Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

I have started to post this correspondence I had with Mike Williams at various places online. I don't think we should get off point here very much, but I think this is significant precisely because Mike Williams didn't even try to refute it. He had no response to anything I said here. And I do regard 911 truth as the sister movement to JFK truth. 

And remember that this Mike Williams says that he is a successful author and software inventor on his 911 site, but says on his JFK site that he's been a professional gunsmith for 30 years.  Myself, I do not believe one word this man says, including his name. My letter to him starts below. If you are active in 911 truth, please post it anywhere you can. Thank you. 

Mike, I wonder if you have considered the issue of smuggling the box-cutters on the planes? It was already prohibited by the airlines pre-911. And even pre-911, you had to walk through a metal detector, and your carry-ons were x-rayed. So how hard was it to smuggle a razor knife on a plane? I don't know, but if we assume that each of the 19 hijackers had one such knife, then it happened 19 times in one day at 3 different airports. What are the odds of that?

And have you given much thought to how easy it would have been for the hijackers to overcome the crews and take control of the planes? A box-cutter is a formidable weapon, but the hijackers were vastly outnumbered. And while a hijackjer was slashing one guy, one or more other guys could have been jumping him from behind.

And what about the part about the pilots surrendering the planes to the hijackers? For instance, Barbara Olsen said that the pilots were huddled in the back of American 77 with the passengers. Would Captain Burlingame have surrendered the controls of the plane to a guy just because he was waving a box-cutter at him? Or, let's say the hijacker had the knife to the jugular of a stewardess. So, he had no choice, is that it? Well, think about it: What reason would he have to think that the guy could competently fly a 757? How many people in the world can do that? What is it about a swarthy Arab guy wielding a box-cutter that would inspire confidence in his piloting ability? 

I have a good friend who is a commercial pilot, and he tells me that a terrorist could be "de-emboweling a stewardess," and he would not give up the controls of the plane. Doesn't it seem more likely that he would fight the guy to the death? I know I would. So, how did Burlingame wind up in the back of the plane? Any ideas?   

There are all kinds of problems with the notion of 4 guys taking over a plane with box-cutters. I don't know how you British guys are, but I can tell you American men are a rather feisty, hot-headed bunch. You might say that rage becomes us. There's plenty of us who, upon realizing some guy was on a rampage with a box-cutter on the plane, would take it right to him. Remember, the hijacker has got the element of surprise only once and for a very short time. After that, it's mano-o-mano. Sure, he's still got an advantage. But I'm not helpless. I, for instance, travel with a rather heavy briefcase that's quite solid, which I keep with me. If I slam that thing into his face, he's not going to be feeling too bueno- with or without a box-cutter. But whether I succeed at taking him out or not, if he's fending me off with his box-cutter, he's not paying attention to the other American who's coming at him from behind. 

Now think about it: they had to start with the pilots and get control of the planes because if they started anywhere else, the pilots would have gotten wind of it and sent a distress signal- which none of the four pilots did. Agreed? And again, I don't think any of the pilots would have handed over the controls of the plane under any circumstances because there was no basis to assume flying competence among the attackers. But if somehow, two hijackers did wind up behind the controls, then they are out of commission as fighters. You can't fight and fly at the same time. Right? So how could the two remaining hijackers with box-cutters subdue all those people?  

Well, let's just say it wouldn't be easy. How hard would it be? I don't know, But it's got to be at least as hard as getting a hit in baseball. Right? Or are you more of a cricket man? But let's see, a good batting average in baseball is in the high 200s. Getting above 300 is darn good. And the best batting average of all time was Ty Cobb at 367. But these hijackers actually batted 1000. Imagine that. They hit 4 for 4. And they did it without causing the slightest ripple or disturbance in the flight path of the planes, going from pilot control to hijacker control. Smooth as silk! They did it before any pilot could move the transponder down into hijack mode. Amazing grace. 

Of course, we all know about Todd Beamer and the "Let's Roll" gang on Flight 93. But the thing is, and again, you being a limey maybe you wouldn't understand, is that for American men, the resistance would have come much earlier. The peril of just turning the plane over to the terrorists to fly would have registered very fast, and I mean instantly. Think about it! What were the hijackers going to do? Land the plane somewhere? If so, why remove the professional pilots? Hijackers know that pilots are instructed to take hijackers wherever they want to go, fuel permitting. Why waste hijacker manpower flying the plane when you've got commercial pilots who will cooperate and do exactly as you ask? Would it not be better to let them do what they're good at it, which is flying the plane, and you do what you're good at, which is waving a box cutter around and threatening people and acting scary? Why would the hijackers demand the controls when they had pilots who would have flown the plane anywhere within reason? So, why wouldn't the implications of such an unusual hijacker request (to fly the plane) not be realized by the pilots and refused? 

In fact, under no circumstances would those pilots have turned the planes over to the hijackers, and you know it.

So, the part of the story with the least credibility is the part about the pilots turning over control of the plane to hijackers, presumably to avoid getting cut or someone else getting cut. But, that just doesn't cut it.  They just wouldn't do it because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make survival sense. It would only increase the peril to everyone. I'd like you to respond.  


And by the way, I've done some searches for Mike Williams. If you are a free-lance writer, I presume you have done more than this 911 website, but I can't find anything about you or anything that you have written. We're talking about the World Wide Web here, and everything is on it. What book or books have you written? Are they available on Amazon?  And I guess you don't develop the software in your own name, is that it? Question: Are you sure you're not a CIA agent?