9/11: 20 Years Since, Many Unanswered Questions

A year ago, I wrote my commentary and insights on the horrific September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center(WTC) buildings in New York City(NYC), the plane crash into the Pentagon, the crash landing of United 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and the controlled demolition of WTC building 7. The post from last year can be found here. This post will add some extra insights that I’ve since learned and confirmed, as well as forecasts for whether the answers to some critical and still unanswered questions will ever get answered, to even the smallest possible degree.

First of all, I must give immeasurably immense credit and thanks to Massimo Mazzucco for his documentary film 9/11 The New Pearl Harbor. I highly recommend every single human being watch Mazzucco’s nearly five-hour film at least once, as the film analyzes the official narrative by the 9/11 Commission, explains why many of its main positions are problematic and sometimes impossible, and what Mazzucco, and many others credited in the film, believe truly happened on September 11th, 2001.

The Twin Towers of the WTC

As Mazzucco, in addition to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth(A&E911) argue, the two buildings could not have been brought down by a gravitational collapse alone, as the official narrative by the 9/11 Commission states. Furthermore, the jet fuel could not have sufficiently weakened anywhere close to the entire robust steel structure of the towers. What really brought the towers down was a controlled demolition, enabled by explosives planted inside the building. Especially considering the two towers fell at nearly free-fall speed, only a controlled demolition is known by the engineering community to cause such a collapse. Not only did many civilians, like long-tenured WTC janitor William Rodriguez, hear explosions both during and after the plane crash, so too did several firefighters and police officers, the latter of which would know how to accurately identify explosions better than most people. Additionally, squibs were observed on several stories of the building that were far away from the plane’s initial collision impact. Plus, gravity only works vertically, not laterally, so gravity alone cannot account for the lateral ejections of dust, concrete, and even metal; bomb-like explosions, however, can most credibly explain those lateral ejections. Also, the antenna on the roof of the tower starts falling before the rest of the building, mainly due to the interior explosions of the inner core which removed any bottom support for the antenna at the top. Finally, after the buildings collapsed, explosions were still heard, the entire building was pulverized, no human remains were recovered, many casualties didn’t even have any recoverable DNA samples, and the temperature at ground zero was extremely hot for several months; there is no way a pure gravitational collapse, as the 9/11 Commission insists is the cause of the collapse, could produce such bizarre consequences. To the naysayers, while nobody can really prove that bombs, to cause the explosions, were indeed planted inside the towers, the gravitational collapse narrative argued by the 9/11 Commission can certainly be disproven, as Mazzucco, A&E911, and many others have done. Also to those who doubt the presence and usage of explosives in the two TWC towers and demand more proof, especially the convincing kind of proof, then-President George W. Bush admitted that explosives were used. More on this in the “Will We Ever Get Answers” section at the bottom.

Lastly, the planes that allegedly hit the towers flew at a velocity of 500 miles per hour(mph), according to the 9/11 Commission Report. This is physically impossible as commercial jets, like the ones that we are told hit the two towers, cannot fly at 500 mph at sea-level altitude; this exceeds the VMO of commercial jets, which would cause the structural integrity of the planes to weaken, which would likely make the wind tear of the wings before the jet could collide into the towers. What then hit the towers, if not commercial jets? Remote controlled drones hit the towers. In Mazzucco’s film, he shows clips of some local news station reporters pointing out how the aircrafts which hit the towers were rather large, especially compared to the typical size of commercial jets, and appeared to maybe be drones, in the opinions of the reporters at the time. Although this has not, and most likely cannot, be proven, it would fall within the realm of possibility, unlike the official narrative of commercial jets colliding into the towers. More on this in the “Will We Ever Get Answers” section at the bottom.

WTC Building 7

NIST, the National Institute of Science and Technology, used millions of dollars of taxpayer money to try to prove that an office fire caused the near free-fall speed collapse of WTC Building 7. However, just like in the case of the Twin Towers, Mazzucco and A&E911 prove that an office fire can’t cause such a collapse. Mazzucco and A&E911 prove that WTC Building 7 was also caused by a controlled demolition. Many people, especially then New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, had advanced knowledge of the impending collapse. Giuliani failed to alert the public of the impending demolition, and so the New York Police Department(NYPD), as well as the New York Fire Department(NYFD), despise him for it, and rightfully so. It’s no wonder Giuliani’s term as mayor didn’t last beyond 2001. Furthermore, if NIST is correct that an office fire caused WTC 7 to collapse at nearly free-fall speed, then building codes should’ve been severely overhauled, and a halt to new tower construction should have been implemented; none of those things, or anything related to them, have since ever occurred.

Pentagon

The 9/11 Commission states that only a commercial jet plane crashed into the Pentagon. First of all, it’s very hard to fly a plane, especially a commercial jet, with such high velocity and smooth, controlled maneuvers at low, ground-level, altitude. Just like in the case of the planes that hit the two towers, the jet which hit the Pentagon was most likely some sort of remote controlled drone. Second, as Mazzucco explains in his film, the jet engines, which are not far from indestructible, should’ve remained intact after the crash. However, the engines were nowhere to be found in the wreckage, as was hardly any of the plane. As Mazzucco, and I, argue, some explosive had to be used as well – that explosive was most likely a missile attached to the jet, which would especially make sense if the jet that hit the Pentagon was some kind of drone, like a larger military aircraft, which, unlike commercial jets, has the ability to make the maneuvers that occurred on 9/11. Even 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer accidentally let it slip that “one of our fortresses(meaning the Pentagon) pried open by a missile”, although Roemer “corrects” his faux pas by saying the word airplane after the word missile. Yes, a jet certainly collided into the building, but a missile was fired right before the plane’s impact; this would explain how the engines and most other plane wreckage was irrecoverable, because they were destroyed by the missile explosion. Furthermore, in the one and only security footage released to the public, a trail of white smoke, very much resembling the kind of rear smoke a missile leaves after launch, can be seen. Suspiciously, the jet itself is missing in the footage, which as Mazzucco explains, is most likely due to some kind of photoshop alteration. Furthermore, the 85 video tapes filmed by citizens in the area at the time were confiscated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI); to this day, none of those films have been released, despite numerous Freedom of Information Act(FOIA) requests for access to those tapes. More on this in the “Will We Ever Get Answers” section at the bottom. Another suspicious aspect is the failure of the U.S. defense system to shoot down the plane, so that it couldn’t have crashed. First of all, the plane was initially heading towards the White House. President Bush was absent from the White House at the time, but then-Vice President Dick Cheney was there, and was escorted by Secret Service to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center(PEOC) chamber in the basement. It is critical to understand that the airspace above and around the White House is known as Prohibited Area 56. This essentially means that any unapproved aircraft, such as the plane that initially went towards the White House and later swerved to eventually crash into the Pentagon, will be shot down, especially considering that the roof of the White House has missiles and personnel ready to take such defensive actions. Furthermore, as Mazzucco explains, many personnel in the overall U.S. defense organization knew the plane was bound for the White House, even as far as 50 miles out, giving plenty of time to effectively shoot down the plane before it could crash into anything. However, no shootdown order was executed, and nobody was fired for incompetence in the critical emergency defense, violating protocol. Also then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta recalls former Vice President Dick Cheney telephoning a man who asked Cheney “Do the orders still stand?”. As Mineta explains, Cheney said “of course they still stand”. Who was Cheney talking to, many have asked? The answer is Cheney’s then military aide, Douglas Cochrane. Suspiciously, the 9/11 Commission admits to have interviewed Cochrane, but his interview remains classified and unavailable to public access, because of “national security reasons”, even two decades after the events. Independent researchers have contacted Cochrane to give him a chance to confirm or invalidate the suspicions of the researchers as to whether Cheney’s order to Cochrane was an order to avoid shooting the plane which eventually crashed into the Pentagon, contrary to the official narrative that Cheney’s order to Cochrane was actually a shootdown order. Cochrane refused to be interviewed by independent researchers, but confirmed he was the one who asked Cheney if the orders still stood; Cochrane insists that the 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative source of truth, refusing to add anything further on the record. Why is he so hesitant to be interview by any type of investigative researcher or journalist? More on this in the “Will We Ever Get Answers” section at the bottom.

United 93 – Absence of Jet Wreckage & Crater Size Way Too Small For a Commercial Jet

The crater of the alleged crash of United 93 at Shanksville, PA is very small, in fact, too small for a jet of that size. As Mazzucco compares it to crashes of other planes, such as the one of the PanAm 103 flight crash in Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, the United 93 crash crater is much, much smaller, which makes no sense. Many debunkers and other believers of the official narrative and 9/11 Commission Report argue that the plane went entirely underground, and that the terrain essentially swallowed the whole jet. This argument is so unlikely that it’s almost impossible; the terrain in Shanksville, Pennsylvania is hard rural soil, not swampy wet land. Furthermore, the FBI has stated that it sequestered the jet wreckage, and, much like the 85 private video tapes of the jet crash into the Pentagon, has still never shown any of United 93’s wreckage. This naturally begs the question; where did United 93 truly go then? This question, along with the considerations described above, incline many to believe that the United 93 jet went into NASA Glenn Hangar. More on that in the next section.

Impossible and Suspicious Phone Calls

As Mazzucco explains, it is impossible for any cell phone calls to have been made by the passengers of United 93. Especially in 2001, cell phones at that altitude travelling at such high velocities as jets generally fly, will not work. Furthermore, the U.S. Government did not release any of the alleged phone recordings until several years after that fateful day. Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as those supporting it who are commonly known as debunkers, as Mazzucco refers to them in his film, allege that only two total cell phone calls were made. Both of these alleged cell phone calls were by passengers on the United 93 flight. One of the passengers is Edward Felt, whose alleged cell phone call recording has still not been released. The other alleged cell phone call is by former United Airlines flight attendant CeeCee Lyles, and the recording has been released. Suspiciously and astonishingly, the recording of Lyles’ alleged cell phone call has no background noise that one would normally expect in calls made while in-flight. At the end of Lyles’ call, she can be heard whispering something that sounds like “It’s a frame”, or “It’s a fake”. It will most likely never be known what she truly mumbled at the end of her recorded call, but it can be known and proven that those calls allegedly made could not have been made while in air traveling at high jet-speed velocities. Her call had to have been staged somewhere on the ground, or certainly not at altitudes exceeding a few thousand feet. In fact, there are eyewitnesses in Cleveland, OH that claim to have seen United 93 taken into the NASA Glenn Hangar in Cleveland, OH. At the time of this writing, many of the reports and stories covering these observations by eyewitnesses are archived and hard to obtain. This one here, an article by investigative journalist James Renner, who makes the case that the sequestering of United 93 into NASA Glenn Hangar is a rumor and not a fact, presents both evidence for and against the sequestering of the jet. As Renner mentions, Michael White, the mayor of Cleveland, OH at the time, told the press that he saw United 93 land in Cleveland Hopkins Airport(CLE). The Associated Press mentions that United Airlines identified that plane which landed in CLE as United 93. Mayor White has since not taken any interviews, by the mainstream or alternative, non-corporate, press, to confirm or deny his observation of United 93 landing in CLE; he must be afraid to admit that he saw evidence that totally contradicts and disproves the 9/11 Commission report that United 93 crashed in Shanksville, PA. As Renner’s article also explains, only former Mayor White’s staff takes questions on mayor White’s behalf, and of course, White’s staff deny that United 93 landed in CLE, in order to promote the official narrative that United 93 crashed in Shanksville, PA. United Airlines also couldn’t be reached for any further comment on United 93’s alleged landing in CLE. As Renner later explains, in 2006 investigative reporter Jason Bermas asked an airport employee in CLE who worked on 9/11 what she saw; she confirmed that she saw two jets land at CLE. One of the jets was Delta 1989, and the other one was the jet taken into NASA Glenn hangar, as Bermas’ interviewee confirmed she saw the jet go into the hangar. However, she denies that the jet taken into NASA Glenn was United 93 Therefore, it is beyond dispute that a jet was for sure taken into the NASA Glenn Hanger on September 11, 2001. What is still in dispute is which jet it was. Renner points out that The Web site 911review.org cites real articles from the Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal and USA Today to establish these facts:

A plane landed in Cleveland at 10:10 a.m.

Delta 1989 landed here at 10:45 a.m., and its 69 passengers and nine crew members were loaded onto buses and taken to Federal Aviation Administration headquarters at Hopkins.

At 11:15 a.m., 200 passengers from the other plane were taken to NASA Glenn, whose employees had already evacuated, to be interviewed by FBI agents. (While United 93 is known to have carried 37 passengers and seven crew members, conspiracy theorists are quick to point out that if the passengers and crew of all four flights that crashed on 9/11 had been consolidated at some secret location, the number would be right about 200.)

Bloggers claims that eyewitnesses saw civilians being loaded onto military bus ses at NASA Glenn. They were whisked away to some undisclosed location, never to be seen again.

The FAA refused Free Times’ repeated requests for interviews. The media department at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport stopped returning our calls when we asked to speak with the safety director who worked at the airport on 9/11.

The point made that if all four jets involved in the 9/11 attacks went into NASA Glenn Hanger, the 200 passengers reported would make sense is erroneous. Only United 93 went into NASA Glenn Hangar, not the other three jets involved in the 9/11 attacks. While the media did report that 200 passengers went into the hangar, the United 93 jet has a capacity of 182 passengers, right under 200 passengers. The media probably and reasonably assumed that United 93 was full, or nearly full, and rounded the jet’s capacity rather than reporting the precise capacity of 182 passengers. Why the lack of precision? Most likely, this is due to the immense amount of distress and feelings of insecurity that day which, among other natural emotions that day, suppressed the natural inclination to be precise.

It’s also too bad that the FAA(Federal Aviation Administration) and CLE have refused to be interviewed, thereby passing on the chance to dispel any doubts and suspicions of which jet was forcibly taken into NASA Glenn Hangar.

One alternative explanation is offered by Renner, who explains that Vernon “Bill” Wessel, the director of safety and mission assurance for NASA, was employed and based in NASA Glenn in Cleveland, OH on September 11th, 2001. Wessel ordered employees to evacuate NASA Glenn, and later stated that a KC-135, a jet used by astronauts to simulate zero-gravity exercises, “had to come back to the hangar”. Here is where the story gets extremely interesting and suspicious; Renner explains that he visited the NASA Glenn Hangar, and intended to take pictures of the hangar, to see if it is indeed United 93 that was forcibly quarantined there. When Renner came close to the NASA Glenn hangar door and tried to take pictures, Renner recounts a security guard approaching him. Renner states that the guard was rubbing his gun, intimidating Renner to cease and desist. Surprised, Renner pointed out and told the guard that Laurie Ruchel, the media relations employee for NASA who escorted Renner during his visit to NASA Glenn Hangar, gave him permission to take the photos. The security guard then allowed Renner to leave NASA Glenn hangar, of course, without taking pictures. Why would security thwart Renner from taking pictures of NASA Glenn hangar if, as Wessel stated, only a KC-135 jet was what was placed there, rather than United 93? If only an uncontroversial KC-135 was stationed there, why not let Renner take pictures of it, and thereby dispel any doubts and suspicions that United 93 was sequestered into that hangar? It doesn’t make sense. What’s especially more suspicious is that Renner himself, despite getting denied the chance to photograph NASA Glenn hangar, doesn’t believe that United 93, or anything of significance, is being hidden and covered up in NASA Glenn hangar, and that NASA and the U.S. Government aren’t hiding anything in that hangar; why? Has Renner, a credible investigative journalist who specializes in cold case murders, been warned and intimidated against investigating further and promoting any research supporting the belief that United 93 was sequestered into NASA Glenn hangar, which eyewitnesses have observed and reported? Another important fact is that the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) has not yet followed through on its agreement to release the audio recordings of conversations between the United 93 pilot, the FAA, and other aviation-related personnel, in the final moments preceding the alleged ill-fated crash. 20 years later, what is the FAA waiting for to finally release those subpoenaed audio recordings? One radio transmission between the United 93 pilot and the FAA did get leaked and it mentions a bomb on the plane that went off; an eyewitness also claims to have seen the plane descend. Additionally, the pilot of American Airlines flight 1060, which was flying in the air space vicinity of United 93’s flight path at the time, told Air Traffic Control(ATC) that he saw a black-colored puff of smoke, indicating an explosive in the air, such as what most likely was the bomb on the United 93 jet at the time. There was also luggage and other pieces of passenger belongings found on the ground in a several-mile radius from CLE, most likely from United 93 following the bomb explosion.

Below is the excerpt of the radio communications that Untied 93, American 1060, and private jet Executive 956 had with Cleveland ATC – I will bold the parts indicating and proving the presence of bombs on the United 93 jet:

Executive 956 [private jet]: Just answering your call. We could year that, er, yelling too.

Cleveland Center: OK, thank you, were just trying to figure out what�s going on.

United 93: [unintelligible] this is captain, please sit down, remain sitting, we have a bomb on board. [Sometimes pilots key the wrong button. In this case the Captain thinks he is broadcasting to the passengers on intercom but he is pressing the radio transmit button�shows he is under severe stress.]

Cleveland Center: Uh, calling Cleveland Center, you�re unreadable, say again slowly.

Executive 956: [unintelligible] was reasonable, sounded like someone said they had a bomb on board.

Cleveland: That’s what we thought, we just, er, we didn’t get it clear. United ninety-three calling. United ninety-three, understand you have a bomb on board, go ahead. Executive nine fifty-six, did you understand that transmission?

Executive 956: Affirmative. He said there was a bomb on board.

[Later]Cleveland Center (2): [Voice changed to female, apparently second Cleveland controller.] Do you see any, ah, activity on your right side, smoke or anything like that?

American 1060: Negative. We’re searching. Yeah, we do have a smoke puff now at about, er, oh probably two o’clock. There appears to be just a spire up like a puff of black smoke. [Indicates evidence of explosion in the air.] [End of ATC excerpt.]

While it hasn’t been definitively proven that United 93 was forced to land and be quarantined in the NASA Glenn Hangar, logically and scientifically speaking, those alleged cell phone calls that the 9/11 Commission Report says were made above 10,000 feet in altitude while travelling at jet speed, could not have been made; that latter point can be proven, as Mazzucco has done. Of course, to dispel suspicions by the people who suspect the sequestration of United 93 and the other three commercial jets involved in 9/11, the FAA and United Airlines can agree to be interviewed by independent investigative researchers, and both organizations should, but they refuse to do so. It would stand to reason that the FAA and United Airlines wouldn’t have a problem being interviewed unless they had something damning to hide, like the sequestration of United 93 into the NASA Glenn Hangar. Perhaps, the NASA Glenn Hangar is is where CeeCee Lyles made her staged and scripted phone call, rather than in the air.

Also, comparing the phone calls of other passengers to the phone calls from those who lost their lives in the WTC towers is especially critical. Take Betty Ong, a flight attendant on the ill-fated American Airlines Flight 11. In her recorded call, there isn’t an audibly or detectibly high amount of distress in her voice that one would expect from someone getting hijacked in plane. Especially when Ong describes someone getting stabbed, and saying “I can’t breathe”, the voice and demeaner don’t sound super distressed, contrary to expectations. Ong then makes comments that seem strange, such as “we’re up in the air”, which is already needless to say, especially by a flight attendant, in a plane hijacking situation. Furthermore, Ong’s call lasted over 25 minutes, although the recording could only capture the first four minutes. Could Ong, or any hostage, truly safely and effectively make a phone call, especially from a cell phone at that altitude and velocity, for that long, especially to avoid getting caught by the hijackers, and potentially killed by them? This does not seem likely, at all really. Much like CeeCee Lyles, it sounds like Betty Ong was also forced to make a staged, and very likely also a scripted, phone call.

Now compare Ong’s call, especially her voice tone, to the more distressed voice tones of those who couldn’t escape the WTC Tower collapse. Like Ong, those trapped in the collapsing WTC towers were also under extreme distress and were facing imminent death. In this one by Melissa Doi, the distress in Doi’s voice can clearly be sensed; this is the kind of distress one would expect to hear. You can also hear the same high level of distress as Doi in this recorded call by Kevin Michael Cosgrove who, like Doi, also lost his life from being trapped inside the collapsing WTC towers. Compared to Doi’s and Cosgrove’s voices, Ong’s voice doesn’t exude nearly the same amount of palpable distress, which is very unexpected, and hasn’t been satisfactorily explained yet, unless, unlike Cosgrove and Doi’s situation, Ong was forced to stage her call and read from a script.

Low Occupancy Manifests, Numerous No-Shows, History’s Biggest Coincidence, or Is It?

As Shoestring 9/11 explains, out of all the four jets involved in the 9/11 attacks, over 350 passengers cancelled their flights or didn’t show up to their flights. The report is here. The report is very lengthy, as it details how all those four jets had abnormally very low occupancy rates, and that many high-profile celebrities like Seth MacFarlane, famous for the popular “Family Guy” cartoon series, actor Mark Wahlberg, and veteran actor and director Robert Redford, were among those who very fortunately and thankfully did not board any of those four flights, although they had all originally bought tickets for those flights. Among other reasons to explain the cancellations and no-shows are cancelled business meetings, purposeful purchases of round-trip tickets without ever intending to make the return trip because round-trop tickets were cheaper than their one-way counterparts, and other general changes of plans. However, was such a large amount of cancellations and no-shows truly and totally coincidental; did nobody truly have advanced knowledge of the eventual hijackings? If the answer is yes, then those cancellations and no-shows constitute very arguably the biggest coincidence in all of human history. However, if even one person had advanced knowledge of the ill-fated flights, then that means there was a conspiracy involved in coordinating these events, one that would be too sophisticated and complex for the alleged Middle Eastern terrorists to do. Let’s now analyze and calculate the probability that at least one person had advanced knowledge of the ill-fated flights.

Out of all four flights involved in 9/11, there were a total of 452 passengers who bought flight tickets but didn’t show up for their flights. Let’s say each of those individuals had only a very conservative 1% chance of knowing of the tragic and eventual fate of the flights. A 1% chance of pre-knowledge, which would thereby prove conspiracy rather than accident or coincidence, gives a tremendous amount of benefit to doubts of conspiracy. Using the binomial probability calculation, the probability that AT LEAST one passenger had pre-knowledge of the ill fated flights is essentially 94%. To calculate this 94% in Microsoft Excel, first of all, use the BINOM.DIST formula, and enter the following four numbers in order: (1,451,0.01,TRUE), which yields 6%. This 6% represents the probability that nobody knew of the tragic fates of the flights on 9/11. To get the probability that at least one person knew that the flights would crash, subtract 100% from the previously calculated 6% to get 94%, which is the probability that at least one of the no-show passengers knew the flights would tragically crash. This means, that even with a tremendous benefit of the doubt, it is quite likely that somebody, at least one individual, knew that the flights would crash on 9/11. Therefore, by the probability calculation that was just described, it’s far more likely than not that 9/11 was indeed a conspiracy, rather than a tragic accident that nobody knew about in advance. To put this into even further perspective, if the probability of any one of those individual no-show passengers having advanced knowledge of the plane crashes was 2%, then the probability that at least one of those passengers definitely knew of the eventual plane crashes goes all the way up to 100%, rather than just 94% as just explained and calculated.

The Curious Case of the SURVIVING Hijackers

As Joel Skousen, whose World Affairs Brief(WAB) is a recommended source on this blog, states in the September 15, 2017 edition of the WAB, some of the ALLEGED hijackers in the 9/11 attacks didn’t die on that day, and lived long beyond that date. Therefore, like many critical details of the 9/11 investigation, the deaths of the hijackers has been falsified. The natural two-part question then becomes, who were the true hijackers, and why is the U.S. government lying about the true identity of arguably the biggest terrorists in U.S. history? More on this in the “Will We Ever Get Answers” section at the bottom. It is also imperative to understand that according to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, none of the 19 ALLEGED hijackers were skilled enough pilots to control commercial jets, especially to do any of the border-line impossible maneuvers that the 9/11 Commission Report insists they did.

Will We Ever Get Answers?

At this point, 20 years later, the full truth has still not been released by any official or authoritative source, such as the FBI. The arguments, such as those in Mazzucco’s film, disproving the possibility of the 9/11 Commission Report and official narratives have not been effectively refuted. With so many years gone by, one thing many are wondering, and rightfully so, is “Will anyone involved in the cover-up ever speak up?”. This section will make a forecast about that. In order of highest to lowest probability, I’ll explain what has a chance of ever being revealed and known to the public.

–The 85 private video tapes confiscated by the FBI of the plane crash into the Pentagon. At some point, I think the FBI will release some of those 85 types. I certainly don’t expect all of them to be released, and I think only a small fraction of them will ever be released. That being said, it doesn’t seem likely that whatever tapes are released WON’T be edited in some way. After all, if the one and only publicly available security footage from the Pentagon building itself was photoshopped, it certainly stands to reason that the eventually additionally released tape(s) will be edited in some way to not reveal too much, but enough to potentially appease those demanding the truth. In similar fashion, I predict that the released tapes will selectively edit and remove anything resembling the missile on the jet. The FBI will use the doctored tape(s) to say something like “see, there is no cover-up or conspiracy, we’re revealing the tapes now, now that we deem national security isn’t threatened by its release; you see, here you go”

–Douglas Cochrane’s interview by the 9/11 Commission. Just like the video tapes, and even the alleged cell phone recordings from United 93, the public will eventually be allowed to access this secret interview. However, much like the only available video recording of the plane crash into the Pentagon, this release will be edited in some way. In fact, I think any part indicating Cheney’s order to avoid shooting down the plane will be removed from the eventually released recording. Again, this will be enough, at least from the point of view of the U.S. government, to appease those demanding the truth and revelation of all critical information, like Cochrane’s still covered-up interview. It’ll be enough for the U.S. government to say something like “see, there is no cover-up, we’re releasing the interview to you now, now that we deem national security isn’t threatened by its release, you see, here you go”. One might wonder if Cochrane himself will ever speak up; the answer is no. It would be in Cochrane’s best interest of self-preservation to just let the U.S. Government release his interview when they deem fit, as it would deflect any risk, unwanted attention, and responsibility from Cochrane. Unlike E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession to his son of his participation, as a lower-level CIA agent in the assassination of then-president John F. Kennedy(JFK), Cochrane doesn’t come off as shamelessly proud of his involvement in the cover-up and conspiracy, unlike Hunt, whose son admitted that E. Howard Hunt was proud of his participation in JFK’s murder.

–Any more of the subpoenaed audio recordings between United 93’s pilot & ATC. This will certainly not happen because one recording was already leaked, without the permission of the FAA. Already, as explained above, the recording contains damning details of a bomb onboard United 93, and so the FAA, and the other parties involved in the orchestration of all the 9/11 events, would have nothing to gain from releasing any more recordings, and would therefore have no desire to release any further recordings, and therefore will never release any more of these recordings.

–Whistleblowers on those who knew about the explosives planted in the WTC Twin Towers. This is not too likely, and I forecast that nobody will ever reveal and confirm the planting of the explosives inside the two buildings. Despite all the arguments presented by Mazzucco, myself, A&E911 and many, many others, nobody will ever be able to show physical proof, such as images or video recordings, of the installation of the bombs inside the buildings. Even if those who planted the bombs, or organized the planting of bombs, come clean about it, they won’t be able to show conclusive and/or physical evidence. There will be no physical proof to back up their revelatory and truthful words. Without such evidence, the whistleblower(s) wouldn’t come off as credible, and would likely be ridiculed, at the very least; as such, knowing whistleblowers would have very little to no incentive to reveal the truth. Therefore, I don’t expect any such whistleblowers who know the truth to ever reveal the truth of this matter.

–Whistleblowers on those who knew about the missile that hit the Pentagon, This will also not happen, and I forecast that nobody will ever reveal and confirm the missile on that plane. Just like I predict the FBI’s release of confiscated video tapes won’t reveal the missile on the jet, no whistleblower will ever be allowed to show any physical evidence of the missile. For anyone to have the courage, let alone the conscience, to reveal the truth, that person would need to have some physical evidence showing the presence of the missile prior to impact. There will be no physical proof to back up their revelatory and truthful words. Without such evidence, the whistleblower wouldn’t come off as credible, and would likely be ridiculed, at the very least; as such, knowing whistleblowers would have very little to no incentive to reveal the truth. Therefore, I don’t expect any such whistleblowers who know the truth to ever reveal the truth of this matter.

–Whistleblowers on those who knew about the remote controlled drone aircrafts. For similar reasons stated regarding the missile which hit the Pentagon, this too will never be revealed. Just like I predict the FBI’s release of confiscated video tapes won’t reveal the missile on the jet, no whistleblower will ever be allowed to show any physical evidence of remote controlled drone aircrafts which hit the Pentagon and the two WTC towers. For anyone to have the courage, let alone the conscience, to reveal the truth, that person would need to have some physical evidence, which might not even be possible to produce, even for any potential whistleblowers with a conscience or the right amount of courage. There will be no physical proof to back up their revelatory and truthful words. Without such evidence, the whistleblower wouldn’t come off as credible, and would likely be ridiculed, at the very least; as such, knowing whistleblowers would have very little to no incentive to reveal the truth. Therefore, I don’t expect any such whistleblowers who know the truth to ever reveal the truth of this matter.

–Whistleblowers on those who know where American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 175 truly landed. Along with United 93, these are the other three airplanes that got hijacked on 9/11. Unfortunately, no records, analysis, or observations regarding the locations of these other flights has ever come to light, at least nowhere close to the level pertaining to the case of where United 93 truly ended up on September 11th, 2001. The other three jets could’ve been landed anywhere remote and out of sight, to which there are so many possibilities. Perhaps, like United 93, the other three flights were forced to go into other hangars. This is all speculation, and forever will be, because, as I forecast, no knowing whistleblowers will ever reveal the true location of where the other three jets landed. Not only do such whistleblowers with enough of a conscience or courage not exist, it also wouldn’t be easy enough to show proof of where those other three jets landed.

–Whistleblowers on those who know the true identity of the hijackers. There is no way this will ever happen. It’s already too embarrassing for the 9/11 Commission, the FBI, and other relevant departments of the U.S. government to deal with the fact that some of those alleged hijackers actually lived beyond September 11, 2001. Revealing the identities of the true hijackers would be too damning, embarrassing, and incriminating for the U.S. government departments and officials involved; this will therefore be prevented and avoided under all circumstances. Therefore, the public will never learn the truth of this matter, or so I forecast.

–Edward Felt’s Alleged Cell Phone Call Recoding. This I forecast will never happen. From the already suspicious recording of CeeCee Lyles’ alleged cell phone call recording, the U.S. Government and the 9/11 Commission will not want to risk hurting their credibility even further with the public.

–Whistleblowers on those who knew what happened inside NASA Glenn Hangar, This too will not happen, and I forecast that none of the perpetrators and/or handlers, the only ones who know what truly happened inside, of the sequestered jets and passengers will ever reveal and confirm what truly happened inside NASA Glenn Hangar. NASA has already stated, through Bill Wessel, that a KC-135 jet, and not United 93, was taken into that hangar on that day. For any of the perpetrators to come clean, they not only would need to have the conscience to do so, but also an immense amount of courage and proof of the events that took place on the inside; without the latter, the perpetrators would lack credibility and get ridiculed, in addition to getting incriminated. The perpetrators and handlers are under too much pressure, and probably threats and some kind of blackmail too, to forever withhold their knowledge of the events that unfolded inside.

–Joe Biden’s release of additional documents pertaining to 9/11. At the time of this writing, Joe Biden has the powers of the U.S. President and occupancy of the Oval Office, despite stealing the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. On September 3, 2021, eight days before the 20th anniversary of 9/11, Biden ordered the release of some documents pertaining to 9/11. These documents are believed to reveal the role of some high-profile Saudi Arabian individuals and associations in the 9/11 attacks. It’s too hard to say if Biden will indeed follow through and release these documents by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. It’s also too hard to say how much truth these documents will reveal, if any. Only time will tell.

Among the two points above on which I expect to become more revealed, the still hidden privately filmed video tapes at the Pentagon and Douglas Cochrane’s interview with the 9/11 Commission, the timing is a much more difficult aspect to forecast. I don’t expect any of these revelations to come before the passing of several more years, decades even, from the time of this writing. Regarding Cochrane’s interview, I would expect the release timing to come some time after Cochrane’s time on Earth comes to an end. This would be the least worrisome release option from the perspective of the U.S. government; with Cochrane unable to add any further commentary, let alone dispute the veracity or reveal the alteration of the released interview, the U.S. government wouldn’t have to worry about the only one who would definitely know anything about the editing and/or doctoring of the released interview; Douglas Cochrane himself.

Of course, all the answers pertaining to the above described points should be released, but even one revelation of any of the above discussed points would be better than absolutely nothing, which isn’t far from what U.S. citizens, and citizens across the world too, have received thus far from the U.S. Government and the 9/11 Commission.