And here a CNN-video of the day of 9/11 itself, with a report that a van full with explosives was detained at the Washington Bridge.

Never heard anything from it again of course.

Unfortunately we are unable to ask the owner of Urban Moving Systems Company, Dominick Sutter, any questions.

He left the country immediately after 9/11.

For Israel.

Here is a scan of a document confirming the transaction plus additional information like this:

On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to 9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.” [Washington Times, 9/10/01]

Ruthless and cunning indeed.

And finally this:

On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, left the country very abruptly after FBI agents indicated that they wanted a second interview with him. According to ABC News’ 20/20 [ABC News 6/21/02], “Three months later 20/20’s cameras photographed the inside of Urban Moving, and it looked as if the business had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse. The owner had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel.” [New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, 12/13/01; Gotham Gazette 11/2/01; ABC News, 6/21/02; Forward, 3/15/02]

The five employees that were taken into custody were all former members of the Israeli Army.

So, those 5 guys were all soldiers from the israeli army and were purely coincidentally all working as movers in New York.

Right.

It woud be interesting for a 911-researcher to find out where in the US one can buy large amounts of thermite.
Probably not with Walmart. Such a transaction should be possible to retrieve. Purchase probably done between june and september 2001 en very likely temporary stored in the shabby premises of Urban Moving Systems inc.

Next, the israeli demolition expert Peer Segalovitz and his team enter the scene to place the charges in the WTC-complex during the weekends when the complex is virtualy empty because the power is switched off due to maintenance work.
The charges had been prepared in the warehouse of Urban Moving Systems, prepackaged with a radiographic controlled detonator attached to it.
600.000$ reeived from the US-government should be enough to complete this job. With everything prepared the charges are loaded in to vans, driven into the basements of the respective WTC-buildings, parked next to the elevator shaft. The charges are unloaded into the elevator and lifted onto the roof of the elevator through the opening in the elevator ceiling. Next the elevator moved from floor to floor while charges where being attached to the columns. It should be possible to complete this job with a crew of 10 in 2 weekends or so. On the day of 9/11 the charges were exploded from a control center located in WTC-7.

Very clever but not clever enough.

It is also clear with the benefit from hindsight why all the WTC scrap metal had to be shipped to China and India, without being subjected to a proper forensic investigation.
If the steel had been properly investigated, as it should have been, it had soon become clear that the columns buried under the rubble had been cut in regular distances with traces of thermite and molten steel at the edges. That had to be avoided at all cost and thus the hurry to get the evidence out of the country.The link between Olmert and 9/11

This is was Bollyn has to say about it:

Olmert, who has a long history of involvement in Israeli financial crimes, was indicted on charges of aggravated fraud, falsifying corporate documents, and violations of the tax code and Party Funding Law from crimes committed when he was the party treasurer for the Likud party in 1988.

Ok. So Olmert is not a guy with high ethical standards. Here comes Atzmon:

The Likud fundraising scandal culminated in the March 1996 conviction of three Likudniks, including Menahem Atzmon, Olmert’s co-treasurer. As the party treasurer, Olmert was indicted in the Likud crimes but received special treatment and was acquitted.

Not a nice guy either. Here comes the link of Atzmon with 9/11:

Menahem J. Atzmon, Olmert’s co-defendant and ally, was convicted in Israel but went on to become the founder and head of International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS). This Israeli-run company is the owner of Huntleigh-USA, the airport security firm that ran passenger screening operations at the airports of Boston and Newark on 9/11.

Just for journalists, give this Atzmon chap a call: ICTS (International Consultants on Targeted Security) Biesbosch 225 in Amstelveen/Netherlands (020-3471077). Dial 0031 for Holland first. Ask him if he is willing to give an interview to answer akward questions about letting Atta-look-alikes escape from the airport without boarding and if he feels any remorse about the 9/11 massacre.

OK, just kidding.

So in short:
here is the link between the highest level of the israeli government and the 9/11 operative level from the departure-airport-point-of-view, so to speak. Case closed.
This is an essential element of the 9/11 narrative: Atzmon helped putting the Arabs-did-it-myth in the world by distributing the pictures of ‘Atta’ and others boarding onto the planes. That was why the Boston and Newark airports were chosen as departure airports: it was Atzmon who controlled the security.
The other element was the fake telephone calls from the airplanes (‘let’s roll’), more on that later.

The arrival-’airport’-point-of-view has a similar link: Silverstein and Netanjahu. More on that later as well.

Dov Zakheim, remote control and the Pentagon

The essential element of the ICT proposed here is that the 9/11-planes were electronically hijacked.
What evidence or hints of evidence can be produced to back this hypothesis up?
For this we have to turn our attention to one of the prime suspects of being the ‘mastermind’ behind 9/11: Dov Zakheim.

Wikipedia has this to say about the ‘bionic zionist’:

From 1987-2001, Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a high-technology analytical firm. One of the products that SPC sells is the Command Transmitter System, a remote control system for planes, boats, missiles and other vehicles.

It is not entirely impossible that remote control specialist Dov might have been inspired by his job to come up with a certain devious idea.

What more can we find about rabbi Zakheim? This for example:

Not long before Rabbi Zakheim rose to power over the Pentagon’s labyrinthine, bottomless accounts, he co-authored an article entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” which was published by The Project for a New American Century in September 2000, exactly a year before 9/11; in this article, on page 51, it is stated that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”!‘

The Pearl Harbor idea was his idea! Now, how can we bring about such an Pearl Harbor type of event? Let me see…

And since we are constructing devious idea’s anyway why not go for the gold?

Rabbi Zakheim not only was remote control specialist, he also was very well acquinted with financial affairs of the Pentagon.
In march 2001, that is 6 months before 9/11, Zakheim was appointed comptroller at the Pentagon.
He was hired to shed some light about some trillions missing in the books.
Now is that a coincidence or what! A guy who worked 4 years as CEO for a company specialized in remote control moves to a new job in a new building which gets hit by a plane.
Remote controlled as we claim. And where did it hit? At an almost empty, newly renovated part of the Pentagon.
So here comes Hanni Hanjour, dedicated to sacrifice his life in his resentment against all those Americans ‘enjoying their freedoms’;
he ignores breathtaking targets like the White House or Capitol Hill; he could have nose-dived in a straight line onto the Pentagon.
He does not.
Instead he makes an almost impossible 270 degrees turn to park his plane into exactly that spot that solved all of Zakheim’s problems.
Isn’t that considerate of Hanni! Most members of the recently installed team of accountants and controllers get killed and with them goes a lot of records that should have been used to make clear where those missing millions went.

It is not difficult to come up with hypothesis about where that money went. Probably not to Norway.
For a good understanding: there was no flight77 crashing into the Pentagon. It was an explosion from inside, possibly but not necessarily and rather unlikely followed up by an impact of a small plane/drone/missile. It was likely that flight77 was destined for Pentagon indeed, but that something went wrong with the remote control, like that the control panel got disabled but that no target or a wrong target made it through the transponder. Since a plane cannot crash on land unnoticed it must have been dived into the ocean, possibly after it was shot down by a fighter jet, just to prevent it would crash in France or Morocco after it had run out of gas.

So much for the motive.

How about the technicalities? Was it possible in the first place, this remote control idea? The first one to come up with the idea that 9/11 was carried out using remote controlled planes was Joe Vialls, as far as I am aware, as early as october 2001, one month after the event:

“In the mid-seventies America faced a new and escalating crisis, with US commercial jets being hijacked for geopolitical purposes. Determined to gain the upper hand in this new form of aerial warfare, two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. Brilliant both in concept and operation, “Home Run” [not its real code name] allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on the target aircraft, then take absolute control of its computerized flight control system by remote means.”

Vialls qualifies himself as ‘a former member of the Society of Licenced Aeronautical Engineers & Technologist, London’.

That could possibly be an explanation of 9/11. If the government can use ‘home run’ to take over hijacked planes and bring them safely down to some airport, the same government (or let’s say the proverbial norwegian hacker) could fly these planes into the WTC-buildings.

What evidence can we find that ‘home run’ was operational at 9/11 in the planes that struck WTC-1/2? Vialls suggests ‘home run’ was operational:

“The engineers had no idea that almost thirty years after its initial design, Home Run’s top secret computer codes would be broken, and the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.”

Was it operational?

Here is a video about Zakheim:

At 3:25 it gets espescially interesting. According to a brochure of SPC, the company Zakheim was CEO of, SPC was able to deliver systems that were able to remote control as much as eight planes at the same time.Four would do, thank you.

An indication that all four aircraft were hijacked is this:

Once the correct target aircraft is located by radar, the Home Run duplex data bus “piggy backs” the transponder channel and assumes direct control from the ground. This could explain why NONE of the four aircraft sent the special “I have been hijacked” transponder code (7500), despite _multiple activation points_ for this distress transmission on all four aircraft-and despite being flown by combat-hardened ex-fighter pilots.

Because the transponder frequency had already been piggy-backed by Home Run, transmission of the special hijack code was rendered impossible. This was the first hard proof that the target aircraft had been hijacked electronically from the ground, rather than by Arab patsies toting box-cutters.

This is the type of aircraft we are talking about:

Look what we have found here:

“The fully digital FCS-700 triplex autopilot and flight director system, with fail-operational automatic landing capability, was designed for Boeing 767 and 757 transports.”

This implies that all 9/11-aircraft were capable of full-automatic landing capabilities. As a pilot on route from New York to London I can type a target destination into the console and ask the stewardess to wake me up at the end of the airstrip in London and next take a nap.
So to speak.

If all this capability is confirmed to be in place then it is only a small step to have an added technical capability of sending a signal with a new target destination and have the console disabled. This explains perfectly why there was no ‘I am hijacked’ signal from all four planes! All flight controls were disabled, including the ‘I am hijacked’ buttons.

Was this added technical capability present or not?

Or alternatively: was it possible to manipulate the control software aboard the airliners to implement an ad hoc ‘home run’-system?

This link provides a hint to an answer.

First a confirmation from what re read earlier in janes.com:

U.S. federal government and civil aviation industry publications describe the development and implementation pre-September 11, 2001, of state-of-the-art systems capable of facilitating precise automated navigation of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft used that day to a given destination.

Right.

And then it comes:

On October 9, 2001, Cubic Defense Systems, Inc. applied for a U.S. patent that removes control of an aircraft from its pilot and utilizes an aircraft’s auto-pilot system to implement an uninterruptable pre-programmed autopilot flight plan in order to navigate an aircraft to a given destination during an emergency. This would be accomplished through the use of an electronic or mechanical relay or relays, that become activated by pilot operation of an aircraft hijack notification system. Surprisingly to some, none of the four aircraft destroyed on September 11, 2001 are known to have entered unique transponder hijack notification codes, suggesting either modified function or insufficient activation time. One optional feature of the Cubic system is termination of an aircraft’s ability to communicate.

The system also envisions the use of new aircraft flight instructions transmitted by a remote sender, that would override aircraft functions already underway and direct an aircraft auto-pilot system to navigate an aircraft to a predetermined landing destination.[25] A data link interface between an aircraft Flight Management System (FMS) and the Management Unit for the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS), was developed during the early 1990s. This communication system allows for the update an aircraft FMS in mid-flight.

Here is US-patent 6,641,087, which was filed less than a month after 9/11 and granted on november 4, 2003.

Anti-hijacking system operable in emergencies to deactivate on-board flight controls and remotely pilot aircraft utilizing autopilot.

abstract

In an anti-hijacking system for autopilot equipped aircraft, a transceiver communicates with at least one remote guidance facility. A panic button is activated by flight crew in case of hijacking. A manager is coupled to the transceiver and the panic button, as well as existing avionics including the aircraft’s master computer and autopilot. Optionally, a relay is coupled between the pilot controls and selected aircraft flight systems. The manager recognizes predetermined override inputs, such as activation of the panic button or receipt of override signals from the remote guidance facility. Responsive to the override input, the manager deactivates on-board control of selected aircraft flight systems and the autopilot system, and directs the autopilot to fly the aircraft to a safe landing. Flight routing and landing instructions are obtained from the remote guidance facility, or by self-evaluating nearby airports in view of the aircraft’s position and various preestablished criteria.

Here is another pointer towards remote control of airplanes at the time of 9/11:

Here is an old article in the largest German weekly Der Spiegel, published 6 weeks after 9/11.

Title: Entführte Maschinen landen selbständig (hijacked planes land automatically).

A few highlights:

In Amerika arbeiten Ingenieure daran, entführte Maschinen künftig durch einen verbesserten Autopiloten ohne Hilfe des Cockpits auf dem nächstgelegenen Flughafen zu landen – ein Notschalter, von der Crew oder der Bodenkontrolle betätigt, soll dann die Hebel im Flugzeug blockieren und den Entführern die Kontrolle aus der Hand nehmen. (In America engineers are working on a system with which hijacked planes can land at a nearby airport through an upgraded version of the autopilot, without any help from the cockpit, by pressing on an emergency button by the crew or ground control, which will block all controls).

Interesting!

Wie jetzt bekannt wurde, haben Techniker des US-Luftfahrt- und Rüstungskonzerns Raytheon bereits im August ein mit einem speziellen Notlandesystem ausgestattetes Passagierflugzeug sechsmal erfolgreich auf dem Militärflughafen Holloman in New Mexico gelandet ohne dass die Piloten den Flugplatz angesteuert hätten. (It is now known that technicians of US-aerospace and defense contractor Raytheon as early as August 2001 carried out six successful emergency landings on military airport Holloman using a special emergence landing system without the pilot aiming for this particular airport.)

Conclusion: the aerospace industry was actively working on a ‘home run’ system before 9/11.
I am not suggesting that the 9/11 planes were steered into their targets by this Raytheon system.
I am suggesting though that there probably was an ‘arms race’ going on between several aerospace firms like Raytheon and Boeing and others on the issue of anti-hijack rescue systems.

And nobody else was better placed to know about the state of the art of remote controlled airplanes technology than 9/11 mastermind Dov Zakheim, who at that time had been CEO of SPC that was active in this market for remote control of airplanes.

No longer is there any doubt that tested and working aircraft remote control systems were around at the time of 9/11. What needs to be proven is that those systems were installed on the 9/11 desaster aircraft. Or alternatively that a plane swap took place.