Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Vancouver Hearings—Evidentiary Submission #5 of 5 by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Vancouver Hearings—Evidentiary Submission #5 of 5 by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
At the Vancouver Hearings, held 15-17 June 2012, judges asked participants to write an evidentiary submission of at least two persons regarding their complicity in the 9/11 plot.
I submit the names of Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MANG, based upon the facts as noted and sourced below.
Name: Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, Minnesota Air National Guard (MANG)
Title at the Time of his Offense: Pilot of C-130H circling the Pentagon on 9/11
Probable Cause: Among the most striking and indisputable aspects of 9/11 was the utter failure of NORAD, the NMCC and the FAA to coordinate any military response to (what were alleged to have been the hijacking of four commercial carriers, spanning an interval of time from 8:14 AM/ET, when the first reports of the possible hijacking of Flight 11 surfaced until after the Pentagon had been “hit” by Flight 77 at 9:38 AM/ET, over 1:14 hours later, even though a response to a hijacking should have taken less than 10 minutes.1 The failure to follow SOP is so blatant that there is no reasonable alternative to a deliberate “stand down”.2
THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), minimizes the absence of response and the time available to scramble fighters as if it was an innocuous event.3 One of the most peculiar aspects of the Pentagon attack is how our nation’s military leaders could not have known that a plane was approaching the building.4 This appears to be untrue on at least two grounds: first, that Vice President Cheney had been informed by an aide that a plane was headed toward the building by an aide and issued an order that the plane not be shot down (see Submission #2).
Another is that Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien was piloting a military C-130H cargo plane (call named, “Gofer 06”) in the vicinity of the Pentagon, where he and his crew were reported to have witnessed the crash of Flight 77 into the building as well as the crash of Flight 93 into the ground at Shanksville.5 Since O’Brien is said to have followed Flight 77—and to have identified it as a Boeing 757—it appears to be impossible that Pentagon officials, with whom he was in radio communication, could not have known a plane was approaching. The “official account” cannot be true, since it violates laws of aerodynamics and of physics (see Submission #3).
At 9:42 AM/ET, the FAA directed that all planes in the air should land6—minutes after the purported plane crash—but Gofer 06 remained airborne, apparently to perform a task essential to the cover-up. That no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is not only established by the impossibility of the official trajectory—just skimming the ground at over 500 mph and taking out a series of lampposts without damage to the plane or affecting its trajectory—but also by the virtual absence of debris appropriate to the crash of 100-ton airliner: no massive pile of aluminum debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage, such as would be expected.7 Not even the engines, which are virtually indestructible, were recovered from the site.
Photographs of the clear, green, Pentagon lawn—over 30 minutes following the attack, when a section of the building collapsed—display a stunning absence of debris.8 9 As even Jamie McIntrye reported live on CNN, there was no indication that any large plane had crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.10 Pieces of plane fuselage and other debris would show up on the lawn, even though no plane had crashed there, which raises the question of where it came from. It would have been awkward to have officers or enlisted men carry pieces of debris out on the lawn, but it would not have been difficult to have dropped it from the C-130H that O’Brien was piloting. One especially notable piece of fuselage has been tracked back to the crash of a Boeing 757 that had occurred in Cali, Columbia, in 1995.11
SUMMARY: Debris that appeared on the Pentagon lawn more than 30 minutes after the alleged crash of Flight 77 cannot have come from a non-existent crash and must have been planted by military personnel or dropped from the C-130H that was circling the building. When I explained to the BBC that it had to have come from the plane for its second “Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On”, they featured Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, who expressed disgust at the implication that he had participated in faking the plane crash by dropping debris from his plane.12 13
But there is no reasonable alternative. The allege crash did not occur and any claims to have seen the plane hit the building cannot be true. It would have been impossible for the cargo door of his C-130H to open for the drop and the pilot be unaware of it; moreover, the C-130H is a special version with electronic warfare capabilities and may have played other important roles on 9/11.14 The evidence thus substantiates that Lt. Col. O’Brien remained airborne because he was “on a mission”, complicit in the crimes of 9/11, and actively engaged in their cover-up.
1 An excellent discussion is David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), Chapter 11. “NMCC” is the National Military Command Center.
2 Ibid., especially pages 146-153; and http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html.
3 THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004), Chapter 1, especially pages 24-40.
4 David Ray Griffin, 9/11 CONTRADICTIONS (2008), Chapter 11.
5 http://digwithin.net/2011/12/04/gofer-and-trout-questions-on-two-fl... That claim is disputed at http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread312008/pg1
12 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0148yz5 is as close as I have been able to find it.
14 Email correspondence with military aircraft expert, Dennis Cimino (3 and 4 August 2012)
Views: 159
Comment
About
Welcome to
9/11 Scholars Forum
© 2024 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum