The official story, cobbled together and emitted through the US government's propaganda arms of the mass media, very quickly pinned the blame on Osama bin Laden. The 19 men accused of hijacking the planes, whose names were not on the manifests of any of the flights, became FBI poster boys for Islamic fundamentalism, which itself became a synonym for terror. We were given the shock treatment, and in our daze, the global war on terror was declared in order to, according to its proponents, keep us safe. Rights and liberties in the US and other Western countries were severely curtailed because, we were told, the authorities needed extra power to combat this savage and brutal enemy, an enemy that would stoop to any means to end our way of life because they hated our freedoms.

If they weren't going to play fair, then, by God, neither would we.

But who is this "We"?

An individual defines himself in many ways: by the town in which he is born, by the country in which he is a citizen, by his job, education, language, race, or religion. His education and socialisation shape his consciousness, his awareness, his very perceptual apparati. These differences draw lines and build walls between us, giving us hooks on which to hang our insecurities, hatreds and fears, and which fuel in turn pograms, inquisitions, and crusades that are justified in a circular logic by reference to these differences.

These differences are material differences in the sense that they belong to that part of us that is of this world, the material world, the world we can touch and smell, the world in which we work or offer ourselves as gunfodder for the continuous wars that so mark human history.

However, it is also argued that, ultimately, we are all human, that no matter the other traits that distinghuish us, we all share a common humanity. This noble vision wishes to give us a common ground upon which we can lay down our arms and learn to work together towards peace and harmony, learning to love each other by turning difference into a rich and vast palette of variety than enriches our lives via its myriad colours, tastes, smells, and sounds.

As we said, it is a noble vision. But what if it is wrong?

What if we do not all share a common humanity? What if there are two races on our planet that look human; one, truly human in that its members suffer when they see another's suffering, rejoice when another rejoices, while a second race is devoid of all such sentiments, regarding the world and those who populate it with the cold, detached eye of a machine, able to imitate to a certain degree emotions that it doesn't feel in order to feed upon those who are capable of empathy, all the while calculating its next move as it passes through life feeding off of what it considers the weaknesses of his prey.

These man-machines are psychopaths, "humans" who are so different that their electroencephalograms appear not to have come from "real people":

Several years ago two graduate students and I submitted a paper to a scientific journal. The paper described an experiment in which we had used a biomedical recorder to monitor electrical activity in the brains of several groups of adult men while they performed a language task. This activity was traced on chart paper as a series of waves, referred to as an electroencephalogram.

The editor returned our paper with his apologies. His reason, he told us: "Frankly, we found some of the brain wave patterns depicted in the paper very odd. Those EEGs couldn't have come from real people."

Some of the brain wave recordings were indeed odd, but we hadn't gathered them from aliens and we certainly hadn't made them up. We had obtained them from a class of individuals found in every race, culture, society, and walk of life. Everybody has met these people, been deceived and manipulated by them, and forced to live with or repair the damage they have wrought. These often charming - but always deadly - individuals have a clinical name: psychopaths. [Robert Hare, Without Conscience]

Hare has done much scientific research into the nature of psychopathy. Here is a summary of two of his most famous experiments:

Hare performed two now-famous studies which suggest that psychopaths really are different from the rest of us. In the first, subjects were told to watch a timer counting down to zero, at which point they felt a harmless but painful electric shock. Non-psychopaths showed mounting anxiety and fear.

Psychopaths didn't even sweat.

In the second, the two groups had their brain activity and response time measured when asked to react to groups of letters, some forming words, some not. Words such as "rape" and "cancer" triggered mental jolts in nonpsychopaths. In psychopaths they triggered precisely nothing. [Snakes in suits and how to spot them, By Giles Whittell, The Times, November 11, 2002.]

It is therefore important to understand that these beings, wearing what Hervey Cleckley called The Mask of Sanity [Cleckly's book can be downloaded here], are here among us and are different from us in very basic and profound ways.

Moreover, these psychopaths are in positions of power.

The bad news is that the PCL-R [Hare's psychological test to reveal psychopath traits] revealed that psychopaths are everywhere. Most are non-violent, but all leave a trail of havoc through their families and work environments, using and abusing colleagues and loved ones, endlessly manipulating others, constantly reinventing themselves. Hare puts the average North American incidence of psychopathy at 1 per cent of the population, but the damage they inflict on society is out of all proportion to their numbers, not least because they gravitate to high-profile professions that offer the promise of control over others, such as law, politics, business management ... and journalism.

By the Hare definition there are 300,000 in Canada alone. There are at least as many in Britain — easily enough for you to know one; indeed, enough for you (3,500 of The Times’ 700,000 buyers) to be one. [Ibid]

While 1% of the population might seem small, 300,000 individuals in a small country (population wise) like Canada can do great havoc. What could 3 million do in the US? How many key positions of power are there? How many psychopaths would it take to bend society to their interests and values -- or lack of values?

The really bad news is that they appear to recognise one another and band together to fleece the sheep. And they have a plan.

What if 911 was organised by this race, as an open attack on those who do try to live according to some moral code? As part of a plan to subdue the truly human to the man-machine?

Psychopathy on its own is a serious problem; however, when you combine it with hyperdimensional realities, you're talking the topic of topics, the great secret that has been hidden from mankind for millennia, passed down via an underground stream to those who are willing to look reality squarely in the face without flinching, the fundamental truth that we are not at the top of the food chain, that our world is being controlled and manipulated by beings who are grooming us as feed, whose sole interest in serving humanity is with a pepper sauce.

The question of hyperdimensional reality, psychopathy and the organic portal has been a major focus of this site for many years. Without a knowledge of these topics, the true history of our world, the secret history of our world, cannot be understood. Without a knowledge of these topics, neither can the ultimate truth of 911 be understood.

He can learn to use the ordinary words and, if he is very clever, even extraordinarily vivid and eloquent words which signify these matters to other people. He will also learn to reproduce appropriately all the pantomime of feeling; but, as Sherrington said of the decerebrated animal,the feeling itself does not come to pass.

Even his splendid logical faculties will, in real life situations, produce not actual reasoning but that imitation of reasoning known as rationalization, for in the synthesis by which reasoning contributes to sound judgment, the sense of value, that is, the value of truth and feeling, cannot be missing. When this is missing, the process is only rationalization, something which, however technically brilliant, does not satisfactorily guide and shape action. And no difference between the two is more fundamental.

When we conceive of the thought, the emotional responses, the general psychic processes, and the behavior of a person in whom is postulated a defect of this sort, we have arrived at something identical or all but identical with the psychopath as he appears in actual life.

When we say that a disorder at deep levels of personality integration prevents experience from becoming adequately meaningful to the subject, we become vulnerable to the accusation of talking nonsense. It is easy indeed to become unclear, if not to appear actually ridiculous, in attempting to express a point, however tentatively, on these fundamental Matters. A reviewer in the New England Journal of Medicine says of the concept here advanced:

If that (understanding of the meaning of life] is the disease from which the psychopathic inferior suffers, this term can be applied to most of us and certainly to the reviewer, since, so far as he knows, no one has yet given us an insight into the meaning of life. [p. 349]

Such a comment is appealing and not without humor, but it scarcely meets the issue in a responsible manner. We need not assume that a normal man understands the ultimate purpose of life or even that he is remotely near final accuracy in his evaluations of his own bits of experience in order to believe that the psychopath is, in comparison, seriously disabled by the specific deficiency we are attempting to formulate.

Although "meaning" or "the meaning of life" can be applied to a philosophic or religious system that attempts to explain man and the universe, it must be obvious that such an application is not intended here. By saying that a good deal of the affective substance which people find in life experiences is lacking in the psychopath's responses, we seek only to point out that he is not adequately moved and that he does not find subjective stimuli to make the major issues of life matter sufficiently to promote consistent striving. Furthermore, he cannot achieve true and abiding loyalty to any principle or any person.

In the context of 9/11 as an inside job, it seems much more likely that Flight 93 was originally meant to attack a fourth high-profile American landmark - most likely the White House. In fact, in the midst of the confusion on the morning of 9/11, there were reports of an explosion and fire at the White House. It is entirely possible that these reports were accurate and, just like the report of the initial explosion at the Pentagon, a bomb or incendiary device of some sort had been detonated at the White House in anticipation of the attack by Flight 93. Perhaps it was supposed to coincide with the crash of Flight 93 into the building, and a glitch caused the explosive to go off earlier, or the glitches on Flight 93 caused a failure of that part of the plan.

So why shoot it down? The most plausible reason is that the real mission of Flight 93 was compromised in some way, and the decision was taken to prematurely end its active participation in the attack. [...]

[W]e suggest the possibility that there were no hijackers on the planes. What would have happened if the plane had landed safely with no hijackers on board?! Talk about compromising a mission!

The official version of events holds that all four flights were hijacked by Arab terrorists, yet there are a host of reasons why this is extremely unlikely. Not least among these is the fact that none of the alleged pilots had shown the aptitude to master control of a single-engined Cessna much less a large commercial airliner as reported by flight instructors at the flying schools were they alleged "learned to fly". The fact that so few members of the public are aware just how difficult it is to fly such a large aircraft greatly helped in the successful dissemination of this unlikely scenario.

Equally unlikely is that, armed only with box cutters, four or five hijackers on each flight could have successfully subdued trained pilots and crew and dozens of passengers. In fact, the term "box cutter" is not entirely accurate, at least for Flight 11.

According to the British Telegraph newspaper, the only weapons that the would-be hijackers on that flight had were individual razor blades that they had smuggled onto the plane hidden in wash bags in their hand luggage. The hijackers then used these razor blades, we are told, to fashion "deadly knives" by attaching them to flimsy plastic credit cards, of all things, which they then used to cow the 11 crew and 81 passengers of Flight 11. We are not told exactly what they used to attach the blades to the credit cards, perhaps it was scotch tape, or super glue or bubble gum, but there you have it: A conspiracy theory if we ever heard one!

Of course, some passengers, on at least one of the flights, allegedly claimed that the "hijackers" had a bomb, yet is it credible that a hijacker who couldn't get anything more threatening than a razor blade on-board had somehow smuggled a bomb aboard unseen?

We are also expected to believe that these improvised and surely ineffective weapons were later used to "stab" and kill Daniel Lewin, an ex-member of the Israeli Defense Force's Sayeret Matkal, a top-secret counterterrorist unit , and two Flight attendants members.

According to the official story, it was by pure chance that Lewin was given a seat directly in front of and directly behind two of the hijackers: An Israeli counter-terrorist expert on a hijacked flight with Islamic terrorists sitting in the seats directly in front of and behind him. Who could have imagined it?!

Now think about this: There was a total of ninety two passengers and crew on Flight 11. Five slightly-built "hijackers" jumped up with razor blades taped (or bubble-gummed) to credit cards, and manage to kill three people, subdue the rest, and overpower the pilots. Could ninety two people, who surely had many items in their hand luggage or as part of the aircraft's equipment that they could have used as weapons, not overcome five men with razor-blades precariously attached to credit cards!?

We are further asked to believe that, without the aid of any navigational instruments, the untrained hijackers were able to pinpoint their targets from 35,000 feet in the air. Anyone that has ever been on a commercial airliner and looked out the window at the ground below will understand just how unlikely this proposition is.

The official story further stretches the boundaries of belief by suggesting that, somehow, on all four planes, the hijackers were able to stand up, subdue the passengers, bypass the crew, break into the cockpit, overpower the pilots and turn off the transponders, all before the pilots were able to send a distress signal that the flight was being hijacked (a procedure that takes about three seconds to complete).

Another troubling discrepancy is the fact that, on all four "hijacked" flights, none of the names of the alleged hijackers appear on the official passenger lists of those flights. In the case of Flight 77 the names of the hijackers did not even appear on the autopsy list provided by the Armed Force Institute of Pathology.

Flight attendant on Flight 11 Madeline Amy Sweeney allegedly called Boston ATC to report the hijacking. The only problem being that, while the FBI claims that there were five hijackers on Flight 11, Ms. Sweeney described only four. In addition, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names.

There is also the problem of how exactly the 19 alleged hijackers got onto the flights in the first place. To check in and board a flight in the US some form of photo ID is required. The name on the ID must match the name on the ticket and the photograph on the ID must match the face of the holder. If none of the alleged hijackers are recorded as having been on the flights, how does anyone know that there actually were any hijackers on the flights? Where did the FBI get the names, dates of birth and photographs of the 19 alleged hijackers that were published on the FBI website within two weeks of the attacks? [...]

If, according to the conspiracy theory of the current administration, Osama bin Laden had the resources to set up the hijacking of commercial jets to hit the World Trade Center, there is no reason he could not also have had the resources to get his hands on a fancy guided drone plane, or even a smaller jet, or anything similar for that matter. It would have been just as easy to lay it at Osama's door. That is to say, if Osama can be blamed for hitting the WTC with a couple of commercial jets, there is no reason he can't be blamed for hitting the Pentagon with something else.

In other words, no matter what it was - a Boeing 757 or a kite with a nuke attached to its tail - there is no reason the Powers That Be could not spin it to their advantage.

So why won't they release the security camera tapes?

If it was Flight 77, why can't we see it?

[T]he main mystery surrounds the fact that the government will not release the security videos that obviously would show what hit the Pentagon. The whole matter could be settled right here and now with those videos.

Let me repeat: there is no reason to not release the videos even if a different craft was used to strike the Pentagon, because, after all, a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack no matter what kind of plane they use, right? [...]

If it was something else, why can't we see it?

Heck, the American people are pretty accepting of explanations. There's no reason they wouldn't accept that Osama and gang could get hold of something else and fly it into the Pentagon. After all, Osama was said to have a massive underground hideout with missiles and a small army and about everything else. There's no reason why he couldn't also have been accused of getting his hands on a Global Hawk!

So again, and again, and again: why can't the American People see what hit the pentagon?

It clearly is not because of concern for the families of the victims and their grief. After all, the videos of the planes flying into the WTC were shown over and over and over and over again until the entire world was whipped into a frenzy of grief and rage.

Surely, assuming that the theory of direct complicity of Bush and Co. is correct, if the conspirators were setting this thing up as long as we think they were, they would have prepared the craft that hit the Pentagon very carefully and there would be nothing about it that would arouse suspicion or reveal their identify, right? Then they could just haul out the videos and show them around the world and blame Osama, right?

But something isn't quite right about the P3nt4gon Str!ke. And whatever it is, it has something to do with the "missing time" of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and the flying in circles and "arguing" on the phone that George Bush did on that day.

Where did the body parts come from that were so quickly identified as those of the passengers of Flight 77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon? Body parts that survived from a massive aircraft that was claimed to have vaporized almost instantly?

The question about what happened to the passengers of Flight 77 leads us to the core of the mystery. If it was Flight 77 on the video, just show it and settle it. If it wasn't Flight 77 on the surveillance videos, why must the Bush Cabal insist that it was, even if they could just as easily have revealed that Osama had, in addition to hijacking three commercial jets, flown a guided drone into the Pentagon, or anything else? They could even explain a U.S. military plane being flown into the Pentagon by claiming that Osama owned one and painted it up to look like a U.S. craft.

Indeed, this small item is a terrible problem. It suggests that if the surveillance videos of what hit the Pentagon were shown, it would reveal the truth. And whatever truth that is, the Powers That Be will fight to the last gasp to conceal it.

We must dig deeper, it seems, for the solution to this problem.

Let's consider the fact that it seems obvious that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld, in no way, felt threatened by the events of that day. Their insouciance demonstrates that said "terrorists" were terrifying everybody but them. We can look at the little stories about Cheney and Bush being worried that Air Force One was a target as "window dressing". After all, if you are going to play the victim, at some point you have to put on the victim act. They are smart enough to know that they had to act at least a little bit like they were concerned, even if they didn't manage to pull it off very well.

But what also seems obvious is that something strange was up during the period of time George Bush was flying around in circles, burning up the phone lines to Cheney, Rumsfeld and... Ted Olson [whose wife Barbara Olsen allegedly made phone calls from Flight 77 before perishing with the other passengers]? Yes indeedy.

After all, it was right at that time that George, Dick and Don ought to have been putting on their "victim" act. But the facts are that all of them "went missing" at a very crucial time and the key to the whole Pentagon mystery might lie in that fact.

So, the question that I think needs to be asked, based on the strange behavior of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on that day, is this: even if they were complicit in setting up an exercise that provided a smoke screen for the 9/11 attacks to be executed by someone else, is it possible that Flight 77 was not part of the plan, as far as they were aware?

To buy the book and discover The Ultimate Truth, click here!

George W. Bush, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso have all died. Due to a glitch in the mundane/celestial time-space continuum, all three arrive at the Pearly Gates more or less simultaneously, even though their deaths have taken place decades apart.

The first to present himself to Saint Peter is Einstein. Saint Peter questions him. "You look like Einstein, but you have NO idea the lengths certain people will go to, to sneak into Heaven under false pretenses. Can you prove who you really are?" Einstein ponders for a few seconds and asks, "Could I have a blackboard and some chalk?" Saint Peter complies with a snap of his fingers.

The blackboard and chalk instantly appear. Einstein proceeds to describe with arcane mathematics and symbols his special theory of relativity. Saint Peter is suitably impressed. "You really *are* Einstein! Welcome to heaven!"

The next to arrive is Picasso. Once again Saint Peter asks for his credentials. Picasso doesn't hesitate. "Mind if I use that blackboard and chalk?" Saint Peter says, "Go ahead."

Picasso erases Einstein's scribbles and proceeds to sketch out a truly stunning mural. Bulls, satyrs, nude women: he captures their essences with but a few strokes of the chalk. Saint Peter claps. "Surely you are the great artist you claim to be! Come on in!"

The last to arrive is George W. Bush. Saint Peter scratches his head. "Einstein and Picasso both managed to prove their identity. How can you prove yours?"

George W. looks bewildered, "Who are Einstein and Picasso?"

Saint Peter sighs, "Come on in, George."

In the years since the 9/11 attacks, dozens of books have sought to explore the truth behind the official version of events that day - yet to date, none of these publications has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out.

Taking a broad, millennia-long perspective, Laura Knight-Jadczyk's 9/11: The Ultimate Truth uncovers the true nature of the ruling elite on our planet and presents new and ground-breaking insights into just how the 9/11 attacks played out.

9/11: The Ultimate Truth makes a strong case for the idea that September 11, 2001 marked the moment when our planet entered the final phase of a diabolical plan that has been many, many years in the making. It is a plan developed and nurtured by successive generations of ruthless individuals who relentlessly exploit the negative aspects of basic human nature to entrap humanity as a whole in endless wars and suffering in order to keep us confused and distracted to the reality of the man behind the curtain.

Drawing on historical and genealogical sources, Knight-Jadczyk eloquently links the 9/11 event to the modern-day Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She also cites the clear evidence that our planet undergoes periodic natural cataclysms, a cycle that has arguably brought humanity to the brink of destruction in the present day.

For its no nonsense style in cutting to the core of the issue and its sheer audacity in refusing to be swayed or distracted by the morass of disinformation that has been employed by the Powers that Be to cover their tracks, 9/11: The Ultimate Truth can rightly claim to be THE definitive book on 9/11 - and what that fateful day's true implications are for the future of mankind.