foster the impression that the attack was planned by disgruntled cuban officers, who were planning to launch a cout de eta against fidel castro. The CIA decided on this course of action because a psychological impact was needed to fluster castro, and also because they needed to create plausible deniability for themselves. Since no one knew at the time where the planes had been launched from, and one of the b-26 pilots had later defected to the americans in a staged media event, the coup de eta assumption was readily accepted.
 

A map for the BOP invasion

The zionist air force also used aerial infiltration during its operation opera, which was aimed at destroying iraqs fledgling nuclear program. Faced with the daunting problem of having to cross the air space of two unfriendly nations, jordan and saudi arabia, before they could even hope to reach iraqi air space, they needed to think outside the box. With a dozen f-15 and f-16 fighters in the air (split into two groups), they would need to fool the jordanians into thinking they were saudi arabians, and then convince the saudi arabians that they were iraqis! Doing this would give them a clear path through each country, and into iraq. The israeli pilots had several ways through which this ruse could be facilitated. Included in the formation were three men who could speak flawless arabic: One who did so in a jordanian accent, one with a saudi accent,  and one with an iraqi accent. The pilots were also trained to use formations and radio traffic specific to each country, and to manipulate their transponder signals. Needless to say, the mission was a complete success, and the osirak reactor was destroyed, although the international community was outraged at israels cowardly attack.

The use of purely passive measures to bypass enemy air defenses and strike high value targets is an interesting foot note in the annals of warfare. Given the ease with which it could be adapted to executing false flag attacks, as we saw in operation northwoods (which has many similaritys to the 911 attacks), this practise deserves further study by anyone interested in law and justice.

Flight 175 visual anomolys

The mysterious pod

Its size

Its imprint on WTC 2

Its detonation

The crafts blade antenna

The crafts nozzle line

 

The crafts thick wing roots

Conspiracy theory FAQ, part 2

The previous essay in this series examined a wide variety of the 'skeptical' claims which deny government involvement into the 911 attacks. Most of them folded like a cheap stack of cards once subjected to rigorous, informed scrutiny. More arguments will be addressed in this essay, and be warned, some of the answers will be jarring to those who identify as american nationalists. Very distasteful (but entirely deserved) comparisons will be drawn between modern america and nazi germany. As before, this essay will deal with some historical nuances, engineering know-how, and human behaviour during times of crisis. First off is a claim that sees universal usage amongst the debunkers. Thats right, the old melted steel gambit! (And for those who assert that only truthers were claiming the presence of melted steel at ground zero, read this)

The discovery of molten steel at ground zero does not by itself contradict the official collapse hypothesis: Obviously, fire CAN melt steel - blacksmiths have been doing it for hundreds of years! In fact, they don't even need high temperature fuel like kerosene to do it - simple coal will suffice!

  

This is a double pronged claim, which alleges that not only can ordinary fires generate temperatures hot enough to melt steel, but that such temperatures were present at the WTC complex. For this, we need to draw a distinction between open air fires and a blast furnace. Melting large quantitys of steel requires a fire pit with excellent thermal insulation, a gigantic fuel supply, and massive amounts of forced air (three pre-requisites that the WTCs simply did not have). Even then, heating the material to the necessary temperature can take hours! Anyone with a basic understanding of metallurgy knows this. Although with that being said, what matters most in this triangle is the sum total of BTUs your fire generates, which can be satisfied without having all three conditions in perfect balance... Every couple of decades or so, some part of the world is unfortunate enough to experience something called a firestorm: When very high densitys of combustible materials are present, and many seperate fires are able to feed on them across a wide area, they may eventually merge together and generate a wind vortex, which sucks up huge amounts of air and leads to a towering inferno.

We saw this happen in the chicago fire of 1871, the hinckley fire of 1894, the fires that followed the 1906 san francisco earthquake and the 1945 air raid on tokyo, as well as the 1991 oakland fire. Of course, burning down an entire neighbourhood just to melt a few pounds of steel is a lousy trade off, and in no way comparable to the conditions of ground zero, where many tons of molten steel were being found in the days, weeks, and even months following the 911 attacks. It is inconceivable that the fires in the twin towers somehow managed to reach an intensity well beyond these historical examples, especially given the poor air supply and combustible loads.* Even if they could, steel does not have a thermal inertia high enough to remain molten for more than a few hours after the initial heat was supplied! Hence, the persistent flow at ground zero is a question which goes even beyond the ability of a controlled demolition to explain: We are talking about energy output on the scale of a nuclear reactor. While further experiment is required to determine exactly what caused this staggering heat, we can safely rule out the notion that it was solely the result of smoldering hydrocarbons! [1]
 

There are some frightening descriptions of how
truly ferocious such fires are in daniel browns book

*This is because, at the fires peak, average temperatures in the impact zones hovered around 120 celsius, and even the hot spots did not exceed 260 celsius. These figures were predicted in two seperate papers [2] [3], and later confirmed by thermograms taken of the twin towers after the plane crashs. 260 celcius isn't even sufficient to melt lead, let alone the aluminum which debunkers insist was systematically identified as steel! More damaging yet, temperatures of 260 celsius are totally unable to bring about a creep failure of the twin towers columns, even given the most pessimistic interpretations of the plane impacts. Theory manages to connect firmly with reality for once, which is more than we can say for our debunker friends.

  

 

Explosives are not needed to explain the twin towers collapse. Even if the upper block had fallen by just half a meter, it would have generated enough kinetic energy to result in a global collapse.

 

The validity of this claim is dependant on a number of unspecified factors. Assuming a piledriver mass of 45,000 tons for WTC 1 and 86,000 tons for WTC 2, this motion would yield a KE of only 220.43 and 421.26 megajoules, respectively. This is a stress level well below what is needed to buckle the buildings supports. Thus, a typical column on column collision would result in only minor damage to the towers. In order to get something more destructive, the debunker must specify one of two conditions: Either the upper block fell from a greater height than half a meter, or the columns of the two opposing structures somehow missed each other. The former would require suddenly voiding an entire floors worth of beams and columns from existence, which simply can't be done by an asymmetric process like office fires. The latter would require the presence of some angular motion which would tilt the upper block before (not after) its impact with the lower structure, so that the load is redistributed onto the towers flimsy floors. But other than having the entire north or south face of the building blown out with explosives (thus clearing a path for the piledriver to descend through), no one knows how the block could be made to tip over like that. Suffice to say, collapse initiation is a major problem for the official story of 911. So despite the predictions made in professor bazants work, global collapse resulting from office fires is far from inevitable. It needs to be kept in mind that many falsitys have been inserted into this discussion via his papers. For example, because the core columns were ten times less stiff than bazant estimated, dynamic loads would be absorbed by the structure over a longer period of time, leading to less damage. This, when combined with the buildings high reserve capacity, would make a 31 G load amplification very unlikely. Even with an intact block exerting its full weight on the lower structure, the resulting collapse (for WTC 1) would take 31.29 seconds to reach ground level.

There is no need to get into the specifics of the alleged 911 conspiracy. The simple fact that truthers have not managed to get even one scientific paper published in a mainstream, peer reviewed journal is enough to fatally undermine the credibility of such fantasys.

Yeah, this is complete nonsense. Such statements attempt to create a fictional criterion, wherein the only way that government complicity in scenario x can be firmly established, is through the scientific method. This ignores the fact that such atrocitys were politically and ideologically motivated, and that the case could conceivably be proven through paper trails and death bed confessions alone. Thus, the privilege of passing final judgement on the issue should not be relinquished to those whose expertise lies only in the scientific medium: The burden of proof can span across numerous parameters. Moreover, even if we were to agree with the flawed premise of the debunker argument, it is still completely false! There are a half dozen such papers discussing physical evidence which have managed to gain entry into mainstream scientific journals, and even more entrys which have been published in open access mediums (even if we ignore those which focus on political and social science). A full listing of the most credentialed articles will be posted below.

-Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis, by Tony Szamboti. / International Journal of Protective Structures.
-Temporal Considerations in Collapse of WTC Towers, by Gregory Szuladzinski. / International Journal of Structural Engineering.
-Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth", by Crockett Grabbe. / Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
-Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials, by K. Ryan, J. Gourley and S.E. Jones. / The Environmentalist.
-Discussion of “What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?”, by Anders Bjorkman. / Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
-What Accounts for the Molten Metal Observed on 9/11/2001?, by Steven E. Jones. / Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters.
-Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis", by Crockett Grabbe. / Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

-Collapse Time Analysis of Multi-Story Structural Steel Buildings, by Robert Korol. / Open Journal of Civil Engineering (Bentham Open).
-Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction. / Open Journal of Chemical Physics.
-Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. / Open Journal of Civil Engineering (Bentham Open).
-Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns,
by Derrick Grimmer. / Department of Mathematics, Washington University in St. Louis.
-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training, by Nila Sagadevan. / School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh.


The reason why conspiracy theorys like this surface is because some people simply don't have what it takes to face up with hard reality. It is too frightening for them to believe that there are people on the other side of the world who will kill americans out of religious fervour.

Actually, the 'reality' broadcast to us by mass media outlets after the September 11th attacks is far less frightening than the reality which is more than merely hinted at by the existing evidence base. Instead of bearded time lords hiding in a cave, we have the daunting prospect of a government which can engage in outrageous crimes against humanity, and get away with them almost scott-free. Instead of wild-eyed terrorists hiding in our closets at night, we have an anti-human regime which exercises near absolute power over the world, and can literally rewrite history at the drop of a hat. Many facets of the state apparatus previously unknown to citizen dissidents made their debut on 911, including the existence of a domestic murder program. Humanitys greatest fear has never been of the distant other, but the distorted evil revealed in his own mirror-reflection.
  
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realisation of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent." -J. Edgar Hoover

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." -Michael Rivero

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." -Marcus Tulius Cicero


Secrets this big can't be kept! Someone would have talked!

If giant secrets are impossible to keep, then why does virtually every nation in the world happen to employ at least one intelligence organisation? Why would leaders waste their countrys budget on funding such enterprises, when they can instead use it to line the pockets of their corporate backers? Obviously, organisations like the CIA and FBI do serve some integral purpose, one that goes beyond simple intelligence collection and analysis. In fact, covert action is their main selling point, the feature which guarantees continued funding from washington. This mission role takes on a broad spectrum, and can range from mere errand running for individuals (I.E, launching a sting operation against a VIPs critics), statewide operations involving the trafficking of drugs and dirty money, to massive works of deception like ultra, the manhattan project, and operation fortitude. So saying that 'big secrets can't be kept' isn't just bullshit, its dangerous bullshit. Out of these three categorys, the 3rd is by far the most pertinent to the questions surrounding 911, and the one which is conveniently never addressed by the debunkers. The only reason we even know about these intelligence operations today is because of their declassification in the years which followed their completion.

Let us never forget that in the realm of espionage,

the greatest spys are not those you read about in the

newspaper, but those whose existence is never known

If an insider did not have the courtesy to do this, these campaigns would still remain in the realm of 'conspiracy theory.' One cannot rely on the perpetrators having the conscience to confess to their actions, especially if it was a pre-meditated crime with a built in cover-up phase: Such operations effectively have an indefinite shelf life, and are meant to permanently stay out of the history books. Thus, when it comes to verifying the existence of a large scale intelligence operation, plausibility judgements which rely on the suspected partys admission of guilt is a logically insurmountable catch-22 complex. Using this metric, how would law enforcement agencys be able to convict anyone? All the suspects have to do is claim their innocence, and unless they have an accomplice who says otherwise, no amount of eyewitness testimony or physical evidence would be able to put them behind bars. The debunkers are no doubt aware of this contrived no win scenario, since they don't hesitate to use it again and again in their debates with truth advocates. But the entire argument is a faith based assumption which has no relevance beyond bolstering egos.


There is no way that people could be so evil as to stage such an attack, or be so arrogant as to think they could get away with it.

Newsflash: Not all psychopaths wind up in jail. Some of them are crafty enough to slip under the radar, find the company of like minded people, and get into positions of power. We need to accept the reality that such characters will make daring power grabs when the opportunity arises, and will attempt to dramatically expand their legal authority using clearly illegal methods. Even a cursory glance at the watergate scandal, iran contra, and the patriot act will confirm these transitional episodes in government. The powers that be are constantly testing the boundarys of what the public will tolerate. Unfortunately, the false lesson that some gullible individuals have drawn from this lineup of petty crimes is that, because many small conspiracys have been exposed to the public, so too will any conceivable SCAD (regardless of whether they were executed in the past or present tense). This is a wholly invalid conclusion to bring to the table. In the sphere of intelligence, we should never limit the boundarys of discussion to those conspiracys which have been wholly confirmed, while ignoring incidents which are merely suspected. This would be like an espionage agency basing its doctrine solely around the biographys of nikolai kuznetsov and richard sorge. Any conclusions drawn would contain deep and inherent flaws, because the only operatives judged are those who eventually had their cover blown.
   
As nassim haramein stated: "Unless we have come to know what is correct, we cannot perceive what is incorrect." Whether we like it or not, acquiring broad knowledge on a subject requires looking at the winners as well as the losers. Measuring real spying finesse is difficult because in espionage, the winner is elusive. Thats not because success is rarely obtained, but because keeping ones identity secret is a key component of success. This is something our celebrity obsessed culture seems unable to comprehend. We must also be cognisant of the fact that, even if a SCAD could not be covered up in the classic sense, there is a specific strategy whereby most of the nations top officials can get involved, and exposure of the official story will engender irreparable social chaos, repulsing any would-be whistle blower. This could be termed as a 'too big to fail,' since it effectively holds the entire nations socio-economic stability as collateral, allowing the perpetrators to get away with egregious offenses without fear of exposure from insiders. One of the more famous (some would say cliched) examples of this is the holocaust: The removal of nazi germanys racial and ideological nemesis' saw the close involvement of many top officials from the government. Why would they risk getting caught red handed in such a deplorable act? Because complete secrecy for such a large scale operation is utterly impossible (even in the age before cellphone cameras), and also because the greatest threat of exposure always lies within ones own borders.
 
A small scale incident like kristallnacht would be reported by domestic journalists, and the storys veracity would be accepted -if only reluctantly- by their fellow citizens. But this is not true of the vast crimes against humanity that are implied by postwar historians. Domestic whistle blowers would be faced with the terrible knowledge that if their report were to gain widespread acceptance among the german people, it would result in catastrophic social upheaval that would change the lives of even more people than were then being chewed up in the concentration camps. These individuals would understandably be reluctant to drop the guillotine on the fatherland. No man works tirelessly to destroy his own career! Even more disturbingly, some ordinary germans who accidentally found out about the mass murder program are known to have helped cover up its existence, in the deluded belief that they were somehow protecting the nation. Here we see the cruel genius of the holocaust, and other crimes against humanity: By immersing themselves so deeply into the extreme and the obscene, the ruling government creates an environment which is effectively impenetrable to the ordinary citizen. Even if joe average could break through the layers of secrecy surrounding the event, their minds would never be able to comprehend the sheer scale and savagery of the crime, leading them to engage in self gas lighting. This is, in essence, how the big lie principle works.

'Verschwörungs theorie' just isn't going to cut

it anymore. Not when you see the bodies up close..



If the US invaded afghanistan to build an oil pipeline, why has there been almost no construction on it in 10 years?

One possible answer has been provided by ryan dawson. / The wars in the middle east were for separate reasons, afghanistan was about a few pipelines as noted but more so about controlling large quantities of un-tapped uranium (a reason for both the russian and US invasions), and secondly for controlling opium as the CIA uses drug money to fund its off the book black operations. Like the now known massive secret prison systems, torture camps, and the human medical and scientific testing. Location-wise, afghanistan is coupled with other color coded revolutions to circle china and russia with US bases and puppets, add to that the lesser known negotiations with japan to allow nuclear subs into the japanese sea (pointed at china) in exchange for moving troops from okinawa to guam. The main goal however, which the PNAC think tank states, is to keep the eye on the pie: Iran, which afghanistan and iraq both boarder. The invasion of iraq was to solve israels oil crisis and stop the threat of a secular middle east, which would become a true economic player and threat to the aggressive state of israel. / While true, it needs to be kept in mind that military bases in afghanistan were not so much about ensuring a safe path for the pipeline to run through, as it was about guaranteeing control over the area. This includes the option of delaying or blocking construction if the plans didn't unfold according to the US' precise needs: Denying the safe flow of oil through this region was as powerful an incentive as any other.


Claiming that iraq was invaded for oil is nonsense, since the money we spent fighting it (and the WOT in general) could have been used to purchase all their oil fields 100x over.

Jeremy rys has this to say on the matter. / It is now public knowledge that cia director george tenet falsified the case for WMDs, and that the real reason for the invasion of iraq was oil. This is duly confirmed by the invasion strategy, and the construction of permanent US military bases positioned directly on the oil fields. Buts its not really that simple. You see, in late 2000 saddam hussein threatened to switch for the euro for trading oil, and was pushing to convert iraqs ten billion dollar reserve fund at the UN to euros. This information about iraqs oil currency has been censored by the US media for the interest of the white house, federal reserve, and most importantly, the international bankers. Heres why: A country cannot produce an economy without energy. If countrys are forced to trade in their money for US dollars in order to buy energy, the value of the US dollar is increased proportional to the price of oil. So by then increasing the price of oil, you increase the amount each person has to now exchange for the same gallon of energy through the petrodollar, and the transaction balances out the deficit in the currency. This gives the currency its intrinsic value: Moneys just paper otherwise. Meanwhile, the central and international bankers who without this artificial bubble in are all reality bankrupt can keep their currency from crashing. Now combine this with the fact that iran and north korea, the two other axis' of evil, were also planning to switch off the US dollar to the euro...

Economic warfare is half of why the WOT

is being waged with such persistence.

The picture starts to become clearer. The banking systems of the western world and most of the globe rely on the commodotisation of finite raw resources that are forcefully traded through the US dollar in order to keep their currency and economic frameworks afloat. Dishonest and corrupt banking practises around the world create an unnatural dependency on oil and other forms of energy. This is why economic hit men like john perkens say that their first job was to construct a power plant, and loan third world countrys the money at interest to pay for it, thereby enslaving them through debt and dependence on the energy and its infrastructure. / In short, saying that the US invaded simply out of a desire to suck iraqs oil fields dry is a retarded straw man argument. But lets return to the question of oil. Iraqs pre-war oil reserves were estimated at roughly 190 billion barrels. With the new millennium price of oil fluctuating around 85 dollars per barrel, this represents an absolute minimum of 16 trillion dollars at stake. Some estimate the oil fields may be worth closer to 30 trillion! Thats not including all the petroleum hidden underneath the caspian seabed. The war on terror (which accomplished many other objectives both foreign and domestic) allowed america to gain control of this critical resource for a cost of just 1.5-2 trillion dollars, a comparative bargain when considering the overall package deal.


[1] http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm Ground Zero fires could have heated the steel by up to 4 °F
[2] http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
[3] http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS

Two other excellent articles on this subject are:

Here's another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory has to be wrong, by Joseph Smith.
Simple calculations showing that the official story of 911 is false, by James Madison.

*edit made feb 8, 2014.

Conspiracy theory FAQ, part 1

When confronted with hard evidence showing government complicity into the september 11th attacks, debunkers and other such apologists will forward a great variety of a-priori arguments that release them from the need to confront this wide ranging body of proof (which would result in uncomfortable cognitive dissonance). The vast majority of these statements generally turn out to have little merit, showing themselves as nothing more than a petty cop-out for a moral coward. Some of the more atypical claims will be featured in this post, and discussed at length to judge their value. Any postings following this one will deal with the remaining pseudo-skeptic arguments, which have more or less been resolved years ago by other members of the truth movement.
 
The purpose of this series is simply to provide the truth seeker with ready-made ammunition which he can use to fend off the lame a-priori dismissals, and force the opposition to actually look at the evidence that has been amassed. This includes the multiple warning of an impending terrorist attack (which were ignored by bush), the war games and live hijacking drill that obstructed the air defense, and the financial arrangement that took advantage of the chaos, especially the black eagle trust. Anyone who looks at the events of 911 with a half open mind will see that there are terrible flaws with the official story, and a huge number of anomalys that hint not of some garden variety terrorist plot, but a state crime against democracy. First up are two denials that are frequently bandied about on wikipedia.
 
    
Red flags that should prompt extra caution include surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources.
 
Just because someone says a claim is extraordinary does not make it so. People often label any theories that are contrary to the governments version of events as 'extraordinary', thus implying that the government and its associated media have a monopoly on what is considered reasonable. But claims can only be considered extraordinary if they have no historical precedent. Therefore, all that is needed to show that a theory can be confirmed (with ordinary scientific processes) is to point out a similar case that has happened before. For this, a simple look at the geopolitical affairs of the 1930s will suffice. In a period of just 8 years, the world saw 4 separate false flag attacks (!) used by authoritarian regimes to push their agendas: This includes the manchurian incident, the clash of wal wal, operation himmler, and the shelling of mainila. These incidents are not at all disputed by historians (at least, not by historians who live outside of the implicated nations, where the temptation to white wash history is present): No one has difficulty believing that such crimes could be perpetrated by a mere historical artifact, which they have no personal connection to. The same is not true when ones own nation has been accused of authoring a terrorist attack in the present!

 

Supposing that we even have a free media to begin with...


 

Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

 

This criterion might be excusable for an online dictionary that isn't interested in the hidden truth, but its blatantly unacceptable for everything else. It feeds into the larger mind set that establishment types have, with their belief that history is something which cannot be shaped by conscious intent, via the persistent influence of the fog of war or other such mystical phenomenon. They have a characteristic ambivalence towards the notion that much of modern history has been the result of elaborate policys put into place by powerful oligarchs, something which would upset their fragile egos (and the illusions they have about democracy). These academics condemn all such theorys and hypothesis' with the pejorative label of conspiracism. Bruce cumings elaborates on this belief system: "But if conspiracies exist, they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy theory.' History is moved by the broad forces and large structures of human collectivities."

  

But power corrupts, and all power corrupts absolutely. The two go inextricably hand in hand, and we may ask these men what barriers can stop a dominant entity from utilising secrecy to implement its policys: Answering this question without contradicting historical records would be quite a feat. That is because any country which becomes a superpower in its specific ficton will eventually wind up playing host to a cast of authoritarian misfits, who use their influence and wealth take control of the national agenda. Humans are social creatures, and the desire to conform to the default viewpoint is a built in feature. When information is distributed to a population in a top down fashion, this makes the entire nation vulnerable to being misled by its leadership caste (whose interests are divorced from those of the common people). Coming out in detraction of the reigning cultures golden cow, therefore, is a difficult and unrewarding task, one which got only more complicated with the advent of nationalism during the industrial era. Countless times have we seen men oppose various ideologies and religions, only to be greeted with viscous persecution by the establishment, whose tenets were later overturned and falsified decades or centurys after the fact.

 
  
Those who claim the WTCs were destroyed via a thermite demolition have ignored the fact that this substance can't inflict real damage to structural members.
  
Assertions like these seek to raise doubt about the validity of a collapse initiated by thermitic materials (which work much more silently than explosives) by claiming their ability to cut or melt steel is very limited. Sketchy though such a catchet may be, after the debut of two separate tests done by national geographic and mythbusters, the 911 debunkers seized upon it with a vigour that is rarely seen outside of a funny farm. They were able to get quite alot of mileage out of this ploy, and things were working out nicely. Soon, they even grew bold enough to dismiss actual patents that were designed to cut steel columns, saying things: 'Anyone can make a patent, but that doesn't mean it exists or even works!' But as any good gambler will tell you, if you play an empty hand for long enough, eventually, someone at the table will call your bluff. In late 2010, jonathan cole (a graduate from the university of connecticut) would release a video which blew this facile hoax out of the water.
 

   



   

By using something he called 'a thermitic box cutter', the civil engineer was able to slice through a steel I-beam with only 2 lbs of thermite, thus confirming the nature of the work being carried out at the combustion institute since the 1960s. The beam in coles video appeared to be a W 6 x 16, with a known weight of 16 pounds per linear foot. His results are consistent with the estimates made by NIST, who insisted that 'approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel.' So with a large box column weighing approximately 1500 pounds per linear foot, the amount of thermite required to make the cut may be around 187 lbs. However, additing sulfur to the mix will slightly decrease the total amount of thermite needed, and also produce a cooler reaction byproduct (since it takes advantage of the eutectic phenomenon).

 
Watch:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g


Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off?
  
The unasked question here is just how big and how loud would a potential demolition charge need to be? According to mark hightower, severing a large core column would require either 90 lbs of tamped RDX, or a 53 lbs shaped charge (with 18.5 lbs of RDX). Scientists from NIST, however, allege that: '...Even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building, had it occurred, we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 dbs, a half a mile away.' And again, because the WTCs were going to demolished in front of a live television audience (which entailed huge risks for the perpetrators), their collapse would need to be brought about in a highly unconventional manner, so as to perpetuate the notion that impact + fires were responsible. This demanded removing most of the typical giveaways to a controlled demolition, such as the obvious, sequential explosions, collapse initiated from the bottom, a small rubble footprint, etc. This arrangement would have also had to proceed in total secrecy, with the explosive and pyrotechnic devices installed in a manner that would protect them from aircraft debris and fires (no small feat even for members of the military industrial complex!).
 
Given these requirements, the best way to destroy the twin towers was to use a two stage demolition process. The first stage would involve silently cutting all (or nearly all) of the 16 large and 31 small core columns on the floors impacted by the planes. This is a task to which thermitic box cutters are well suited towards. Arranged in banks of perhaps 10-12 per corner (and 47 per floor) of the building, they could be set off in a precision sequence via radio repeaters safely installed into reinforced crevices. And though thermite burns with a ferocious intensity that is capable of melting any thickness of steel, the noise they emit is entirely insignificant, at least compared to the explosive charges needed to sever a large core column. Ignited hundreds of feet above street level, there would have been little sign of the box cutters deadly presence, aside from the pool of molten steel flowing away from WTC 2 before its collapse (which may have been the result of a premature ignition from a thermite bank). With the core columns cut on multiple levels, the impact floors were suddenly robbed of their structural integrity, and would effectively cave in on themselves, setting the upper section of the towers into motion against everything beneath it.
   

Imagine a dump truck colliding with a sand berm
at 100 kmh, multiplied by 5 orders of magnitude

  

The second stage would ensue shortly after the first, taking advantage of a collapse that converted a tremendous amount of gravitational energy into kinetic energy, resulting in an extremely destructive interaction that pulverised concrete and crumpled steel members. Left to its own devices, however, this piledriver effect would (probably) not be able to produce a global collapse: Everything above the 92nd floor of WTC 1 -and the 77th floor of WTC 2- would cease to exist, and many, many floors beneath them would be gutted by falling debris. But the lower foundations would remain fully intact, as would the core and perimeter columns all the way up to the impact site. The buildings would be preserved by immense networks of interconnected steel beams and columns. Thus, in order to guarantee a total collapse, these resistance points needed to be broken with explosive charges. Under the cover provided by the noise and dust of the gravity collapse, the second stage of demolition could proceed unnoticed to anyone more than a block away from the site (though some blasts can be heard further, depending on how the echo was funneled through the streets). With just a handful of explosive charges placed on all the floors beneath the impact site -probably hidden inside elevator shafts- the twin towers last structural redoubts would be methodically smashed from the top down.

 
 
How would they be able to plant enough thermite/explosives to perfectly raze these mammoth buildings, without anyone taking notice beforehand?
    
This is much less of a problem when you have operatives in control of security at the WTC complex, as jerome hauer and brian jenkins of kroll associates were. These men had a plethora of suspicious connections to the 911 crime ring, and it may have fallen upon them to provide secure working spaces for demolition crews. The best way to proceed with such an operation is to conceal all suspicious equipment inside ordinary tool boxes, move them up through express elevators, and only bring them out when working in confined spaces or on empty floors. This is the method through which the 59 story citicorp building was secretly retrofitted in 1974 over the course of several months, without either the tenants, media, or general public catching on. Maintaining secrecy is not especially difficult, especially if wireless detonators are used instead of blasting cord. These would need to have scramblers to ensure they aren't accidentally set off by cell phones, though.
  
As for the actual logistic of rigging up the twin towers, this depends on the exact method thats being used to destroy them. A 2 stage demolition process (like the one mentioned previously) would require cutting all 47 core columns on at least two separate floors. Thats a total of 94 thermite charges per building, enough to destroy everything above the impact zone. A single charge would be attached to each column, then covered beneath a protective casing. Below these floors, a different approach would be needed. Rather than going after the core columns, it would be easier to rig up the column junctures in the elevator shafts, of which there are four to a floor. If this was done all the way from the impact floors to street level, then that amounts to 368 charges for WTC 1 and 308 charges for WTC 2 (not including the 94 thermite charges). Working with these numbers, its possible to determine roughly how many man hours were required.
 

One of the web joists (not quite

the same as a column juncture)

   
Watch:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M
 
 
If the WTCs really were destroyed by a controlled demolition, most of the worlds architects and engineers would have come forward and raised hell with the authoritys!
 
This is obviously not the case. An in-depth examination of the scientific literature regarding the twin towers collapses reveals that virtually none of them are based on a close observation of the visual archives. They are abstract mathematical models which use random assumptions to come to conclusions about factor x or y. Such insular processes are effectively divorced from reality, and tell a truth seeker very little about what happened to these 110 story structures: Someone who does not understand the unique features of this collapse (or posses an affinity for regression analysis) will have NO ABILITY to determine whether or not CD played a role. Academic institutes of all shapes and sizes, ranging from NIST to AE911Truth, have been guilty of a systemic failure to observe the actual behaviour of the twin towers (and building 7) prior to and during their collapse. They perpetuate a false dichotomy of progressive collapse vs controlled demolition, failing to come to terms with the peripheral issues that could falsify their case.
 
They proceed with an obvious confirmation bias in mind, neglecting to consider that the truth may lie somewhere in between their pre-determined conclusions. AE911Truth is responsible for disseminating the false notion that steel framed buildings cannot experience a global collapse without the aid of explosives. NIST is responsible for grossly distorting the mechanical forces acting on the WTCs, and for failing to document the material flow that defined each destruction event. The basic standards of the scientific method have been discarded in favour of abstract models and poor observations, which in turn were regurgitated to the public in the form of sound bytes via the mass media. If there was ever a time when the 'experts' should have stepped in to straighten things out, this was it. Sadly, that is not what actually happened. On both sides, negligence fed by false confidence has snowballed into something that is now labelled as 'professional dialogue regarding the WTCs collapse', which has now been framed into an issue concerning only whether explosives were present or not!
 
 
If the attacks truly were orchestrated by the government, someone would have talked! Even if all of the conspirators had kept silent, there must have been dozens of people on the sidelines who knew, and they couldn't ALL have been assassinated!
    
That is correct. If anything, there may have been well in excess of a hundred people who knew sensitive details about the september 11th attacks, weeks or months before they actually took place. At a lower level, like when the feds were monitoring terrorist activity in 2000-2001, some CIA and FBI agents actually did catch wind of the plot, and tried to warn their superiors. The storys of harry samit, susan lindauer, kenneth williams, and sibel edmonds are just a few examples of this. Debunkers may argue that this is only a niche example which doesn't invalidate their wider point. Again, they are right. It goes without saying that the proof for MIHOP is invariably more circumstantial than that which exists for LIHOP. In a situation oddly reminiscent of the fermi paradox, no one has come forward to release information that directly reveals preperations of the scale predicted by most truth advocates (I.E, no rigging of the WTCs with bombs, no modifications of jumbo jets for remote control, etc). Could absence of evidence be taken as evidence of absence? Unfortunately, no. New counter-intelligence techniques devised in the 1960s have given the CIA and other agencys a strong ability to suppress whistle blowers, via trauma based operant conditioning. As soon as a potential leaker is identified, they will be subjected to extensive background checks, and placed under very intrusive surveillance in order to gain personal information from them.
 
Many technologys are available to spying agencys nowadays, including laser microphones, phone tapping, computer bugging, etc. All sources of communication are surveyed constantly by the highest technology available and a great deal of the results are recorded, auto-transcribed and processed by computer to show statistical associations (some of which goes to a live ear if close spying is underway). Once enough information has been assembled to create a 'criminal profile', the director in charge will make a decision as to the best approach needed to gain the whistle blowers compliance. This sometimes involves black-mail and bribery. More often, however, a campaign of terror is waged against the individual, where they are subjected to constant and unrelenting harassment, raising their stress level to an intolerable level that not only destroys their sense of security, but interferes with normal sleep and work related activities. Through weeks of gang stalking, the whistle blowers daily routine will be irreparably damaged, and their sanity will be stretched to the breaking point. Sometimes, the aim of this harassment campaign is to get the individual to release their information in a partial or disorderly manner, where it can be picked apart and discredited by cointelpro assets. Mostly, however, they are given a chance to end the torment by accepting a list of conditions which they must abide by, on the threat of instantaneous retaliation (in proportion to the severity of their infraction) if they do not.

 
  

If our government was capable of masterminding the 911 attacks to justify an invasion of afghanistan, then why didn't they plant WMDs in iraq?
 
Because it reinforces the comforting illusion of incompetence, and allows their political system to perpetuate itself. To determine whether or not the US government is incompetent, you only need to look at what policys they have enacted in the last decade. Notice that there is always a difference between what officials say they will do, and what they actually do. When an institute persists in taking a course of action which does not fulfil its agenda, we might posit that they show signs of incompetence. However, when they do not stop pursuing that agenda even at (what seems to be) a huge loss to themselves, there really are only two possible explanations. One answer is raised by albert einstein: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." A more sinister answer comes from stefan molyneux: "If an organization seems to be continually failing to achieve its stated mission – but refuses to alter its actions – then clearly it is simply achieving another, unstated mission." With this one single insight, all of the odditys associated with the global war on terror (as well as the war on drugs, poverty, etc) can be reconciled. For every official proclamation a government agency may make regarding some ambitious new campaign, there will almost invariably be an unofficial motive that is not being disclosed to the public.
   
So to truly judge an agencys competence, we need to know not just their intent, but their actual motives. When taking into account all of its secret sponsors and policy decisions, the bush administration is seen for what it really is: A neoconservative platform that was successfully able to institute most of the goals outlined in the project for a new american century. And since their propensity for using mission statements to conceal more unwholesome goals is widely known among the worlds top intellectuals, we need to call into question the unstated premise of the debunker argument: If the US actually had staged the 'discovery' of these weapons in a transparent attempt to justify their needless war of aggression (in violation of the united nations charter), it would only serve as an enormous jolt to intellectuals across the world, and help push them into a stance of direct opposition to the united states. So, would soothing the conscience of the unwashed masses be worth the cost of alienating the politically awake? No. And again, the purpose of the false WMD scare was not to give a legitimate justification for invading iraq, or any other nation in the middle east (thats what they had 911 for): The point was only to get the neocons foot in the door.
 
Afterwards, a continual presence in iraqs vast oil fields could be maintained through mission creep, and vigorous stigmatisation of those officials who wanted to 'cut and run.' Even the president himself was not above participating in this heavy handed bullying, using his rank to pressure dissenters into compliance. In summary, the key to explaining the iraq episode is the fact that people are much more willing to believe in an incompetent government, rather than one which is deliberately malevolent. But once you accept the premise that the bush administration is a highly effective, morally corrupt association, and that their actual goals in any endevour are never what they publicly claim, it becomes clear that 'incompetence' is nothing more than a comforting charade which is used to cloak evil policys in. The men in office are able to get a surprising amount of mileage out of this little trick, since american citizens have a very high tolerance for political failure, although not with silly hot topic issues pertaining to sexual orientation, gender, religion, or race. Incompetence also lends itself to perpetuating the left-right slave paradigm, particularly when opposition partys gain browny points by pointing out the obvious, and saying how much better things would be if the current president was kicked out of office (to be swiftly replaced by their own candidate, of course...).
  
*edit made oct 30, 2013.

Warlords of the american empire

A list of personnel from the US army special operations command (USASOC), the go-to branch of irregular warfighters for neocon leaders in the throes of americas drunken, post-911 rampage. The identitys of this organisations leadership caste are not easy to discern, as there is no centralised database for such inquirys, and there are very few published articles that will mention more than one or two of these officials at any time.

Mir bahmanyars book on the US rangers is one rare example. By and large, though, all these names must be painstakingly tracked down, with hundreds of man hours put in to get tangible results. Its clear that there is a degree of secrecy present even in simple tier-two units... Anyone who wanted to get hold of a personnel roster for these organisations would be faced with a black hole, especially regarding those leaders who served during the sensitive period of the 90s.

The list assembled here is now several months old, and was going to be kept private (in the interest of not drawing unwanted attention from the national security apparatus), but current developments have made this level of caution unnecessary. Civil disobedience is on the rise, happily, and the illusion of government authority is slowly beginning to erode. This post is simply another small step in undermining the authoritarian police state that has seized hold of western democracys.

Note: The tenure durations listed below are generally accurate to within a month or so, but in some cases, information is so sparse that only the year in which the leader served is known. For the 19th and 20th SFGs (and 4th psyop groups sub-units) in particular, there is no public data available on the commanding officers at all! This list has many gaps present, and needs to be vetted by individuals with extensive knowledge of americas special operations members.

USASOC hierarchy: Three of the units depicted here
(on the right of the graph) did not come into existence
until after the war on terror was declared in 2001

Commander, 4th psychological operations group
Colonel Christopher St. John: Aug 1999 - July 2001.
Colonel James A. Treadwell: Aug 2001 - June 2003.
Colonel Jack N. Summe: July 2003 - June 2005.
Colonel Kenneth A. Turner: July 2005 - June 2007.
Colonel Curtis D. Boyd: July 2007 -  Aug 2009.
Colonel Carl E. Phillips: Aug 2009 - Dec 2012.

  
Commander, 75th ranger regiment
Colonel Stanley A McChrystal: June 1997 - July 1999.
Colonel P.K Keen: Aug 1999 - July 2000.
Colonel Joseph L. Votel: July 2001 - Aug 2003.
Colonel James C. Nixon: Aug 2003 - June 2005.
Colonel Paul J. LaCamera: July 2005 - July 2007.
Colonel Richard D. Clarke: Aug 2007 - Aug 2009.
Colonel Michael E. Kurilla: Sept 2009 - Aug 2011.

1st ranger battalion commanders
Lieutenant colonel S.G Hoogland: June 1997 - Aug 1998.
Lieutenant colonel Joseph L. Votel: Aug 1998 - July 2000.
Lieutenant colonel Tony Thomas: July 2000 – July 2002.
Lieutenant colonel Michael M. Kershaw: July 2002 - July 2004.
Lieutenant colonel Richard D. Clarke: Aug 2004 - Aug 2006.
Lieutenant colonel Brian Mennes: July 2008 - Feb 2010.

2nd ranger battalion commander
Lieutenant colonel Stanley A. McChrystal: Nov 1994 - June 1996.
Lieutenant colonel J.M Bednarck: June 1996 - June 1998.
Lieutenant colonel M.C Okita: June 1998 - June 2000.
Lieutenant colonel Kevin C. Owens: June 2000 - June 2002.
Lieutenant colonel Jeffrey L. Bailey: June 2002 - June 2004.
Lieutenant colonel David B Haight: June 2004 - July 2006.

3rd ranger battalion commander
Lieutenant colonel M.J Ferriter: July 1996 - July 1998.
Lieutenant colonel D.B Allyn: July 1998- June 2000.
Lieutenant colonel J.C Nixon: June 2000 - June 2001.
Lieutenant colonel S.J Banach: June 2001 - June 2003.
Lieutenant colonel Paul J. LaCamera: June 2003 - July 2004.
Lieutenant colonel J.G Castles: July 2004 - July 2006.
Lieutenant colonel Daniel R. Walrath: July 2008 - Feb 2010.

   
Commander, 160th special operations aviation regiment (SOAR)
Colonel Bryan D. Brown: 1993 - 1994.
Colonel Dell D. Dailey: 1994 - 1996.
Colonel Richard A. Cody: 1996 - 1997.
Colonel Howard W. Yellen: 1997 - 1999.
Colonel Richard B. Bowman: 1999 - 2001.
Colonel Richard L. Polczynski: 2001 - 2003.
Colonel Andrew N. Milani: 2003 - 2005.
Colonel Kevin W. Mangum: May 2005 - May 2008.
Colonel Clayton M. Hutmacher: May 2008 - June 2011.

1st battalion, 160th SOAR commander
Lieutenant colonel Clayton M. Hutmacher: July 2006 - May 2008.
Lieutenant colonel Van J. Voorhees Jr: May 2008 - May 2009.
Lieutenant colonel Allan Pepin: May 2009 - May 2011.
Lieutenant colonel Mike Hertzendorf: May 2011 - 201?.

2nd battalion, 160th SOAR commander
Lieutenant colonel John R. Evans: June 2006 – June 2008.
Lieutenant colonel Thomas R. Drew: June 2008 - 20??.

3rd battalion, 160th SOAR commander
Lieutenant colonel Walter Rugen: Aug 2007 - June 2009.
Lieutenant colonel Kirk E. Keepers: June 2009 – May 2011.

4th battalion, 160th SOAR commander (activated in 2008)
Lieutenant colonel James C. Dugan: Nov 2007 - July 2008.
Lieutenant colonel Mike Hertzendorf: July 2008 - July 2010.
Lieutenant colonel Heath Niemi: July 2010 - July 2012.


Commander of JFK special warfare center and school
Major general William F. Garrison: 1995 - 1996.
Major general William P. Tangney: 1997 (May 1996?) - Mar 1998.
Lieutenant general Kenneth R. Bowra: Mar 1998 - Mar 2000.
Major general William G. Boykin: 2001 (?) - 2003.
Major general Geoffrey C. Lambert: 2003 - 2004.
Major general James W. Parker: 2006 - June 2008.
Major general Thomas R. Csrnko: June 2008 - Aug 2010.
Major general Bennet S. Sacolick: Aug 2010 - 201?.

Deputy commander of JFK special warfare center and school
Brigadier general Hector E. Pagan: 2007 - 2008.
Brigadier general Bennet S. Sacolick: 2008 - 2010.
Colonel Ferdinand Irizarry: 2010 - 201?.


Commander of US army special forces command, USASFC ('Green Berets')
Major general William P. Tangney: May 1995 - May 1996.
Major general Kenneth R. Bowra: May 1996 - Mar 1998.
Brigadier general Frank J. Toney: May 2000 - Sept 2001.
Major general Geoffrey C. Lambert: Sept 2001 - May 2003.
Brigadier general Gary M. Jones: May 2003 - Sept 2005.
Major general John F. Mulholland: Sept 2005 - July 2006.
Major general Thomas R. Csrnko: July 2006 - July 2008.
Major general Michael S. Repass: July 2008 - July 2010.
Major general Edward M. Reeder Jr: July 2010 - July 2012.

1st special forces group commander
Colonel Russell Howard: 1994 - 1996.
Colonel David P. Fridovich: Aug 2000 - 2002.
Colonel Richard G. Thomas Jr: 200? - Sept 2006.
Colonel Eric P. Wendt: Sept 2006 - July 2008.
Colonel Rand Binford: July 2008 - July 2010.
Colonel Francis Beaudette: July 2010 - June 2012.

3rd special forces group commander
Colonel Mark D. Boyatt: 1995 - 1996.
Colonel Gary M. Jones: 1998 - 2000.
Colonel Philip R. Kensinger: 2000 - 2002.
Colonel Joseph D. Celeski: July 2002 - July 2004.
Colonel Patrick Higgins: July 2004 - Sept 2006.
Colonel Christopher K. Haas: Sept 2006 - July 2008.
Colonel Gus Benton II: July 2008 - July 2010.
Colonel Mark C. Schwartz: July 2010 - July 2012.

5th special forces group commander
Colonel T. M. Carlin: Aug 1995 – Aug 1997.
Colonel D. P. Brownlee: Aug 1997 – July 1999.
Colonel C. W. Paxton: July 1999 – July 2001.
Colonel John F. Mulholland: July 2001 – July 2003.
Colonel H. E. Pagan: July 2003 – July 2005.
Colonel K. McDonnell: July 2005 – July 2007.
Colonel C. E. Conner: July 2007 – Aug 2009.
Colonel M. E. Mitchell: Aug 2009 – Aug 2011.

7th special forces group commander
Colonel Salvatore F. Cambria: - June 2001.
Colonel Peter J. Dillon: June 2001 - July 2003.
Colonel Jeffrey D. Waddell: July 2003 - Aug 2005.
Colonel Edward M. Reeder: Aug 2005 - Dec 2007.
Colonel Sean P. Mulholland: Dec 2007 - May 2009.
Colonel James E. Kraft Jr: May 2009 - July 2011.

10th special forces group commander
Colonel Geoffrey C. Lambert: 1994 -1995.
Colonel Charles T. Cleveland: 2001 - 2003.
Colonel Michael S. Repass: 2003 - Sept 2005.
Colonel Kenneth E. Tovo: Sept 2005 - Jan 2008.
Colonel Darsie D. Rogers, Jr: Jan 2008 - June 2009.
Colonel Sean P. Swindell: June 2009 - 200?.


Now, while this list has so far only detailed the names of commanders within USASOCs sub-units, it would also be prudent to list the identitys of leaders within the USASOC branch itself, as well as its parent organisations like JSOC and SOCOM (seeing as they featured so prominently in the 'war against terrorism'). These individuals have been responsible for perpetrating numerous war crimes, and they need to start getting bad attention from the public!

SOCOM is strictly an administrative organization, while JSOC

is a field branch that decides which units throughout the SOCOM

force structure get called into harms way. It is JSOC that determines

what task force will be established for any given mission role

Commander of the US army special operations command (USASOC)
Lieutenant general J.T Scott: 1996 -1998.
Lieutenant general William P. Tangney: 1998 - 2000(?).
Lieutenant general Bryan D. Brown: Oct 1999 (June 2000?) - Aug 2002.
Lieutenant general Philip R. Kensinger Jr: Aug 2002 - Dec 2005.
Lieutenant general Robert W. Wagner: Dec 2005 - Nov 2008.
Lieutenant general John F. Mulholland: Nov 2008 - July 2012.

Deputy commanding general of USASOC
Brigadier general William P. Tangney: Oct 1994 - May 1995.
Brigadier general Gary M. Jones: 2000 - 2002.
Brigadier general Charles T. Cleveland: 2003.
Brigadier general Mark V. Phelan: May 2005 - July 2006.
*Brigadier general Raymond Palumbo: 2009 - July 2010.
Major general William K. Fuller: July 2010 - 2012.


Commander of the joint special operations command (JSOC)
Major general Peter J. Schoomaker: July 1994 - Aug 1996.
Major general Michael Canavan: Aug 1996 - Aug 1998.
Lieutenant general Bryan D. Brown: 1998 - 200?.
Lieutenant general Dell L. Dailey: 2001 - March 2003.
Lieutenant general Stanley McChrystal: Sept 2003 - June 2008.
Vice admiral William H. McRaven: June 2008 - June 2011.

Deputy commanding general of JSOC
Brigadier general Charles R. Holland: June 1993 - June 1995.
Brigadier general Gregory L. Trebon: July 2000 - Jan 2003.
Brigadier general Lyle M. Koenig Jr: Feb 2003 - Jan 2004.
Brigadier general Raymond P. Palumbo: Sept(?) 2004 - July 2007.

  
Commander of the US special operations command (SOCOM)
General Wayne A. Downing: May 1993 - Feb 1996.
General Henry H. Shelton: Feb 1996 - Sept 1997.
General Peter J. Schoomaker: Nov 1997 - Oct 2000.
General Charles R. Holland: Oct 2000 - Sept 2003.
General Bryan D. Brown: Sept 2003 - July 2007.
Admiral Eric T. Olson: July 2007 - Aug 2011.

Deputy commanding general of SOCOM
Rear admiral Ralph E. Suggs: 1999 - 200?.
Lieutenant general Bryan Brown: Aug 2002- Sept 2003.
Vice admiral Eric T. Olson: 2006.

Military officials implicated in the 911 attacks

In july of 1996, the office of the joint chiefs of staff released a document titled, joint vision 2010, which is defined as "the conceptual template for how we will channel the vitality of our people, and leverage technological opportunities to achieve new levels of effectiveness in joint warfighting." It calls for the achievement of full spectrum dominance as as the primary objective of the US military. Then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (which is the highest military position in the US hierarchy), general john shalikashvili, stated that JV2010 created an operationally-based model for the evolution of the armed forces, and how to attain success in the chaos of modern warfare. A significant element in this concept was the air forces global reach program, which was headed under the acquisition office of the assistant secretary of the air force. The man in charge of this department was lawrence delaney and his deputys, darleen druyun, and lieutenant general stephen plummer, all of whom were deeply involved in the boeing pentagon tanker lease agreement. After the end of the cold war, the need to keep nuclear forces on constant alert against a soviet first strike, or to base large forces overseas ready to fight world war III became redundant. However, the air forces inherent speed, range, precision, lethality and flexibility was something that gave america what the secretary of the USAF called "global reach, & global power." Thus, a program was created to further develop and refine this quality. Placed under the air forces acquisition department, it was seen to fruition by men like delaney and plummer, as were a number of other research and development branchs, like the office of scientific research, or AFOSR. As it turns out, this facility is located in arlington virginia, the very same city where a group of raytheon engineers were working on the guidance system for the global hawk. A large number of these men ended up being killed in the september 11th attacks, when their aircraft were supposedly hijacked and smashed into famous landmarks. Even more alarming, however, is the presence of a certain brigadier general william hodges. This individual not only has a long history with the global reach program, but also happened to be in command of macdill air force base, which has a number of very suspicious characteristics placing it in the spot light.
 
In addition to being one of the two major military facilitys that were participating in the global guardian exercise that day (from where a number of secret objectives were piggy backed off of), macdill was also undergoing a drill that simulated a hijacked aircraft being rammed into the base, which saw the whole airfield being locked down for three hours. When considering all the evidence which suggests that anything but a boeing 757 hit the pentagon, 911 researchers have then been tasked with the obvious question: Exactly what happened to flight 77? If the contents of the declassified operation northwoods document are anything to go by, then it seems distinctly possible that flight 77 was landed onto the runway of macdill under the cover provided by that simulated plane crash. In this way, perhaps, its passengers could be detained without anyone ever knowing they had not been killed in the pentagon explosion. It is a little known fact that macdill has an extensive tunnel network underneath its foundations, which were constructed at the beginning of the cold war. Many of these have since become flooded, and almost nobody on the base realises their existence. One would also have to take into account the presence of the special operations command, a military administration that winded up leading the nations response to the september 11th atrocitys, and which had as its subordinates such fearsome units as JSOC, and USASOC. The latter organisation features heavily in the ring of persons implicated in this crime. Lieutenant general bryan brown was the leader in charge of the US army special operations command, which was composed of six different mission units, three of which he had previously led before his posting to USASOC. Back in 1993, for example, brown was the commander of the 160th special operations aviation regiment, or SOAR. He and his deputy, colonel dell dailey, worked closely together during operation gothic serpent, which was executed under the direction of major general william garrison. That mission ended in failure after the shoot down of two black hawk helicopters, and the violent battle of mogadishu, which was later popularised in a book by author mark bowden.

Its worth mentioning that garrison, the main architect of this disaster, was a famous green beret and vietnam veteran, as well as an admitted participant in the joint army-CIA venture, code named the phoenix program. This background applys just as much to him as to the other men on his staff, like colonel thomas o'connell (a future raytheon vice-president), or brigadier general william kernan. Despite serving in different units during their vietnam tours, these individuals wartime experience were very similar to one another, particularly in that they helped carry out a program of mass civilian murder. Operation phoenix was responsible for identifying and neutralising all personnel who may have been active in supporting the functioning of the viet cong guerilla army, in one way or another. Actions as innocuous as bartering sacks of rice with a VC affiliate could be sufficient to get someone placed on this hit list! Once targeted, the individual would be subjected either to harassment, intimidation, or capture and torture. Targeted killings were also a frequent punishment. Even decorated units such as the infamous tiger force were not above joining in these vicious persecutions of non-combatants. More than 80,000 vietnamese people were victimised under operation phoenix, with up to a quarter of them being killed. The fact that these despicable actions ended up being perpetrated again in iraq and afghanistan by two former commanders of SOAR hints at the deeply negative impression that william garrisons presence had on that unit... The joint prioritised effects list, or JPEL, is a list of individuals who have presented a nuisance to the occupation forces stationed across the middle east. Although it is commonly believed to only apply within certain high risk areas of afghanistan, this hit list is actually in use across the arab peninsula by agents of the american empire. Kidnappings or assassinations are known to have taken place (though infrequently) outside of the containment areas designated by coalition armys. This shameful reality was exposed to the world in 2010 with the release of 75,000 classified documents from wikileaks.

It was determined that after the JPEL had been authorised by JSOC brass, it was put into action by brigadier general raymond palumbo, who came up with the innovative idea of setting up a death squad in the same fashion as hitlers einsatzgruppen, and stalins NKVD. Of course, back in 1996 when all this brainstorming was taking place, palumbo was just another overly ambitious battalion commander serving with the 160th SOAR. After mr brown was reassigned to deputy command of the 1st infantry division, and colonel dailey was promoted to replace him, a strange master student relationship developed between the two men, which is when the morbid fixation with targeted killings started proliferating amongst the armys special operations. No one ever said that these men lacked imagination. What is beyond dispute, however, is that this group of costumed thugs were responsible for a tremendous amount of collateral damage while operating in afghanistan and iraq. Task force 373 alone is guilty of the deaths of several thousand people during the course of their operational history *, for which a large number of whom there was little or no evidence confirming their sympathys with militant factions. As if that wasn't enough, they were also responsible for calling in the air strike that killed anwar al-awlaki, who, despite his radical islamic background, was a naturalised american citizen. The reason why this is of such importance is that, if the 911 drone swap hypothesis turns out to be true, it means that commercial airliners were being landed at privatized airports, and armed men were on the ground waiting to detain and murder the passengers. If anyone was capable of carrying out such cold blooded crimes on american soil, then the secret operatives of USASOC must definitely rank at the top of the suspect list. Under the influence of psychopaths and war criminals, no military operation planned by them would be ruled out on morale grounds alone... Moving along, dell dailey is also connected to another key player in the terrorist attacks, a man most notable not for what he did, but what he did not do. Michael canavan was a former commander of JSOC, who acted in this role at the same time that general hugh shelton served as the head of SOCOM.

Canavans only other action of note prior to september 11th had been his leading role into the investigation of air force CT-43s crash landing, which killed commerce secretary ron brown. (A good man who was in no way related to bryan brown) Shelton, on the other hand, was a major sponsor of the doctrine advocated in joint vision 2010, and a frequent collaborator of its main author, john shalikashvil, to such an extent that shelton was even nominated to succeed the chairman after his term had expired... Upon retiring from the military in 2003, shelton would later come out with a tell all autobiography, which offered a host of candid exposes on the unsavoury actions of american officials during the lead up to the war on terror. When placing his claims together with the testimonys made in books like ghost wars, tremendous suspicion is brought upon the likes of jane harman and madeline albright. Apparently, they had been interfering in the effort of CIA agents working alongside afghan warlord ahmed shah massoud to have al qaedas leader assassinated from 1998 to 2000. Canavan himself was mentioned in the 911 commission report as succumbing to these womens demands, saying that the plan put the afghan militants at too much risk and that the "operation was too complicated for the CIA." As if these institutes had any concern for the welfare of their hired-guns, or a proclivity against easily thwarted and overly elaborate raids. Anyway, on the morning that the september 11th attacks were unfolding, michael canavan was an acting FAA official who had been designated as their hijack co-ordinator. In the event this kind of emergency took place, air traffic controllers were expected to "notify their supervisors, who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters. These headquarters had a hijack coordinator, who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate." But, strangely enough, even though canavan had previously been serving in this position for nine months without incident, he was absent for the entire duration of the attack, and did not even get back to his post until later that evening, after building 7 collapsed. His flimsy excuse for this dereliction of duty was that he had been 'visiting the airport in san juan' or some such nonsense.

Finally, bringing the circle of suspicious characters across americas special operations to a close, is the commander of SOCOM itself, general charles holland, who came on the radar after his treasonous shut down of able danger, which was an innovative research effort aimed at gathering electronic data on terror operatives from around the world, and which was later discovered to have identified a number of the 911 hijackers, including ring leader mohammed atta. This, along with many other deliberate intelligence failures, was what allowed the devastating attacks to go forward unimpeded. SOCOM headquarters is located on macdill air force base, as are a number of its subordinate units. How convenient it was, for such a duplicitous individual to be in command of several thousand elite members of the nations special forces, and stationed at the only base in the country where flight 77 could have been landed in without attracting undue attention. Something we can be sure of, is that general hollands guilt does not end with the shut down of able danger alone. For one thing, he became heavily invested in the financial escapades of aerovironment, a company which experienced huge profits after the war on terror began. They offer a host of unmanned aireal vehicles to the US military, models that are alleged to use software bootlegged from the global hawk project. How in the world did they manage to get their hands on that? So far, nobody has bothered to ask mr holland on the role played by his co-worker, william hodges. Prior to his assignment as commander of macdill air force base, brigadier general hodges had been posted to the staff of the assistant secretary of the air force for acquisition, probably as a subordinate of lieutenant general stephen plummer. Being on the USAFs scientific advisory board, this puts them in a position of influence over the air forces scientific research office in arlington virginia, located just down the block from a raytheon facility which was working on a revolutionary new guidance system! Seeing that so many of the individuals serving there would mysteriously perish during the september 11th attacks, are we honestly to believe that this is just a coincidence?

Maybe someone can explain why this laboratory was being headed by doctor lyle schwartz, a former director or NIST (!), or his connections to arden bement, who was a board member of the battelle corporation during the time that it was supplying linear cutting charges and hyper-weaponised anthrax to the CIA and pentagon?... In light of all the details that have been posited so far, it seems distinctly possible that SOCOM and JSOC created a top secret task force to co-ordinate the controlled demolition of the WTCs, and the swapping of three commercial airliners with remote controlled drones. With access to thermite demolition charges and aireal guidance systems granted through their contacts in this research office, the armys special operations command should be singled out for close scrutiny by 911 researchers. Given the especially high concentration of suspects throughout USASOC, with operatives drawn from across its six mission sub-units, its a sure bet that they were used as a vector to carry out the staging of this synthetic terror plot. With army engineers and ordnance experts for the controlled demolitions and field works, aircraft maintenance engineers from SOAR to modify the KC-767 tankers, and a detachment of soldiers to handle the prisoners offloaded from the AA and UA flights, they could have easily managed more than half of the actions that were taking place that day... In summary, the convergence of high ranking officials from the private sector, pentagon, air force, and army special operations underlies just how heavily the widespread moral corruption has progressed through western society. Certainly, there are very few institutes throughout america which have managed to resist the allure of secret alliances and backroom deals. Its no wonder that they have unanimously banned together, irrespective of class or ideology, to oppose the allegations that have been made by the 911 truth movement. In the end, though, it looks like their efforts were in vain, and the drive to conceal this colossal crime against humanity will result in the downfall of far more people than those who perpetrated the attacks in the first place.


Note
*Although TF 373s true kill/capture toll is not known to the public, its worth mentioning that a similar unit operating in iraq, TF black, is acknowledged to have removed or killed up to 3500 insurgents, not including innocent bystanders who were caught in the crossfire. So anyway we cut it, general palumbo is a mass murderer, having ordered his soldiers to carry out targeted killings via foot patrols or air strikes.