The Drones of 9-11
February 8, 2013
Is this United Airlines Flight 175 – or is it a drone?
There is a great deal of disinformation about the terror attacks of 9-11. Disinformation is a tool of the enemy of truth. The purpose of disinformation is to confuse the public about what really happened by injecting red herrings into the discussion in the same way that false, i.e. non-existent, aircraft confused air traffic controllers on 9-11. The false aircraft were inserted into the radar screens as part of a NORAD drill with Canada. Because the drill also involved fake hijackings, during the crucial first minutes of the attacks the air traffic controllers were confused about what was real and what was fake.
In the same way, the 9-11 truthseeker can be as confused as the air traffic controllers because it is difficult to discern the truthful theory from the fictitious. When people are made to choose between competing theories which they cannot prove for themselves they become unsure of what they know and often give up their active quest for the truth. This is, after all, what disinformation is meant to do.
One of the red herrings that has confused the 9-11 discussion is the notion that there were no planes that hit the World Trade Center on 9-11. In spite of a great deal of evidence that planes did hit the towers, this false argument has been pushed by disinformation agents for years. They argue that the images of the planes were either inserted into the video footage or were holographic images projected into space.
The truth is that thousands of people saw the planes hitting the towers and the second plane was photographed by several news networks. Furthermore, several parts of the planes went through the buildings and landed several blocks away. An aircraft engine from the South Tower landed on Murray Street while a piece of landing gear from the North Tower landed on the corner of Rector and West Streets.
Part of an unidentified aircraft engine fell on Murray Street.
Part of the landing gear from the plane that struck the North Tower landed near the corner of West and Rector Streets.
The aircraft parts that landed on the streets of Lower Manhattan are solid evidence of the aircraft that struck the towers. The problem is that the F.B.I. did not examine the individual numbered components of the engine and landing gear in order to prove to the public that the parts came from the aircraft that are said to have hit the towers, namely American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.
There can only be one explanation why the F.B.I. did not use the time-tracked parts of the engine and landing gear to identify the aircraft they came from: they are not from the planes that are said to have hit the towers.
ATTACK OF THE DRONES
So, if the planes that hit the Twin Towers were not Flight 11 and Flight 175, what were they? As Dave von Kleist pointed out in his video In Plane Site,the plane that hit the South Tower looked very much like a Boeing 767 refueling tanker that had a missile pod attached below the fuselage. If this was in fact a specially modified Boeing 767 tanker, it was probably a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) being flown by a ground pilot in the same way that U.S. Predator drones are flown by pilots halfway around the world.
TIME’s recent cover story points out that the Predator drone is “the brainchild of a former Israeli Air Force engineer” but fails to mention that Boeing aircraft can also be flown remotely.
In 1984, NASA engineers flew this Boeing 720 using a ground pilot in a crash test.
If a Boeing 720 could be flown remotely in 1984 the same technology could have been used to fly un-manned 767s into the Twin Towers in 2001.
If the planes that struck the World Trade Center were indeed 767 tanker drones, the questions that need to be answered are:
Who could have made them and where were they made?
Who flew them and where were they being flown from?
Where were they launched from on 9-11?
As I point out in “The Planes of 9-11”, the second chapter of Solving 9-11, the Israeli military had a company with facilities in the United States for converting 767 tanker aircraft. The Israelis also had advanced drone technology they had originally gotten from the United States:
After the Vietnam War, the United States reduced spending on RPAs [Remotely Piloted Aircraft] and UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] and defense in general. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were practically no major Air Force RPA or UAV programs. A turning point came in the early 1980s as Israel successfully deployed a number of different unmanned systems that had been developed in the 1970s. The watershed moment came in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon in 1982. In a carefully planned and coordinated operation, Israeli forces used unmanned systems to provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and to activate Syrian air defense systems, allowing manned aircraft and surface-to-surface missiles to destroy the air defenses.
After the Bekaa Valley campaign, the United States began to purchase Israeli unmanned systems, such as the Pioneer, and to develop new systems.
“Israel is one of the first states to develop and use remotely piloted vehicles and unmanned aerial vehicles,” according to the authors of The Diffusion of Military Technology and Ideas(Stanford University Press, 2003). ”Israeli firms remain the world leaders in this technology…”
While we know that the Israelis had the capability to produce 767 tanker drones in the United States in 2001, so did NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense. The Israelis, however, are the more likely culprits because the Israelis and their Zionist supporters are found at every crucial point of the 9-11 operation and subsequent cover-up. The consistency of Israeli involvement in 9-11 strongly suggests that it was an Israeli-engineered false-flag terror operation.
Furthermore, in the unlikely scenario that the 767 drones were made and flown by Americans, it would be very hard to maintain operational secrecy. The evidence indicates that the terror attacks of 9-11 were not an “inside job” but rather a well-planned terror operation carried out by foreigners that had gotten inside the American system.
While the footprints of the Israelis are all over 9-11 they are not the only foreigners who are involved. British and Canadians are also deeply involved in the events of 9-11. British engineering companies AMEC and Bovis Lend Lease were key players in the clean up effort at the World Trade Center and AMEC was the contractor who had renovated the section of the Pentagon that was hit on 9-11.
CANADIAN COMMANDERS AT NORAD
While the NORAD war games confused the air traffic controllers on 9-11, deep under Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado the NORAD commanders on 9-11 were both Canadians, as I pointed out in my 2003 article “Cover-Up: The 9-11 Commission”:
However, rather than getting approval from Rumsfeld, two Canadian officers, serving as NORAD directors on the morning of 9-11, approved the fighters’ launch according to the Aviation Week article. Capt. Michael H. Jellinek, a British-born Canadian officer was serving as NORAD command director and another Canadian, Maj. Gen. Eric A. Findley was NORAD’s director of operations. Findley, positioned at NORAD headquarters in Colorado’s Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station for the Vigilant Guardian exercise “quickly approved the fighters’ launch,” according to the article. While NORAD has been faulted for its failures on 9-11, it should be noted that it was the Canadian officer Jellinek who was NORAD’s “director of plans, requirements and readiness” on Sept. 11, 2001.
The British-born Canadian Jew Michael Jellinek was commanding NORAD operations in Cheyenne Mountain on 9-11. Jellinek’s father Erich, from Vienna, wound up fighting with the British in World War II and serving on the War Crimes Investigative Division.
There are two possible answers to the question about where the 767 drones were launched from on 9-11. Either they were launched from a secret location in the northeastern section of the United States or they flew in from a Canadian base, perhaps one of the defunct bases that was reactivated for the mission. This is not to say that this was a Canadian-designed attack on the United States but that the territory of Canada was used by the real terrorists of 9-11.
This map shows the active Canadian bases along the border of New York and New England. There are also many defunct bases that are not shown.
Here it needs to be noted that Canada is not a independent republic like the United States. Canada is a sovereign state ruled by the Queen of England. The Canadian defense department, for example, is headed by a Deputy Minister of National Defense, who is appointed by the Queen. This is the same queen who gave awards to Commanders Jellinek and Findley for their actions on 9-11. While their actions did nothing to mitigate the horror of 9-11, Findley and Jellinek were given awards by the Queen of England. How much sense does that make? Were they rewarded for allowing the attacks to succeed?
To put this into its proper historical context one needs to remember that 200 years ago the United States and Britain were at war and that British Canada was a big part of the fight. It was during the war of 1812-1814 that British forces burned down the U.S. Capitol. Canada remained under the British crown as it is today. The British elite have never been big supporters of American independence as the snide comments from Piers Morgan about the U.S. Constitution reveal.
The symbol of 1 Wing HQ based in Kingston, Ontario, shows that Canadian forces are under the British Crown. The 1 Wing base at Kingston is the closest to New York City, a mere 274 miles (442 km) by plane.
In doing research for an article about the Canadian connection to 9-11, I tried to contact Jellinek and Findley. Jellinek is the son of a Jew from Vienna named Erich Jellinek who wound up fighting with the British in World War II. I was not able to reach Jellinek for this article but did get through to Eric Findley in Wilmot, Nova Scotia. He said that I caught him “flat-footed” when I got him on the phone so I offered to send him questions by email, which he agreed to. The following is our email exchange:
From: Christopher Bollyn
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Subject: Note from Bollyn
Dear Mr. Findley,
I am an American journalist working on an article about the Canadian connection to 9-11. I would like to ask you a few questions about your role as director of combat operations at NORAD on 9-11. I will send them to you tomorrow.
From: Christopher Bollyn
To: Eric Findley
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Subject: Questions from Bollyn
Dear Mr. Findley,
There are many questions about what happened on 9-11 and what role the war games and drills being played had on the failure to intercept the attack planes.
As director of combat operations, you might be able to shed some light on these matters.
Was your role at NORAD on 9-11 the first time you had played such a high-level role in a NORAD exercise?
In retrospect, was there anything that you could have done differently that might have changed the outcome? For example, is there anything you might have done that could have hastened the military response and facilitated an interception by fighter aircraft? Why did fighter aircraft fail to intercept any of the attacking planes?
Was the plane said to be Flight 93 shot down over Shanksville?
Do you think the Vigilant Guardian drill and/or other exercises confused the scene and prevented a quick and effective response by the U.S. and/or Canadian aircraft?
Do you think that the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers may have been remote controlled 767 drones that were painted to look like civilian aircraft?
Were Canadian military bases actively involved in the NORAD drills on 9-11?
Thank you for your consideration of these questions.
From: Christopher Bollyn
To: Eric Findley
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2013
Subject: Question from Bollyn
Dear Mr. Findley,
I hope you received my first email. My questions are for an article about the Canadian connection to 9-11.
Could you tell me who was the Deputy Minister of National Defence in Canada when you served during the NORAD drill on September 11, 2001? Was it Jim Judd? To whom did you report to?
If the planes that attacked the Twin Towers were drone aircraft (RPA), which is certainly a possible explanation given the available evidence, then the key question to be answered is: where were they launched from and who prepared them?
If the planes were, in fact, 767 RPA aircraft, there are really only two possibilities where they could have come from: either the drones were prepared and launched in the United States or they were launched from a base/airport in Canada. New York and New England have long borders with Canada, after all.
Would you agree that if the attack planes were RPA Boeing aircraft drones that they could have been launched from Canada? This is not to say that they were drones or that they were launched from Canada, but if they were drones, is it not possible that they originated in Canada?
Thank you for your consideration of these sticky questions, but they are questions that have to be answered.
Findley responded on February 7:
Re: Question from Bollyn
From: Eric Findley
I have reviewed the questions from this and a previous e-mail. I am not answering these questions. Please do not contact me by any means.
Eric Findley doesn’t want to talk about his role at NORAD on 9-11.
Eric Findley may not want to talk to me about his actions on 9-11 and how the NORAD drill confused air traffic controllers and delayed the military response to the attacks, but he cannot simply retire to Nova Scotia and remain silent. Three thousand people died on 9-11 and the NORAD drill and its commanders clearly played a crucial role in the events of that day. Findley, Jellinek, and others were involved in military operations that facilitated the terror attacks of 9-11 and they have an obligation to the victims and their families, and to history, to explain what they did, and what they should have done to thwart the attacks.
Note: Due to the transfer of information from the original website to this updated format, some article post dates may differ from the date they were originally published. However, most articles contain the actual publish date at the top of the article.