The Journal of History     Spring 2007    TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Story Within the Story: 9/11 Disinformation

By Arlene Johnson
March 9, 2007

A man purporting to call himself Mark Robinowitz states that an article written by a retired Air Force Colonel is disinformation, seems to be discrediting an otherwise honest article. The question is why?

Could it be because Mark Robinowitz has something to hide himself, and therefore, doesn't want a professional employee in airplane mechanics to divulge information that would add to the ever growing body of knowledge we have in alternative media and now in CSPAN, too, that has been unravelling the truth about 9/11 ever since it was carried out?

Aside from the fact that I personally have tried to contact Mark Robinowitz at his address several times, and have always received a fatal error, which is suspicious to me as I think it would be to anyone who had tried unsuccessfully to reach this man, we know that a bomb exploded 5 full minutes prior to any plane arriving at the Pentagon because the Danish Minister of Defense heard it and remarked about it, only to have Americans in the government say that they didn't hear anything.

If these people were deaf, that would mean something, but if they were deaf, they would not be working at the Pentagon . They would be retired and on disability, so their saying that they did not hear anything, can only be construed as wanting to cover up the incident from not only the Danish minister, but everyone else as well.

Mark Robinowitz's comment, "I thought that the scam was that it was only 13 feet across--don't these fiction writers coordinate their stories?" is laughable given that every single Email that leaves one's computer, goes straight to the NSA, and it has been demonstrated to me personally, that the NSA is able to manipulate text, because it happened to me. When I wrote the proof of who the Israelites really are, I put the article into three attachments, because I wanted as much privacy as I could obtain, and knew that my Web site developer would be able to open them up easily since he has a Mac as I do. But when I sent this material to the man who had taught me the information initially, I cut and pasted the three word processing documents and put them into a straight Email message for him because I theorized that he had a PC, so would not be able to open up my attachments.

The NSA deliberately removed a portion that was unfavorable to the current Israeli government, causing my recipient to add this material into the article because he thought that I had not included it. My evidence is that the identical wording was in the attachment which was connected to that portion of the article.

Therefore, since the American government is so desirous of covering up 9/11, it would be a relatively simple matter for the NSA to change the wording, causing people such as Mark Robinowitz to discount the Colonel, and the Colonel may have been none the wiser of it in order to correct the manipulation as I was able to do because I observed it.

But where Mark Robinowitz demonstrates his disingenuousness is in the sentence which says "The hotel workers who saw the videotape of the crash, reported seeing the plane" completely omits where they saw the plane that the government wants us to believe hit the Pentagon .

Moreover, Mark Robinowitz is not aware of the voluminous documentation, (Mark Robinowitz < >) because I can never successfully deliver an Email to him to educate him, even though this looks like a legitimate Email address, it must be one in which the owner does not want to be contacted by anyone who could educate him. Try contacting him there; can you reach him? If memory serves me, I have even logged onto his Web site (< >)in order to contact him there, but there was no way of doing that, so I have never been able to make contact with him even once.

Lastly, Mark Robinowitz states, "If the FBI ever released those films...." Mark is simply trying to validate that the FBI is a legitimate agency, when we, who have read my work, know how illegitimate the FBI really is. Therefore, if the FBI released those films, we wouldn't know if they had doctored them or if they were legitimate because the FBI is not legitimate. Of that, we have voluminous documentation. Mark should question why the FBI would want to confiscate them instead of asking the question that he asks.

Therefore, I believe that this article which was written by Colonel Nelson, USAF (retired) is valid, given all that we already know from more than FIVE years of publishing on this history.

You'll see Mark Robinowitz's comments encased in this article in brackets. I would just ignore them if I were you, because they are not valid.

The Precautionary Principle
By George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact that the failure to prove a proposition completely does not disprove the proposition. If the proposition warns of an ongoing or oncoming disaster (e.g. global warming) it is wise to take precautions. The proposition arrived at here is this: the 911 hijackings and damage to buildings were not the work of Arab terrorists, but appear to have been part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July, 1965, I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators, pumps, landing gears, engines, or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11, 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

[note: the "infowars" section of the website has photos of the jet engine parts that were found on the street, along with fragments of the fuselage. If you look on mainstream sources, you can find a variety of other photos clearly showing other plane pieces - this is merely an effort to waste time.]

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

[wait! I thought the scam was that it was only 13 feet across -- don't these fiction writers coordinate their stories?]

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce aerial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

[note: there was a lot of Boeing debris inside and outside of the building. Some analysts have identified one of the more famous photos as clearly showing distinctive Boeing debris - the same photo used on the front cover of Thierry Meyssan's "Pentagate" book which claimed no Boeing was involved. It is similar to other disinfo scams subtly acknowledging they are hoaxes by using photos -- the front cover of the "In Plane Site" DVD using a photo showing the "pod" claim is nonsense, the Popular Mechanics March 2005 article using photos from " " that show that two of the sillier claims are extreme ideas injected into the 9/11 truth movement - they did not originate in it]


The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

[The hotel workers who saw the videotapes of the Pentagon crash reported seeing the plane. If the FBI ever released those films, the conspiracy theorists would shift their attention from WHAT hit the Pentagon to WHERE the Pentagon was hit -- in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector. That is the one piece of so-called "physical evidence" that no one disputes and very few talk about -- even though it is proof that whoever / whatever was steering Flight 77 made sure to minimize casualties at the Pentagon .]

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.


The Journal of History - Spring 2007 Copyright © 2007 by News Source, Inc.