THE ATTACKS OF 11 SEPTEMBER
WHO PROFITS FROM THE CRIME?
Emmanuel Ratier’s Letter of Confidential
Information – Faits & Documents – undertook a special
investigation into the official version of the attack against the
Pentagon on 11 September 2001. It was published on 1 March, eight days before the publication of Thierry Meyssan’s
book, 11 September 2001. L’effroyable imposture
[translated as The Big Lie in the English edition], which sold
more than 170,000 copies in three weeks and which was recently reviewed
(Resurrection no 16, April 2002, p.
A PHANTOM PLANE
Emmanuel Ratier published a document on the Internet on 18 October, one month after the attacks. On 21 March, it was in fact to him that Le Monde and Actualité juive gave first prize for this incredible news, illustrated with a series of photographs entitled: No plane crashed into the Pentagon. As surprises go, it was indeed a surprise! Incredible? One has only to examine the AFP photo, above, to understand that it is the pure and simple truth: it stares one in the face!
The photograph was taken in the first
minutes of the fire. Firetrucks are on the scene, but as yet these vehicles
have not gone into action. Moreover, the upper floors of the
building are yet to collapse. Now, there is no trace of significant
debris, no engine, no black box, no undercarriage. Nothing! And yet, according to the official version, a
Boeing 757-200, an air freighter with a wingspan of 38.05 m, a length of
47.30 m, a height of 13 m and a weight of 100 tons, struck the ground
and first floors of the front of the building, hedge-hopping as it
approached, flying just a few metres above the ground at a minimum speed of
400 km per hour, without knocking down a single streetlamp or even
causing any damage to the magnificent lawn in the foreground, the car
park, or the helipad.
«One will recall, states Emmanuel Ratier, that the Boeing 757 is supposed to have hedge-hopped into the Pentagon and not crashed into it from above, which would have been far simpler and more effective. It would have been able to target the building at a speed of around 800 km, and make a veritable spiral dive on it, avoiding all obstacles, especially as the area hit was undergoing building work, with construction sheds in front of it, plus an air control tower for helicopters. As Dick Cheney would explain on CNN, on 16 September, the hijacker, having circled over Washington for several minutes (the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, assured us on CBS on 21 September that his objective was in fact the White House, which supposedly explained his circling movements), made a high-speed spiral descent, executing an almost complete loop and plummeting 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, to crash into the building by hedge-hopping, avoiding any collision with the numerous trees surrounding the Pentagon or the ground or the outside huts.» An impossible piece of acrobatics!
«The facts present us with a second mystery, adds Ratier: the existence in the wall of the third building of a round hole 2.5 m in diameter. This is the spot where the plane’s nose is supposed to have embedded itself, demonstrating a quite extraordinary resilience, as we are assured that the plane itself, weighing more than 100 tons, was totally vaporised. So the “nose” apparently continued its course passing through all the reinforced walls, but not the other parts of the plane, in particular the powerful Rolls Royce engines which were vaporised and left no trace. Truly amazing.» (Faits & Documents no 131, 1 to 15 May 2002)
At a press conference presided over by the Assistant Defence Secretary, Victoria Clark, the Arlington fire chief specified «that his men were busy fighting the spread of the fire in the Pentagon, but they had been kept away from the precise spot of the crash». One must read the «surrealistic dialogue» that then took place between Fire Chief Plaugher and a journalist, as quoted by Meyssan:
«Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?» asks the journalist. Reply: «There are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I’m talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there’s no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.
– Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel or…
– You know, I’d rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don’t know. I don’t know.
– Where is the jet fuel?…
– We have what we believe is a puddle right there that the…what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft.»
The fuel contained in the wings was therefore supposed to have burned just long enough to set the building on fire, and was then transformed into a “pool” which found its way to the supposed location of the nose of the plane. «Notwithstanding the respect due to the high rank of the “eyewitnesses”, officers and parliamentarians, writes Thierry Meyssan, it is impossible to swallow such nonsense. Far from lending credit to their depositions, the seniority of these witnesses merely underlines the scale of the means deployed by the United States Army to distort the truth.» (p. 23)
They even went so far as to state that sixty-three of the sixty-four passengers were able to be identified by their DNA… which, as everyone knows, is destroyed at 100oC! «A real achievement!» laughs Emmanuel Ratier.
He then puts a simple question: Is there in the history of aviation a single case of a crash in which the bodies of passengers were found without any debris from the plane around?
A terrifying conclusion: the official version is a lie. Whence the agonising questions: what caused the explosion that went off at the Pentagon and led to one hundred and twenty-five deaths? What became of American Airlines Flight 77 and its sixty-four passengers?
And above all, why lie? Of what secret is this bloody con trick the smokescreen? «How explain the fact that the American secret services took no heed of the many warnings that their foreign counterparts gave them?» For example, the information passed by the French, confirming the existence of links between the French-Moroccan Zacarias Moussaoui and the Islamists. Arrested in Minnesota in August 2001 for breaking the immigration laws, his relations with bin Laden and his strange flying lessons were well known. A thirteen page letter addressed to Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI, on 21 May 2001, by Coleen Rowley, an analyst of twenty-one years standing at the Minneapolis FBI Office, and published by Time magazine, establishes that the investigation into Moussaoui was sabotaged before and after 11 September.
What “conspiracy” at the highest summit of the State lies hidden behind this «phantom plane» which did indeed exist, but which was diverted from its path… in what direction?
The clearly established fact of a first deception at Washington leads one to ask questions about the attacks in New York. The entire world looked on horrified, their eyes riveted to the television screen. Surely no deception was possible here? And yet… Numerous readers have warned us to be wary of Thierry Meyssan, well known as a conspiracy theorist. Thanks for the information. It is true that he is writing science fiction when he imagines American Airline’s Flight 11 and United Airline’s Flight 175 transformed into drones: «By pirating the on-board computers before takeoff, it is possible to take control of the plane in flight thanks to the Global Hawk technology developed by the Department of Defence.» We have questioned our French specialists: this scenario does not stand up.
Nonetheless, it remains true that the plane crashes do not explain the collapse of the towers, nor the fall of a third building, Tower 7: «The hypothesis of a destabilisation of the foundations has been dismissed by the American Society of Civil Engineers. In fact, Tower 7 did not topple over, but collapsed in on itself. The question is no longer: “Was it dynamited?” but: “What other hypothesis can one formulate?”»
Now, «the firemen claim to have heard explosions at the base of the buildings and have called for the opening of an independent enquiry».
Many other questions still need to be asked.
How explain that an article warning of an imminent terrorist attack by Osama bin Laden appeared on the internet site of the New York Times on 9 September, but not in the paper edition, and was then withdrawn from the site to avoid embarrassing questions?
How explain that two employees of the Israeli-American firm, Odigo, with offices in the Twin Towers, received an email warning of an imminent terrorist attack two hours before it took place?
How is it that with a budget of more than 30 billion dollars devoted to the intelligence service, not one of the main American agencies managed to detect the imminent threat: neither the FBI nor the CIA nor the NSA (National Security Agency)? Are we dealing with an enormous breakdown or a deliberate decision to remain passive even while keeping highly alert?
A first clue in favour of this last hypothesis is provided by the strange confession of George Bush on 4 December 2001, relating how he watched a live television broadcast of the first crash into the World Trade Centre:
«I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card – actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading programme that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower – the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly myself, and I said, well, there’s one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident But I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom [busy for half an hour, specifies Emmanuel Ratier, reading a book about goats, which is plainly staggering after the first impact!], and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, “A second plane has hit the tower. America is under attack.”»
«It is one of two things, comments Ratier: either the president of the most powerful country in the world had no idea what he was talking about despite all the details, or he was fully informed of the attack about to take place and watched it on a private television circuit.» For there was no reason for a television network to film the Twin Towers in a live broadcast at the time of the first attack. The pictures of this were taken by amateurs and were broadcast by the television networks well after the president had left the school he was at. «They were, therefore, secret pictures, concludes Meyssan, broadcast live in the security communication room installed in the school ready for his visit.»
But «who profits from the crime?» Our first answer comes from the insider dealing observed over a period of six days before the attack. Stocks in the company owning the planes which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Centre and at Pittsburg fell by 42%. And those of American Airlines by 39%. In short, the illicit profits are thought to involve hundreds of millions of dollars.
When Thierry Meyssan unravels the tangled web of connections linking the Saudi Binladen Group (SBG) to the Bush family and its financial partners and political obligees (p. 118-128), then… the conclusion is unmistakable, enough to make one’s hair stand on end: «If it is correct, as numerous American officials claim, that the bin Laden family continues to maintain relations with Osama and to finance his political activities, then the Carlyle Group, which manages the financial investments of the Saudi Binladen Group, would necessarily be implicated in the insider dealings. George Bush senior would therefore be one of the fortunate beneficiaries of the manipulations of 11 September 2001. A good reason for the FBI and IOSCO to close down the financial wing of the inquiry.» (Meyssan, p. 128)
But there are still some surprises in store for us. When the author brings together all the evidence he has collected, its cumulative force leaves no place for doubt. «The existence of a conspiracy within the US Armed Forces to perpetrate the attacks of 11 September is attested by the deposition of Lieutenant Delmart Edward Vreeland before the Superior Court of Toronto (Canada). Arrested for bank card fraud, the lieutenant defended himself by pointing out his membership in the Secret Services of the United States Navy (Naval Intelligence). He told the police that he had received information in Russia about the assassination of Marc Bastien, a computer specialist employed by the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, and about the preparation for attacks on New York.»
As the inquiry revealed that Marc Bastien had died after swallowing an overdose of antidepressants while in a state of inebriation, the police dismissed Vreeland’s alibi and threw him in prison.
As for Vreeland, on 12 August 2001 he handed a sealed envelope to the penitentiary authority, containing his deposition on the forthcoming attacks. Initially the Canadian authorities ignored it but, on 14 September, they opened the envelope and there read a precise description of the attacks committed three days earlier in New York. Consequently, Vreeland’s statements «regained their credibility». The forensic pathologist Line Duchesne reviewed the causes of the diplomat Marc Bastien’s death: it turned out that he was indeed assassinated.
The famous video of bin Laden’s “confessions” claiming responsibility for the crash on the Pentagon, confirms the Abbé de Nantes’ intuitions according to which Bush was in communication with bin Laden. They have spared one another by virtue of an agreement to wage a «phoney war»; everything passes off as if the two protagonists were bound by a pact of non-aggression preventing them from directly attacking one another (Resurrection no 11, November 2001, p. 3).
If bin Laden accredited the lie of the «phantom Pentagon plane», it is because he effectively remains, even today, the secret ally of the United States.
On 7 October 2001, war broke out. Not only the air raids on Kabul, but the war of press releases. Bush against bin Laden: «We are supported by the collective will of the world», declares the former. And he includes in this “collective will” «almost a billion people worldwide who practice the Islamic faith. The United States is an enemy of those who aid terrorists and of the barbaric criminals who profane a great religion by committing murder in its name.»
Osama bin Laden’s reply: «To America, I address only a few words. I swear by Allah that America will never again know security until Palestine knows it and until all Western infidel armies leave the holy lands.» And he includes in “the holy lands” Palestine and the Arabian peninsula, all of the Land promised to Abraham and his descendants «from the wadi of Egypt to the Great River, the river Euphrates» (Gn 15.18), «from sea to sea» (Ps 72.8), in order to re-establish the «House of Abraham» on its «foundations» (’al-qawâ cida), as is written in the Koran (II, 127; cf. Resurrection no 13, January 2002, p. 11).
That having been said, «business can commence». And it would succeed: on 9 December 2001, Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart, General Musharraf, concluded an agreement for the construction of a pipeline from Central Asia, joining the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. But it has not happened yet, for the war in Afghanistan is not over. «The hell of Shahikot», described by Frédéric Pons, shows that the elite troops of the American army, abandoned and «poorly informed» – in other words betrayed, by their Afghan “allies” – fell into a trap set by the Islamists determined to fight or die but never surrender, as they pushed ahead with Operation Anaconda at an altitude of three thousand metres: «They thought it would be like crushing a bee with their shoe. Instead they put their foot in an enormous hornets’ nest.» The theory of “zero casualties” is finished. The result: eight killed, fifty seriously wounded. And the hunt is still far from over…
«Victory in Afghanistan» is supposed to have been won, but the war continues. Against whom? Against «terrorism». What is «terrorism»? It is not a State, nor an organisation, nor a doctrine, but a mode of action, observes Meyssan. The expression “War on terrorism” makes no more sense than “War on war”. At a concrete level, George Tenet, director of the CIA, presented Bush on 15 September 2001 with a «Worldwide Attack Matrix». Approved by Rumsfeld, this secret war has been launched against anything that stands in the way of the absolute supremacy which the United States is on the way to exercising over the entire universe.
The «State of the Union Address», pronounced by the President before Congress on 29 January 2002, named «the governments who sponsor terrorism»: North Korea, Iran and Iraq constitute «an axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world». But too much is too much. At the NATO Summit in Berlin, the Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, recalled that the UN and NATO resolution related only to Afghanistan, and that he did not see how the United States could unilaterally engage in other conflicts.
Was the war in Afghanistan a reprisal for the attacks of 11 September? Or were these attacks a windfall for the people who had already planned this war a long time back?
Rereading the message which President George W Bush addressed to his people on the evening of 11 September, one might think that the war in Afghanistan was an act of legitimate defence:
«America was targeted for attack because she is the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining. Today, our nation saw Evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the best of America», etc.
It is all there, even, and above all, an appeal to the Bible, with a quotation from Psalm 23: «Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me.» God is with America, as He was with David… And too bad if appearances make her look more like Goliath…
The day afterwards, 12 September, in the course of a press conference, President Bush preached the Crusade of the democracies: «The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war. This will require our country to unite in steadfast determination and resolve. Freedom and democracy are under attack […]. This enemy attacked not just our people, but all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world.» And the president declared his determination: «We will rally the world.» Whether they like it or not.
In fact the Anglo-American forces, were already in place well before the attacks. From the beginning of September they were deployed on “manoeuvres” in the Sea of Oman, ready to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban regime. As if by chance… The only thing missing was the casus belli: «The United States has always been reluctant to take the initiative in a war, recalls Thierry Meyssan. In the past, they have always worked hard to present their military engagements as legitimate reprisals. With the attacks of 11 September, they found a perfect opportunity…»
Found or created? Old Henry Kissinger answered this question when, immediately after the president’s televised speech, he declared that he expected from the government «a systematic response» to the attacks of 11 September «which, one hopes, will end the way that the attack on Pearl Harbour ended – with the destruction of the system that is responsible for it. That system is a network of terrorist organisations sheltered in capitals of certain countries.»
That same day, the United Nations Security Council recognised the USA’s right to violate the sovereignty of States which protect the agents of attacks, in order to arrest these terrorists and arraign them before international justice (Resolution 1368).
One day Bush came out with out the word “Crusade”. It raised an outcry of indignation, and the president gave up using it. However, it corresponds to reality: «Posing as the spiritual leader of America and the civilised world», writes Meyssan, President Bush decreed that Friday 14 September 2001 should be a National Day of Prayer and Commemoration for the victims of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
An unprecedented ceremony took place at the National Cathedral, before an assembly comprising all religions, during which President Bush ascended the pulpit and pronounced a «homily» in the presence of a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam: «Our responsibility to History is clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of Evil.» How? Through implacable revenge: «Our nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger.»
The president then invited his people to pray to «Almighty God», and he quoted Saint Paul: «Neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God’s love. May He bless the souls of the departed. May He comfort our own. And may He always guide our country. God bless America!»
I confess that when I reread this text, I was tempted to consider the criticism of Thierry Meyssan – who, let us not forget, is the president of the Voltaire Network – as a kind of «blasphemy», very much in the literary style so typical of him. And I shut the book. But on the cover page, the falsehood is there in all its enormity, not Meyssan’s lie, but that of Bush, for «no plane crashed into the Pentagon.» So, all this piety appears to be an enormous hypocrisy, an «act of political manipulation» in the service of the Yankee empire. «By manipulating religious sentiment, the American government has not only sacralized the victims of the attacks but also its own version of the facts. Henceforth, throughout the world, any contestation of the official truth will be considered as a sacrilege.» (Thierry Meyssan, p. 87)
More influential than the Pope, Bush prevailed «even on secular France». On 12 September Jacques Chirac and Lionel Jospin signed a decree declaring Friday 14 September 2001 «“a day of national mourning in homage to the victims of the attacks committed in the United States of America on 11 September 2001”. Accompanied by a cohort of parliamentarians and ministers, they had come, the previous day, to take part in an ecumenical service at the American Church of Paris. Together, they intoned the famous anthem God Bless America!»
They have never done as much for France!
The ultimatum addressed by President Bush to the Taliban on 20 September before a full session of Congress, was but the first stage of a «war on terrorism» which, little by little, will lead to conferring on the president full powers… over the world! The special law, the USA PATRIOT Act, adopted by Congress after three weeks of debate, abolishes fundamental freedoms for a period of four years in the land of Human Rights!
Numerous measures were taken to strengthen the secret-défense: «President George Bush personally contacted Congress leaders to ask them not to endanger national security by creating a commission of inquiry into the events of 11 September. To save face as well as to turn the page, parliamentarians decided instead to create a commission of inquiry… into the measures taken since 11 September to prevent further terrorist activities.»
Ratier notes with astonishment that there exist no video recordings or photographs of the Pentagon crash, although the Pentagon is visited every day by thousands of tourists, cameras and video-recorders slung across their shoulders. The FBI seized the video films from a hotel and a service station, both situated right next to the Pentagon, whose cameras may have contained images of the plane landing (or on the contrary shown that no plane ever did land…)
Not one of the eight black boxes (two per plane) are of any use, it would appear, although they are designed to withstand crashes and fires: «We do not know what was said in the cockpits either by the crew members or by the hijackers.» (the FBI spokesman to CNN) What is known, on the other hand, is that the four planes all followed routes very different from their flight plans. According to the procedures of the FAA (Federal Aviation Agency), as soon as a plane deviates from the corridor assigned it, the agency immediately attempts to make contact with the pilots. Should this not succeed, the alarm is sounded and the entire regional airspace is placed under surveillance. It appears that the transponders were turned off. Yet another reason to activate the emergency procedures. For the plane does not disappear from the radar screens; these continue to follow its trajectory, and the alarm is raised. Now, on 11 September, the fighter planes remained grounded.
The expression is Donald Rumsfeld’s. It can be read in a report issued on 11 January 2001 by the commission he headed, responsible for evaluating the organisation and planning of the security of the United States in matters of space: «History is replete with instances in which warning signs were ignored and change resisted until an external, “improbable” event forced resistant bureaucracies to take action. The question is whether the US will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce US space vulnerability. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people – a “Space Pearl Harbour” – will be the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the US government to act.»
What he meant was «a disabling attack» like that of the Japanese kamikazes on the American Pacific Navy in 1941, which «galvanized the nation and caused the US government to… » enter the war! Is Rumsfeld a prophet? On 11 January 2001, eight months before the attacks of 11 September, he held up the threat of suicide planes, like those of the Japanese air force in 1941, sixty years earlier, as «the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the US government to act». Did you say: Pearl Harbour? In other words: suicide planes? The man is a prophet! Or else, it was he who created the event…
Why «space»? Because, according to the report of the Rumsfeld Commission, “space” is the new theatre of operations – distinct from that of the air – which the United States must appropriate. To exercise uncontested supremacy in this theatre, the Army, Air Force and Navy must be supplemented with a Space Arm whose mission is twofold: to gather intelligence and to execute massive retaliation against anyone threatening world peace.
As well as tearing up the ABM Treaty of 1972, this militarisation of space presupposes a reorganisation of the armed forces which the Commission proceeded to formulate in ten propositions. Tending to place the Space Arm under the direct authority of the president and to subordinate the other Arms to him, it advocated a sizeable increase in the military budget.
On these two points, the Rumsfeld Commission obtained satisfaction, all the more readily in that the honourable Donald Rumsfeld had meantime become Secretary of Defence. The ABM Treaty, dealing with arms limitation, was unilaterally annulled by George W Bush, much to Putin’s displeasure. And the United States’ military budget has known an increase as sudden as it is vertiginous: it is now larger than the combined budgets of the twenty-five strongest armies in the world after itself. An overwhelming superiority.
Once again, it is Donald Rumsfeld we must quote at the conclusion of this inquiry, in an altercation «which could be interpreted as an admission», says Thierry Meyssan. In a press conference given at the Pentagon at the end of the afternoon of 11 September, in the presence of the Democrat and Republican leaders of the Senatorial Commission for Defence, he took Democrat Senator Carl Levin to task:
«You and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defence that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defence, and you fear that you’ll have to dip into the Social Security funds to pay for it. Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defence spending, to dip into Social Security, if necessary, to pay for defence spending – increase defence spending?»
For the last twenty-five years, Abbé de Nantes has repeatedly sounded this warning: «The Free World, the West, Christendom, call it what you like, this vast worldwide reality under the leadership of the USA is being betrayed, surrendered and dismantled by the USA itself at its highest echelons of power.» (French CRC no 100, December 1975, page 11) He has denounced by name the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), a branch of international high finance which aims to control American politics and to enslave France through the intermediary of Europe (French CRC no 112, December 1976, p. 5-6), and also the Trilateral Commission and its mastermind Zbigniew Brzezinski (French CRC no 122, October 1977, and passim). And again in December 1982, he was under no illusion when he wrote: «But no one will tell the truth.» (French CRC no 184, p. 7-8)
Well! The truth is beginning to dawn. Already, on 18 January 1999, the former ambassador Albert Chambon revealed it in Le Figaro à propos the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), in an article entitled: «En route to an American Europe, Amsterdam is the product of a political hegemony intended to make the European nations disappear.»
In January 2000, in an article that we printed in full (“The Yankee Octopus”, English CRC no 328, March 2000, p. 9-12), Philippe Bourcier de Carbon drew attention to the fact that Albert Chambon had broken the Omerta by using the mainstream press to inform the French that the driving force behind the elaboration of the Amsterdam Treaty was the CFR and the Trilateral».
The reply was not long in coming and it came from an expected quarter: «The Polish-American Zbigniew Brzezinski, the adviser of Mr David Rockefeller and of several of the Presidents of the United States, felt obliged to publish in the same columns of Le Figaro, on 26 January 1999, an article entitled: “Defence of the Trilateral. There is no plot”.»
Now, this same Zbigniew Brzezinski published, a few month later, on page one of Le Monde for Saturday 17 April 1999, after NATO had been aerial-bombing Serbia for a month, an article entitled «Total war against Milosevic!»
And now that Yugoslavia is in its death throes, whose turn is it next? France’s? «The Americans have been betraying France since 1918, wrote the former ambassador Albert Chambon. Since 1918 they have been seeking to suppress the French nation and to create a new world order which will do away with the ancient nations and France in the first place.» (quoted in the English CRC no 328, p. 12)
I understand why the Blessed Virgin did not speak of the USA at Fatima, but of Russia… May God Bless Russia, and make her into the instrument of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the peace of the world! But that is another chapter.
A fireball in the sky above Lake Constance, on the German-Swiss border: shortly before midnight, on the night of Monday 1 to Tuesday 2 July 2002, dozens of the inhabitants of Uberlingen witnessed the crash of a Russian Tupolev TU-154 and a Boeing 757 cargo plane owned by the courier company DHL.
What happened? Oh, it is very simple, very sad and mathematical: the two planes collided after the Swiss air traffic controllers in Zurich had three times asked the crew of the Tupolev to lose height. In vain. For reasons unknown, the Russian pilot failed to reply, but he did begin to descend at the last moment. Too late: the pilot of the Boeing, alerted to the approach of the Tupolev by its alarm system, had already in its turn begun to lose height… to avoid a collision, thereby, alas, making it inevitable.
Under the impact, the two planes shed flaming debris over a wide area, falling 11,000 m, onto the north bank of Lake Constance. The only question to be asked is that of responsibility. Why did the Russian plane take so long to react? And how explain the fact that the automatic alarm failed to advise the Boeing pilot of a safer course to avoid the Tupolev?
But the fact remains, in all its indubitable horror: 71 persons perished, 69 of the victims being Russian, among whom 52 were minors and 20 children less than 14 years old, all en route to Barcelona where they were to spend their holidays. The remains of the bodies of the victims, mingled with that of the two planes, lay strewn over the undulating fields. The two black boxes of the Tupolev were located; they will undoubtedly provide answers to the questions asked. But a comparison with the alleged crash of the Pentagon, which left no visible trace of significant debris, neither engines, black boxes nor undercarriage, is eloquent! It allows us to see the difference between a real Boeing and a phantom Boeing…