Monday, January 20, 2014

Michael Masters

The "eight-plane theory" of 9/11


  1. Really interesting because there were real airplanes, that were not commercial airliners, hitting the towers. But as shown in the videos and confirmed by the eyewitnesses, the planes were not duplicates and rather different in appearance as the 'others' were military airplanes. Michael is wrong about them being 'switched' on the ground, but he is on the right track. Thank you both.

    1. I think he is trying to give an explanation for the fate of the passengers. He is at least giving a sane theory.

    2. I truly regret ever doing this interview. I strongly intimated to Jim that I had grave doubts that 2 hours would barely scatch the surface of my material on Flt. 93.

      I never got to the FDR data and animation, the composite, cut-and-paste CVR transcript, the NTAP Radar plots--including the missing 36 seconds between 14:02:58 and 14:03:34 in the Shanksville-area Radar Sort Box, the passenger phone calls--particularly Jeremy Glick's open line 1 1/2 hours after the alleged crash, the account of my 10-day visit to the Shanksville-area and the eyewitnesses I spoke with there, and so on.

      Rather than allow me the necessary time to establish and bolster the hypothesis, I'm instead given a time constraint whereby only an abridged "Cliff Notes" was made available to be subjected to criticisms of uninformed, pseudo-intellectuals in the world of cyber-sleuthing.

      I will never subject my work to this abuse on his radio program again.

    3. I heard it and I thought you did great. Dr. Fetzer*s work is tops in its fields of endeavor, though sometimes rather odd notions must be considered before correct conclusions can be justifiably made. I hope you do another appearance and continue with details you believed you missed. I had the same experience, remembering things after the show that I had been sneered at for saying out loud 40 years ago. This is a momentous part of history and we need to get it straight. Please do another interview. Free beer.

  2. Intiguing, unfortunately cutz off @41 minz, for me. Who's on first base?

  3. I'm pretty certain no Boeings hit the towers, a flimsy aluminium and composite tube does not penetrate steel and concrete.

    However, I am open to the possibility that something else hit the towers - a cruise missile perhaps, or even a modified A3 Skywarrior (which I strongly suspect is what hit the Pentagon).

    I am also open to the possibility that nothing hit the towers and all of the damage was done with cutting charges and the fireball was created by exploding drums of kerosene or similar placed inside the towers.

    In short, I don't know exactly what DID happen but I'm pretty sure what DIDN'T happen was a Boeing hitting the towers.

    1. Obviously, the perimeter walls had been conditioned to allow access. The presence of all necessary materials and equipment is established.

  4. Sort of dovetails with Howard Lewis's ( I believe thats his name) theory of the towers being originally built with the devices inside and using cutting charges to open up the towers to allow the planes to enter.

    The gentleman sounds as if he has put a good deal of time into the flight recordings and it seems he's onto something. Just exactly what that is remains unclear.

    His departure timing for 93 (and its supposed double) is very interesting. Complicated. But interesting

    There are too many holes in the story big enough to fly a 757 through but some curious and perhaps relevant information was brought to light.

    1. Get used to me. Your opinion on the veracity of my claims is lame, and incorrect.

  5. Howard Lewis was on the show if I recall correctly. I'm very sceptical about his claims that the buildings were built with demolition charges in place.

    Nuclear weapons have a lifespan of only a few years so they definitely weren't put in place back in the days when the WTC was built. Lewis talks about thermite paint and other things, I just don't buy it, sorry.

    1. Well Im not buying his entire story either. But, having pre-postioned ordinance, obviously updated from the originals, has always struck me as a fascinating, elegant and very plausible answer as to how they got the nukes in there in the first place. No worries about whether it will work, the planning and calculations having already been done.

      Hey, Im a no planer, too. No Boeing's hit the towers. I was just pointing out Mr Masters story sort of links up with another theory that's been brought up

      I just wonder if Howard isnt on to one piece of the puzzle with the pre-positioning of the nukes

    2. The nuclear fuel was, of course, updated as required.

    3. Do your homework, or you will flunk. If we were operating on a patient, the patient would be dead due to inexperienced participants. I have worked in an operating room and as a dental assistant, and they would not let me cut if I had the urge, which fortunately for the patients, I did not.

  6. Well, I think the placing of the demolition ordnance took place after Silverstein & Lowy took over the WTC.

    Apparently, a company called LVI Services carried out 'asbestos abatement' work in the twin towers prior to 9/11:

    Contract WTC-115.310
    The World Trade Center Removal and Disposal of Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tiles and Other Incidental Asbestos-Containing Building Materials Via Work Order
    Estimate Range: $1,000,000 annually
    Bids due Tuesday, October 17, 2000.
    This contract was offered and the work was begun during Lew Eisenberg's reign as head of the Port Authority. This is before Larry Silverstein obtained the leases, but during the time that the privatization process was well underway. The director of the New York privatization program was Ronald Lauder, who has very close ties to Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, e.g. the Lauder school at the IDC, Mossad's private university in Herzliya, Israel.

    Eisenberg, Lauder, Silverstain and Lowy are all Zionist Jews with close ties to Israel. I haven't been able to find any info about Fried's religion, but I think he's also Jewish, his brother in law is a Jew called Gary M. Grossberg who was the Port Authority architect and project manager until 1995.

    LVI work closely with Controlled Demolition Inc, often performing asbestos removal prior to demolitions carried out by CDi.

    Security for the WTC was handled by Kroll Associates, a company that employed some very shady characters sch as the notorious former head of Shin Bet Avram Shalom. The Managing Director of Kroll at the time of 9/11 was Jerome Hauer, another Zionist Jew with strong family ties to Israel. It was Hauer who directed the building the 13 millon USD emergency management centre in WTC7.

    I believe that planning for 9/11 began many years before the event, but I tend to think the physical preparations took place in the months prior.

    1. Nope. Most ordnance and electronics were installed during construction. This was retriggered for the 9-11 attacks. Think man! How would it be possible to directly apply tons of this demolition ordnance directly to steel and cement without leaving a mess or even a trace for the next mornings* workers to discover? Quite obviously, as I have said from personal experience a dozen times, at least, it would be impossible. It was done during construction, and this was widely documented. Go look it up. In a LIBRARY.

  7. Just finished listening to this show. Let me see if I understood correctly the part about Shanksville:

    Flight 93, A Boeing 757 flew over the crash site and when it passed the site, something exploded on this plane causing debris to scatter, the plane flew on over Indian Lake leaving a trail of debris.

    An A3 Skywarrior crashed at Shanksville, it came straight down, creating the small hole we witnessed

    Hmm, now, I know an A3 is a hell of a lot smaller than a Boeing but still, the crash site at Shanksville didn't look like anything had crashed.

    Also, Michael talks about an actual hijacking and an actual fight with the hijackers. Why would you even need to carry out a hijack if the planes weren't used to crash into the Pentagon and the WTC?

    I'm pretty sure that no planes crashed on 9/11, so wouldn't it follow logically that no hijacks took place?

    1. Of course there were no hijackers.

    2. A local lady saw a small quiet white jet, probably a small drone, zip over her van and crash at the site a few hundred yards ahead. A small turbine hub less than three feet across was found and photographed.

    3. colin mumby

      I sent jim fetzer an e-mail a week or so ago before I listened to this programme.i told him about the investigation that victor thorn did on flight 93, he went to shanksville on many occasions and reported the fact that a plane crashed at indian lakes,you can get all the mp3's from,also look at this youtube clip, Michael kept going on about the hijackers(which has been proved did not hijack any planes)the planes having all these modifications done to them,i don,t know of any modifications you can do to a plane to allow it to enter a building made of steel and concrete everything he was saying about the planes has been proved wrong, jim has explained it over and over they thought of the option to use remote controlled planes but discarded this option because of the physics involcved,there may have been duplicate planes used but none of them were used at any of the crash sites the physics prove this,as for passengers how come out of the 200 odd passengers there were 48-49 of them millionaires they were fake phone calls was not possible back then cell or seat back phones

  8. This seems like classic disinformation -- simply adding confusion to the matter.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Jeffrey Grupp: Why the PLANES vs. NO PLANES on 911 distinction is SO IMPORTANT! Antimatter Radio. Recorded 2010-10-1 (15min):

    Jim should DEFENATELY watch this too.

  11. Interesting, but a little long, don't you think, El Buggo?

    Forget about the fact there is no physical evidence of planes having crashed at any of the sites, no evidence of hijackers having boarded any of the flights, and that the alleged phone calls from the planes were physically impossible.

    Does Masters really believe planes can take out buildings or make enormous craters in the ground? Apparently, he does. How disappointing, to say the least. We're regressing.


    No evidence that Muslims hijacked planes on 9/11

    By Elias Davidsson1
    10 January 2008
    Abstract: The United States government has alleged that 19 individuals with Arab names,
    deemed fanatic Muslims, hijacked four passenger planes on 11 September 2001 and crashed them
    in a suicide-operation that killed approximately 3,000 people. In this Report, the author shows that
    there is no credible evidence that these individuals boarded any of these passenger planes. For this
    reason, it is impossible to support the official account on 9/11. As the US government has failed to
    prove its accusations against the 19 alleged hijackers, the official account on 9/11 must be regarded
    as a lie.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. It's intriguing to speculate just WHERE Jim recruits his guests from. I know he casts a wide net (as an open-minded scholar should) because he even invited a esotericist like me to be a guest recently. (I was honored but had to decline at the time.) Anyway, it seems likely that Dr. Fetzer web-surfed across some of Mr. Masters' theorising about there being "eight planes" involved in 9/11 and was curious enough about that premise to ask its author to come on the show.

    And by the end of the interview a deliciously RARE moment occurred:

    Dr. Fetzer pronounced himself "SPEECHLESS"! ;)

    But seriously folks, the amount of time and legwork Masters claims to have done, in and around Shanksville, plus his own aircraft background, does make his tenuous claims at least worthy of our consideration, even if we (as Fetzer-listening regulars and despite our disputes) probably know a great deal more of the wider context of 9/11, and all its fakery, than does Masters.

    So, what if anything can we learn from his presentation? That there might indeed have been one or more Skywarrior craft involved in the 9/11 deception? That at least some of the "radar blips" for the drills were not "injected" and instead came from actual planes? That not all of the Shanksville witnesses may have been threatened or bought off? That something may have really crashed at the abandoned mine site? (I really doubt that one...) That there really was a plane-debris field that stretched for miles? That at least some of the "passengers" were identified by "tissue DNA"? (That's quite a stretch, too...) That two complete sets of "hijackings" took place simultaneously -- one with actors and the other with real Muslim crazies? (This claim seems even more challenging than the beloved/detested Shacki-ian hypothesis of total-video fakery.)

    Were any of the rest of you (who heard the interview) reminded, as I was, of the very early (in the 9/11 Truth Crusade) web postings of someone called "Carol Valentine"? It was she/he who first promoted the "Theory of the Bumble Planes," attributed to one "Snake Pillssen" -- which rather compellingly did provide an explanation for how the 9/11 radar data could have been compromised, leading to a completely false historical record of who was flying where and in what craft. But that was way, way back, in the days when the planes, passengers, victims... and government-supplied technical info all seemed so much more real than they do today.

    No, I don't think Michael Masters is a paid disinfo shill, and maybe there are some still-missing pieces of the 9/11 puzzle that he can supply for us -- if we can manage to extricate them from what was ultimately (for me, anyway) a somewhat muddled series of assertions and speculations that seems to have been assembled in total ignorance of the media-complicit, massive-fakery evidence (however extensive you believe it to be) that is regularly discussed and argued about here.

    Jim, if you have Masters on again, please ask him to study the victim-and-image-fakery evidence first, and then have him respond as to how it may modify his own conclusions.

    1. Yeah.
      The U.S. Coast Guard report included many photos of A-3 Skywarrior parts at the pentagon. There is a shidt load of pussyfooting around very serious psychopaths and traitors in the military and White House and sometimes the incredulous is there to fill a gap for awhile.

  16. Andy, I am very impressed with your nuanced reasoning here, how you are willing to write out (as I do) many possibilities, just for the record, not to adhere to any for sure until sure.

    I agree that Jim ought to have mentioned the FAKERY side of things first (but he remains reluctant to mention the fakery found, due to some of the "I post any ad hoc idea that comes into my mind" phenomenon which occurs in radical-doubt forums such as LetsRollForums and CluesForum).

    Also, I tend to think there may have been a plane shot down near Shanksville, since debris for miles, very fine, is not something which actually supports the official story. But I am, of course, not sure about that aspect; nor could I be.

    Also, I am relatively sure it is likely that many things were in the air that day and the bunch of patsies/drill participants and even some people who were inconvenient to others, might have been really on a plane, shot down -- or killed somewhere else, instead of all returned home for witness protection.

    There is the report of people getting off a plane and going into a NASA hangar, wasn't it -- at one airport, I forget where -- and the witness was told they were flight 77 or something. So some people likely WERE participants in this, somehow. Maybe they were agents who'd helped, and some inconvenient political persons.

    For sure, nobody can discuss these finer points without understanding the fakery aspects -- as the fakery aspects SHOULD be understood: not that all is fake all the time, but that there were mistakes and real events intersecting with cover-up moments as the day went on and after, and pre-planned items.

  17. Please try to get Michael Masters back on. He has done the best job of working with details of the identities of what actually struck the WTCs and elsewhere that day. His country needs him. Promise him beer. Or a new pair of socks, or SOMETHING. Apologize if necessary. We NEED his information and view point.

    Again, I DOCUMENTED and LIVED IN THE HOME OF( reread this detail until you understand its meaning) one of those involved in the procurement of and first months undertaking of the engineering of the World Trade Centers I and II. If you want to ARGUE THIS POINT, BACK OFF. YOU ARE KILLING THE PATIENT and the U.S, through your uneducated suppositions and sloppy blind cutting.
    Any more details on the other reports of explosive bolts being discovered on site? I heard DIRECTLY FIRST HAND that they were being sought after in 1969 for the WTCs. I also documented the nuke in the basement component as it was being installed in 1969. You want to argue this, go yell at the ocean and spare the rest of us. People are needlessly dying while you self-indulge in your fantasies.

  18. When debating OBF and Shack, why does no one mention Niels Harrit and University of Copenhagen, and more importantly: RJ Lee Group?

    After the towers collapsed Deutsche Bank sued WTC for cleanup costs, alleging that dust from the towers had coated its building's interior. WTC denied the dust resulted from the events of 9/11¸ so DB hired RJ Lee to test over 100,000 samples of dust.

    RJL found that the dust was rife with molten iron spheres (evenly distributed in samples), 150x more than is normal in building dust, which corroborates both Harrit's and USGS. RJL also found evidence of vaporized lead which requires temperatures of 3,180 degrees F. The suit was settled and WTC paid for cleanup.

    All three studies corroborate each other, so arguments about chain of custody, government documents being faked, etc, hold no water. All three sources corroborate each other, there is no history of fraud from the sources, and there is no confluence of interest whatsoever between the sources.

    In my opinion, OBF, (along with Shack and Ace Baker, who tainted the evidence they presented by making themselves look mentally ill via bizarre music videos, fake suicides , and ridiculous song segues in psy opera), is a shill and should not be taken seriously. He is here to inflame people and divide the movement, evidenced by his trolling (taunting posters, laughing at them, etc) here and extremely rude antics (such as playing guitar in the background during the debate with Don Fox and then pretending he didn't realize it was audible).

    Their theories of media fakery are partially correct, but they take it too far and lead the movement into the everything-is-fake -and-there-is-no-reliable-evidence-and-no-way-to-prove-anything trap. There was plenty of fakery, but IMO the buildings were nuked and at least some people died. IMO the no-planes-nuke theory (w possible aid of nanothermite in weakening structure pre-blast) is the only theory currently viable.

    Please make mention of U of Copenhagen and especially RJ Lee Group in any discussion of USGS dust samples. Also, Jim Fetzer- please allow commenting without having to have Google, Facebook, or other corporate account.