Canadians are smarter than we are, or more creative. Anyway, one of them is.
A.K. Dewdney is a professor of computer science at the University of Western Ontario, a mathematician, environmental scientist, and author of books and articles on diverse subjects; i.e. a deep thinker.
When I got the e-mail about Dewdney from a friend, I almost kissed it off. It was about the professor’s 3-part analysis of the 9/11 tragedy, which he calls (don’t laugh) Ghost Riders in the Sky—An alternative 9/11 scenario.
The article you’re reading, obviously, couldn’t begin to cover the mounds of factual data uncovered in Dewdney’s treatise, but the professor’s own introduction to his work indicates his depth of inquiry, the singular nature of his premise, and his unique view of other possible realities about 9/11.
His introduction begins with a description of how reality can become an illusion, and vice versa:
Effective stage magic produces the illusion of an event that did not actually happen, at least not in the manner implied by the illusion. The implied explanation is “magic”, while the actual explanation, invariably more complicated, is quite different.
Most people in the audience know that the implied explanation is wrong. They try to imagine how the effect was produced. Very few believe the “official” explanation.
In blacker forms of magic, the manipulative element remains but the polarity of the audience is reversed. Most of the audience “knows” that the implied explanation is correct and do not try to imagine how the effect was produced. Very few disbelieve it.
If the event of September 11, 200l were all part of an elaborate piece of stage magic, in effect, how could it have been arranged? This article explores one possibility .
Sounds like words from a David Copperfield compendium on illusive tricks, doesn’t it? I thought so too, and the idea almost had me deleting the e-mail and telling my friend he was nuts. But curiosity killed the notion and on impulse I clicked onto Professor Dewdney’s website, called up his Ghost Riders scenario, printed it out, and spent the next two hours reading—one of the most interesting, provocative, extensively-researched, pieces of investigative literature I have read in a long time.
Professor Dewdney’s analysis starts with a premise that you will either accept as a possibility, or you won’t. If not, don’t bother to read further. If you do, you’ll be rewarded.
Dewdney’s theory is this:
Long before the Boeing 767 aircraft of Flight 11 turned around and hit the north tower, the pilot, the co-pilot, and all the passengers aboard the plane were already dead.
Suicide bombers were not the cause. The aircraft was hijacked from the ground in an elaborate scheme that involved poison gas aboard the plane, on-land electronic controls, fake telephone calls, planted evidence, synchronized actions on the ground, and a myriad of complex activities that had taken months of preparation and planning to coordinate.
I know, I know, this sounds like the plot of a Tom Clancy novel, but Professor Dewdney explains in simple, detailed fashion how this could have been done.
Dewdney examines the technical feasibility of hijacking a large commercial jet and turning it into a fuel bomb—electronically. He also describes the clues that may indicate something quite different from hijackings by “Arab terrorists” was in progress that day.
The whole point of any attack, Dewdney maintains, is to publicize a cause. No “terrorist” attack on record, he discovered, had ever been carried out without someone claiming responsibility. Yet, in this case, even British Reporter Robert Fisk reported, “They left no message behind. They left just silence.”
This is just one of the many “clues” that helped Dewdney unravel the mystery of 9/11 and explore his theory—the theory of a scenario so improbable that only a well-organized intelligence agency, involving 50 or more field agents, could have pulled it off. And so preposterous in concept that for mainstream sources to even consider investigating it further would have seemed senseless and foolhardy.
But that apparently did not satisfy nor deter Professor Dewdney. With persistent investigation, meticulous fact-finding and checking, “black-box” and tensile-strengths research, cell-phone call time frames, hundreds of interviews with pilots and crews, and an incalculable number of hours fitting pieces of the puzzle together, the professor’s alternative scenario gradually took form and went from an unthinkable illusion to a possible reality.
The incremental method and errorless precision by which this electronic hijacking may have been done, how the other three aircraft were involved in the multiple tragedies, why New York and Washington had to be the specific targets, and who the real beneficiaries of this particular hijacking were, are all contained, in minute detail, in Professor Dewdney’s intriguing work.
Before now, this writer had never heard of Professor Dewdney; certainly I knew nothing of his alternative theory about the 9/11 tragedy; and I am surely not promoting any of his professional work.
Yet, I have no qualms about recommending that anyone interested in digging out the truth of an incident could do worse than give Ghost Riders in the Sky a thoughtful read.
Here is the website on which you will find it:
http://www.feralnews.com/issues/911/dewdney/ghost_riders_1-4_1.html
Pass it on.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”