With regard to OPPORTUNITY, a number of critical points show that it had to have been Halliburton with no aid from the US Government or DOD.

If someone is found at the scene of any crime with a dagger int heir hand, it is usual to regard them as a key suspect. As can be seen in the footage of the Pentagon and other places, construction workers and their huts were present, yet these were always ignored by both the Offical 9/11 Commission investigators and 99$ of all Truthers, yet they were there at the scene of the crimes.

Only the Turner Corporation had access to the elevator shifts granting access to the Trusses to have been able to place the explosives. Turner Corporation, a close ally of Halliburton, also had access to a Naval base in the USA where the newly developed THERMATE (as opposed to ThERMITE) was held as they were doing construction work there at the time. As Turner Corporation is not only an ally of Halliburton, but is currently owned by a German company, best known for its construction of Auschvitz, given Halliburton's Dick Cheney's CIA access to files on the parent companies directors, it is not hard to fathom out that the possibility of blakcmail might well have payed a key role in ensuring Turner's help to Halliburton.

Likewise, there is the question of what hit the WTC. "September Clues" makes it clear that it could only have been a missile, besides which, if the Pentagon was clearly hit by a missile, then there is no reason not to suppose that missiles also hit the WTC.

Whereas the US NAvy loads, paints and maintains the cruise missiles for the US Navy, after becoming Prime Minister, of Britain, Tony Blair, despite being a "socialist", hence against privatisation, contracted out the maintenance, including painting of Britain's nuclear subs, their cruise missiels (the same as the USA ones) and their fire control systems to... Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiaruy of Halliburton. As each missile resides in a separate silo onboard, no sailor, not even the captain would have seen what his own missiles would have looked like in terms of paintwork once loaded by KBR. in terms of fire control, it would have been easy for KBR to have had a technitian replace a circuit board or two to allow the cruise missiles to be electronically hijacked and for the fire control systems to report that the missiles on a test launch had been destroyed rather than flying on to the Eastern Seaboard of the USA.

The next question is one of how missiles actually beat the US Radar defence systems to hit the Pentagon which is supremely defended. The answer lies in the Falklands War. During this, the Exocet and no other Argentine missile did catastrophic damage to the British fleet. The reason for this was revealed at the time. NATO planners long ago realized that a NATO/WARSAW PACT sea battle would last seconds due to the staggering destructive firepower. Radar and missile technicians would have split seconds to respond, so in order to simplify NATO radar systems, a new standard was adopted in which NATO radar systems, including those of the Pentgon, only show…
- potential enemy missiles and aircraft
- your own country’s missiles and aircraft
- civilian and neutral country missiles asd aircraft.

In short, NATO systems as blind to missiles and aircraft belonging to missiles and aircraft of your allies. Hence, a cruise missile launched from a British or French sub would be ENTIRELY INVISIBLE to all of the Pentagon’s radar systems. However, not all systems meet this code and indeed, the base scrambling the jets to head to Whiskey 386 patch of ocean were still fitted with OLD equipment wupon which such missiles would have been clear.

So who had the access to these Norad systems? Not just the USA, but also her allies, such as Britain who had contracted their own work out to…KBR, the subsidiary of Halliburton.

So, where do British subs test fire their missiles? At a place in the atlantic called… Whiskey 386. So were there any British subs in the region? Records on line that I have seen, submitted by one peace grouop in the UK clearly established that HMS Trafalgar left port in the UK on 1st September 2001 to travel via the Americas to the Far East which would have put it in Whiskey 386 or so on 11th September 2001. This peace group who incidentally have nothing to do with the 9/11 movement, established that when HMS Trafalgar reached port in the Far East, her inventory of cruise missiles were down by EIGHT,, indicating a test firing in Whiskey 386 of 8 Cruise missiles on about 11th September 2001. Had this occurred, and they been compromised and electronically hijacked without the sub knowing, they could have been flown straight to the Pentagon and the WTC without a glitch on any NATO radar.

Finally, how did they get a dunce like George W Bush to lie? Simple. he didn't. What he said was LITERALLY TRUE, but open to the wrong interprestation, for the WTC WAS hit by hijacked aircraft, but not jetliners, British cruise missiles.