Twists and Turns

Twists and Turns

April 20, 2006

We have all been regaled in the mainstream media — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN — with the trial and sentencing phase of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20^th hijacker.

All of this is quite entertaining, and intentionally so, but we need to ask ourselves, “is this for real?”

Going beyond the hyperbole of the mainstream media, we know that Zacarias Moussaoui was in jail on September 11, 2001. He now claims that he lied to the FBI to allow the events of September 11, 2001 to go forward. He claims he was to pilot a fifth airliner into the Whitehouse on September 11, 2001.

We know that Flight 93, which left an eight mile debris field in a reclaimed strip mine in Pennsylvania, was headed for Washington, DC. If the Whitehouse wasn’t the target, as Zacarias Moussaoui’s claim that he was to fly a fifth plane into the Whitehouse suggests, what was it? Or is Zacarias Moussaoui lying?

Or is this all a carefully orchestrated script intended to mislead the American people further concerning the events of September 11, 2001 at a time when there is a growing number of people demanding a fully independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001; at a time when Bush’s justifications for invading Iraq are crumbling around his feet; at a time when a growing number of American people are questioning Bush’s ability and integrity as a leader?

The tape from the in-flight recorder of Flight 93 was played in the Moussaoui trial for the jury. But did the jury hear the whole tape? Indications are that they did not.

While the official government story is that Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 a.m., seismic activity in the area places the time at 10:06 a.m. The missing three to four minutes of tape on the in-flight recorder remain unaccounted for. What is on that missing tape?

From the mainstream media reports, claims are now being made that the plane actually flipped over on its back, entering a gradual decline trajectory taking it into the ground. Flipping this plane over on its back would require an aileron roll of the plane. While easy to do with a small plane or a fighter jet at low altitude, doing this with a large plane would require thousands of feet altitude sufficient to regain control of the plane once the plane began to lose lift, at or about the time the wing tilt began to approach vertical position, at or about 90 degrees bank. This would also require skilled and experienced pilots who could regain control of the plane after it lost lift while continuing the aileron roll to 180 degrees or upside down. Otherwise the pilots would lose control and the plane would literally fall out of the sky. Falling out of the sky there would be no gradual decline trajectory into the ground as suggested by the government at the trial of Moussaoui. Again, this maneuver in a lumbering giant would require experienced and skilled pilots, not hijackers who couldn’t fly a Cessna around an airport.

In 1994, a B52H, a heavy Air Force bomber, attempted a severe bank to left at 200 feet altitude over the runway at Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, Washington. As the wings of the plane reached approximately 90 degrees bank to vertical (one-half the distance of an aileron roll to upside down), the plane lost lift and literally plowed into the runway, killing the entire flight crew.

Besides, this claim of an aileron roll conflicts with eyewitness reports of the plane blowing up in mid-air. It also conflicts with eyewitness reports of an eight-mile debris field with one engine found a mile from the official crash site where a sizeable crater appeared but little wreckage existed.

Zacarias Moussaoui has been a study in conflicts, a loose canon a best. At various times he has reveled in the pain and suffering caused by the events of September 11, 2001, denied involvement, been upbeat and happy, been morose and depressed, begged for his life, requested to be put to death. Is he really that smart, that dumb or just well coached? It wouldn’t be the first time in this trial that witnesses were coached by the government, now, would it?

In order to believe Moussaoui is anything more than an al Qaeda wannabe, capitalizing on the events of September 11, 2001 in order to achieve martyrdom, at least in his own mind, one has to actually believe the official government story of events on September 11, 2001 replete with inconsistencies, inaccuracies, omissions and errors — deliberate or otherwise.

But what if one does not believe the official government story of events on September 11, 2001?

Then it becomes apparent that the government, in this well-publicized trial, is using Moussaoui, wittingly or otherwise, to shore up their official story of events on September 11, 2001 in the face of growing skepticism of that official story among the American people, and to diffuse the growing skepticism among the American people concerning the legitimacy of Bush’s War on Terror by providing a focal point for pent-up frustration that no one is being held accountable for the events of September 11, 2001. Such suggests complicity on the part of the court in allowing this well-orchestrated farce face time in the court when the court should be about law and truth.

This makes one wonder whether Moussaoui is an unwitting dupe or if he has been offered something to take the fall and help shore up the flagging official government story. It wouldn’t be the first time the government has done that. Whether Moussaoui receives life in prison or the death penalty, that question will linger.

The federal prosecutor is pushing for the death penalty. Not surprising, considering that dead people can no longer change their minds and dead people don’t talk, both of which could prove to have dire consequences for the government. Once the media spotlight has gone out, whether receiving life in prison or the death penalty, don’t be too surprised if Moussaoui turns up dead, the victim of some unfortunate but believable mishap.

Americans concerned about the possibility of government complicity in the events of September 11, 2001, must not allow this public display tending to support the official government story of events on September 11, 2001 to distract them or sideline them in their quest to know the truth.