Sept 11 2001: concerns about “controlled demolition” & “collusion”
What is Building 7?
Building 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was part of the World Trade Center complex. It would have been the tallest high-rise in 33 states. It collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by an airplane and suffered minimal damage compared to other buildings much closer to the Twin Towers.
Video compilation of Building 7‘s destruction (no sound):
W T C 7
Tidy Rubble Pile
|Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.
The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.
Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?
|The unexplained collapse of Building 7 is the tip of the iceberg
of unexplored issues of the September 11th attack.
9 – 1 1 R e s e a r c h examines those broader issues.
Scientific analysis of World Trade Center dust reveals
unexploded nano-engineered thermitic material
Read the article published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal:
Videos Show Building 7’s Vertical Collapse
The survival of several video recordings of Building 7’s collapse, though of low resolution, allow study of the building’s motion and the time of collapse.
Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building’s roof with no air resistance.
| video broadcast by CBS – 1.4MB – mpeg
This 36-second video shows Building 7 from an elevated vantage point to the distant northeast.
| video from an NBC news camera – 1.5MB – mpeg
This 9-second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point about mile to the northeast on West Broadway.
| video broadcast on CBS – 1.7MB – mpeg
This 9.6-second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.
Thanks for Krsto Herenda for finding the CBS video, and to plaguepuppy for transcribing it to MPEG.
by Mark Daniels
Global Political Awakening
Geraldo Rivera, Fox News correspondent and host of Geraldo At Large, interviewed 9/11 investigator, Bob McIlvaine, whose son was murdered in the explosions which destroyed World Trade Center, Building 7. The interview actually allowed room for some truth to reach the millions of Fox viewers who still rely on the “Corporate Media” for reliable information and news. (see Video below).
Recently, Glenn Beck also claimed that he would prove that the Department of Homeland Security was operating secret prisons, a.k.a. FEMA CAMPS which he later attempted to debunk by interviewing a couple of so called “investigative” journalists with Popular Mechanics. What he did not tell his viewers in the “debunking” scenario was that the PM “investigators” only reported on a couple of sites which were NOT FEMA Camps while ignoring all the information detailing the existence of both the actual FEMA Camps and the Congressional legislation authorizing them.
I wonder if Fox News will do subsequent reports attempting to debunk the solid science behind the “Building What” campaign, especially considering the numerous past attempts by Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly, just to name a couple, to demonize the 9/11 Truthers by calling them names, such as, “nut job”, “crazy”, “nut case”, and “lunatic fringe”. Fox News has also published recent articles attempting to demonize some of the newest, celebrity 9/11 Truthers, such as Jesse Ventura, who hosts the TruTv show, Conspiracy Theory. (The latest episode, Police State, exposes the lies told by the Federal Government and Corporate Media concerning the FEMA Camps.
The Origin of “BuildingWhat?”
More than eight years after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, New York Supreme Court Justice Edward H. Lehner was hearing arguments in a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero about a ballot initiative to launch a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks. When the lawyer for the plaintiffs sponsoring the initiative explained that the 9/11 Commission report left many unanswered questions, including “Why did Building 7 come down,” the Judge replied quizzically, “Building what?”Like Judge Lehner, millions of people do not know or remember only vaguely that a third tower called World Trade Center Building 7 also collapsed on September 11, 2001. In any other situation, the complete, free fall collapse of a 47-story skyscraper would be played over and over on the news. It would be discussed for years to come and building design codes would be completely rewritten. So, why does no one know about Building 7? And why did Building 7 come down?The answers to these questions have far-reaching implications for our society. The goal of the “BuildingWhat?” campaign is to raise awareness of Building 7 so that together we can begin to address these questions.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT http://buildingwhat.org/
Smoking gun evidence:
Building no.7 : a 47-story building simply and amazingly collapsed into its own footprint
within seven seconds, an astonishing free fall;
yet the fires were too small to cause any kind of structural collapse,
Here are the fires below:
This and so many other evidences, as you will investigate and see for yourself,
all point to amazing conclusions, if you can stomach the results….
Oh,,,,, by the way the owner of B.No. 7, Larry Silverstein, collected nearly $500 million dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, and said to his men to “pull it” late in the afternoon on Sept. 11, 2001, a term well know to demolition crews,,,
In another report,
Larry Silverstein purchased the WTC complex for $98 million dollars six months before 9/11. [New York Times]
He is being awarded $4.6 billion insurance money due to the destruction of his buildings. [Forbes Magazine]
Net profit = 4.5 BILLION DOLLARS
Larry Silverstein’s $3.5B Definition
Dan Ackman, 07.23.03, 7:27 AM ET
NEW YORK – An overflow crowd gathered at the normally sleepy Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an extended argument on the meaning of the word “occurrence.” Interest in the question was intensified by the fact that $3.5 billion could be riding on the answer.
The three-judge court sitting in Manhattan was hearing arguments in the World Trade Center insurance litigation in which Larry Silverstein, who holds a 99-year lease for the buildings that were destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, is claiming that he is entitled to recover $7.1 billion from the 22 insurers of the properties, twice the ostensible policy limit, on the ground that the attack of the center was two occurrences, not one. Otherwise, he would be stuck with the $3.55 face value of the policies.
Silverstein’s lawyer, Herbert Wachtell, told the appeals court that the law was so clear that his client deserved summary judgment on the issue, which a lower court judge had denied. Though he insisted the result was inescapable, Wachtell’s argument was highly nuanced and it drew some incredulous questioning from the judges.
Wachtell’s argument goes like this: When Silverstein was negotiating with the insurance companies, his broker Willis Group Holdings (nyse: WSH – news – people ) propounded a form of insurance called the WilProp form. This form defined “occurrence” to mean “losses or damages that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to one series of similar causes.” U.S. District Court Judge John Martin, whose decisions are on appeal, said this definition means that the attack was a single occurrence.
Wachtell disagreed, but he emphasized more his view that the WilProp form had been abandoned, and that Silverstein and the insurers were about to proceed with a form issued by Travelers Property Casualty (nyse: TAP.B – news – people ). The Travelers form did not define occurrence at all and it was never formally agreed to by anyone. In fact, by Sept. 11, there was no final policy, just a series of preliminary agreements known as binders. But Wachtell insisted that the progress of the negotiations indicate that they would have adopted the Travelers form, and, without a definition, the court must enforce the definition supplied by New York law. That definition would define the World Trade Center attack as two occurrences.
At one point, Judge Jose Cabranes wondered how the law would bind insurers based on a to-be-negotiated contract that many of them had never seen. Wachtell, a founding partner of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, New York’s most profitable law firm, held his ground. “That is exactly the law,” he said. “That’s what you say the law is,” the judge answered.
Barry Ostrager, the lawyer for Swiss Re (otc: SWECY – news – people ), the insurer with the most to lose, called Wachtell’s entire theory “a lawyer-driven concoction.” While it’s possible for one insurance company to agree to the terms negotiated by a “lead” insurer, it never happened in this case, he said, adding that the Traveler’s form never bound any company, except possibly Travelers. With no binding definition, Swiss Re has argued that a jury must decide what the parties meant.
Lawyers for three of the insurers, Hartford Financial Services (nyse: HIG – news – people ), Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (nyse: RSA – news – people ) and St. Paul Cos. (nyse: SPC – news – people ), played a stronger hand, as Judge Martin had ruled that they were definitively bound by the WilProp form. Their lawyers, including Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor and former United States Solicitor General, argued that the specific terms of the working agreement must govern. Fried said that allowing a court to delve into the “vague process” argument that Silverstein has forwarded would dramatically unsettle the law. (Two of the original 22 insurers are not part of the lawsuit since they have settled with Silverstein already.)
Wachtell countered that there was nothing vague about it. The ordinary custom is to not define “occurrence.” Usually this lack of definition works against the policy holder because it frees the insurers to argue that a loss was caused by multiple events, with a separate deductible for each. Here, where the loss was total, the standard definition where there is no definition is supplied by past court cases. “Silence does not equal ambiguity,” Wachtell said as the law itself imposes a definition that is unambiguous. That law defines “occurrence” as the “immediate, efficient, physical, proximate cause of the loss, not some indirect or more remote cause of causes,” Wachtell noted. For him, the immediate cause were the airplanes, of which there were two, not the plot that set the airplanes in motion, of which there was one.
The judges didn’t seem to find any of it all that clear. But even if he loses his appeal, Wachtell should get a chance to take Silverstein’s case to a jury. After the argument, Silverstein repeated his insistence that all he wants is a fast resolution so he could put the money to work rebuilding the towers. If Wachtell manages to tell that to New York jurors in a courtroom about a mile from the site of the catastrophe, they may be inclined to care more about two towers falling than they do about 20 insurance binders passing.
Silverstein states, “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
Click here to watch the clip.
We know that the term ‘pull it’ means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, “…we’re getting ready to pull the building six.” The term is industry jargon for planned demolition.
Click here to listen to the clip.
Why is Silverstein not under indictment for murder
and insurance fraud???
And can you guess what might have been in that building???
And another interesting indicator:
Dr. Robert M. Bowman,
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney. Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.
Just search him out on the internet and other sources, and browse below for some other observations. links and indicators… May you be guided and peace be upon those that follow the guidance…
September 10, 2010
Please visit this Raw Story cover of the Press Conferences as well.
Clicks to those websites will show to the moderators and site managers that the story is important – all it takes is a click to show support for 9/11 truth in more ways than one!
source for below material: 9/11 Blogger Sep 10, 2010
On the eve of the 9th anniversary of 9/11, support for the war in Afghanistan took a serious blow today. Simultaneous press conferences were held in New York and Los Angeles to present startling new information refuting the official 9/11 narrative used to justify the war. Also announced were three major professional groups which have joined the worldwide, and ever-growing, “9/11 Truth Movement”.
In a striking show of unity, representatives of “Scientists for 9/11 Truth”, “U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth” and “Actors & Artists for 9/11 Truth” presented their findings and unveiled their eye-opening websites. Each non-profit group has launched a petition calling for a new, transparent investigation.
1 Comment | 9/11, Professionals for 9/11 truth | Tagged: 9/11, architects, engineers, anniversary, scientists, actors, artists, military officers, for 9/11 truth, press conferences | Permalink
Posted by Brian
The events of Sept 11 2001 were monumental by any standard of historical events.
What is real?
What is true?
Where is the truth and justice?
How did it happen?
Who perpetrated this bloodletting?
What does “New Pearl Harbor” mean to the “Project for a New American Century” think tank ?
Originally, soon after the event, Osama Bin Ladin said:
“I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. There exists a government within the government of the United States. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks…. The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks to those persons who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own nation could survive.- [Osama Bin Laden (Source: BBC, AP, Ummat, and others)]
See “Responsibility for the September 11 attacks”
Then later, he say that, yes indeed, he did do it.
Then we also have many confessions under torture.
Is this double reverse psychology?
After the attack, beside the fact, anyways,,, etc?
Why not play the game and use to advantage once the attack is on for survival, is that the psychology of confession?
Allah knows best and we can only surmise from our limited knowledge of the details.
Is this some kind of asymmetrical and psychological warfare, like the purported “suicides” at Guantanamo Bay prison? (which were actually murders as all who follow these events know for sure, just research it yourself.)
Nevertheless, whatever the case may be about confessions, reverse-psych-ops, etc, the facts remain stark and startling:
Many citizens and profession structural architects, engineers, and scientists are concerned about the lies and misinformation presented in the official USA government reports and commissions about the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building no. 7.
Why are they concerned?
The official version of the events on Sept 11 2001 violate the basic laws of physicals and chemistry, not to mention material evidence, eye-witness testimonials, circumstantial evidence, historical precedents, the fact that all physical evidence of the greatest ‘crime of the century’ was hauled off and sold to China as scrap, hubris, etc etc. Why would they do that?
The 911 truth and justice movement is gaining and growing all over the world on concerns about the irrefutable evidence about “controlled demolition” & “collusion” on Sept 11 2001.
See some of the evidence for yourself, reflect and decide for yourself:
“Smoking gun” evidence of 9/11
twin tower controlled demolition by
professional structural architect
Richard Gage, AIA Architect,
“How The Towers Fell”
Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers
Challenge Official Account of 9/11
January 14, 2008 at 11:56:43
By Alan Miller (about the author)
For OpEdNews: Alan Miller – Writer
|Official Account of 9/11: “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce”January 14, 2008 Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story. The officers’ statements appear below, listed alphabetically.|
|Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD||“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret).  With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”|
|Regarding the failure of NORAD to intercept the four hijacked planes on 9/11, Col. Bowman said, “I’m an old interceptor pilot. I know the drill. I’ve done it. I know how long it takes. I know the rules. … Critics of the government story on 9/11 have said: ‘Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing’. That’s not true. If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.” During his 22-year Air Force career, Col. Bowman also served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot.|
|Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom||Former U.S. Air Force pilot Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom wrote in a 2007 statement to this author, “When 9/11 occurred I bought the entire government and mainstream media story line. I was a lifelong conservative Republican that voted for Bush/Cheney, twice. Curiosity about JFK’s death, after a late night TV re-run of Oliver Stone’s movie, got me started researching and digging for the truth about his assassins.“My research led me to a much more important and timely question: the mystery of what really did happen on 9/11. Everything that seemed real, turned out to be false. The US government and the news media, once again, were lying to the world about the real terrorists and the public murder of 2,972 innocents on 9/11.|
|“The ‘Patriot Act’ was actually written prior to 9/11 with the intention of destroying the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was passed by Congress, based upon the government’s myth of 9/11, which was in reality a staged hoax. 9/11 was scripted and executed by rogue elements of the military, FAA, intelligence, and private contractors working for the US government.“In addition to severely curtailing fundamental rights of Americans, the 9/11 crime was then used by this administration, the one I originally voted for and supported, to justify waging two preemptive wars (and most likely a third war), killing over 4,500 American soldiers, and killing over one million innocent Afghan and Iraqi people.“It was all premeditated. Treason, a false flag military operation, and betrayal of the trust of the American people were committed on 9/11 by the highest levels of the US government and not one person responsible for the crimes, or the cover-up, has been held accountable for the last six years.|
“After reading fifteen well-researched books, studying eight or nine DVD documentaries, and devoting months of personal research and investigation, I have arrived at one ultimate conclusion: The American government and the US Constitution have been hijacked and subverted by a group of criminals that today are the real terrorists. They are in control of the US government and they have all violated their oaths of office and committed treason against their own citizens.”
|Capt. Daniel Davis||Capt. Daniel Davis is a former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. After his military service, Capt. Davis served for 15 years as a Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division and then devoted an additional 15 years as founder and CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company.In a statement to this author, Capt. Davis wrote, “As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.”|
|Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam, Capt. Davis also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area.Capt. Davis continued, “Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there’s no way all four of them could!“Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is difficult for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled ‘terrorists’. Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State’.”|
Major Jon I. Fox is a former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot and a retired commercial airline pilot for Continental Airlines with a 35-year commercial aviation career. In 2007, in support of the Architects and Engineers petition to reinvestigate 9/11, he wrote, “On hearing the military (NORAD/NEAD) excuses for no intercepts on 9/11/2001, I knew from personal experience that they were lying. I then began re-checking other evidence and found mostly more lies from the ‘official spokesmen’. Jet fuel fires at atmospheric pressure do not get hot enough to weaken steel. Structures do not collapse through themselves in free fall time with only gravity as the powering force.” 
|Commander Ralph Kolstad||Retired U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot Commander Ralph Kolstad started questioning the official account of 9/11 within days of the event. In a statement to this author, he wrote, “It just didn’t make any sense to me,” he said. And now six years after 9/11 he says, “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story.” Commander Kolstad was a top-rated fighter pilot during his 20-year Navy career. Early in his career, he was accorded the honor of being selected to participate in the Navy’s ‘Top Gun’ air combat school, officially known as the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School. The Tom Cruise movie “Top Gun” reflects the experience of the young Navy pilots at the school. Eleven years later, Commander Kolstad was further honored by being selected to become a ‘Top Gun’ adversary instructor.|
|Commander Kolstad had a second career after his 20 years of Navy active and reserve service and served as a commercial airline pilot for 27 years, flying for American Airlines and other domestic and international careers. He flew Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100 airliners. He has flown a total of over 23,000 hours in his career.Commander Kolstad is especially critical of the account of American Airlines Flight 77 that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. He says, “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.”Commander Kolstad adds, “I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!”|
He points to the physical evidence at the Pentagon impact site and asks in exasperation, “Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?”
But no major element of the official account of 9/11 is spared from Commander Kolstad’s criticism. Regarding the alleged impact site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, PA, he asks, “Where is any of the wreckage? Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane? Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel? Where is any evidence at all?”
Commander Kolstad also questions many aspects of the attack on the World Trade Center. “How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn’t the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just doesn’t add up.”
“Why did the second building collapse before the first one, which had been burning for 20 minutes longer after a direct hit, especially when the second one hit was just a glancing blow? If the fire was so hot, then why were people looking out the windows  and in the destroyed areas? Why have so many members of the New York Fire Department reported seeing or hearing many ‘explosions’ before the buildings collapsed?”
Commander Kolstad summarized his frustration with the investigation and disbelief of the official account of 9/11, “If one were to act as an accident investigator, one would look at the evidence, and then construct a plausible scenario as to what led to the accident. In this case, we were told the story and then the evidence was built to support the story. What happened to any intelligent investigation? Every question leads to another question that has not been answered by anyone in authority. This is just the beginning as to why I don’t believe the official ‘story’ and why I want the truth to be told.”
|Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski||A Pentagon eye-witness and a former member of the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret), is a severe critic of the official account of 9/11. A contributing author to the 2006 book 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, she wrote, “I believe the [9/11] Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research.”She continued, “It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics.”|
|Col. Kwiatkowski was working in the Pentagon on 9/11 in her capacity as Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense when Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon. She wrote, “There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Secretary of Defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a ‘missile.’  [Secretary Rumsfeld also publicly referred to Flight 93 as the plane that was “shot down” over Pennsylvania.]“I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact – no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. … [A]ll of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.“The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. … But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.|
“The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. … More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day.”
The improbability of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 is a major concern of these officers and a growing number of scientists, engineers and architects. The building was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, the Federal government has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to the failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission’s “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” [Video of the collapse can be seen at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv]
|Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford||Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), an attack pilot with over 300 combat missions, wrote in 2007 to the Michigan Daily, “Our government has been hijacked by means of a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ and a lot of otherwise good and decent people who are gullible enough to think that the first three steel-framed buildings in history fall down because they have some fires that the fire fighter on the scene said could be knocked down with a couple of hoses and through which people walked before they were photographed looking out the holes  where the plane hit. One of these, Building 7, was never hit by a plane and even NIST is ashamed to advance a reason for its collapse. And, miracle of miracles, these three buildings just happened to be leased and insured by the same guy who is on tape  saying they decided to ‘PULL’ the last one to fall.”|
|During his 20 year military career, Col. Lankford’s decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross, and 32 awards of the Air Medal.In a statement to this author, Col. Lankford wrote, “September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the watershed event of our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes. The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events, the failure to respond during the event, and the astounding lack of any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment. It has been used to justify all manners of measures to legalize repression at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire abroad. Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger.”|
|Lt. Col. Jeff Latas||Another harsh critic of the official account of 9/11 is Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret). A former combat fighter pilot, Col. Latas is currently a commercial airline pilot.Col. Latas is a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. In 2007 he was interviewed by the group’s founder, commercial airline pilot, Rob Balsamo, regarding the group’s documentary video, Pandora’s Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77,  which focuses on the 9/11 Commission’s account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the data from the Flight Data Recorder alleged by the NTSB to be from Flight 77.|
|In the interview, Col. Latas said, “After I did my own analysis of it, it’s obvious that there’s discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information. And I think that’s where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11. And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening.”A highly decorated fighter pilot, Col. Latas was awarded the Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. His combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch. During his 20-year Air Force career, he also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer, as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and as President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board.Col. Latas concluded, “And I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you’ve [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found. And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don’t accept the excuses that we’re hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation.”|
|Capt. Eric H. MayCommander Ted Muga||Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret), is a former Army Intelligence Officer who also served as an inspector and interpreter for the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty team. He is one of many signers of a petition  requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11. In 2005, he wrote: “As a former Army officer, my tendency immediately after 911 was to rally ’round the colors and defend the country against what I then thought was an insidious, malicious all-Arab entity called Al-Qaida. In fact, in April of 2002, I attempted to reactivate my then-retired commission to return to serve my country in its time of peril. …Now I view the 911 event as Professor David Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor, views it: as a matter that implies eitherA) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse …|
B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East …” 
Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret), is a Navy aviator, who, after retirement, had a second career as a commercial airline pilot for Pan-Am.
In a 2007 interview on the Alex Jones Show, Commander Muga stated, “The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it’s not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. … I just can’t imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
|“And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. … I mean, hell, a guy doesn’t give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.“And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There’s a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. …“Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they’re designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you’re going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it’s bordering on impossible.”|
|Col. George Nelson||“In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident,” wrote Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret), a former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. “The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view,” continued Col. Nelson, a graduate of the U.S. Air Force War College and a 34-year Air Force veteran.|
|“With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …“As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.”|
|Maj. John M. Newman, PhDCapt. Omar PradhanCol. Ronald D. Ray||Maj. John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret), is the former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency. In testimony before a 2005 Congressional briefing, he said, “It falls to me this morning to bring to your attention the story of Saeed Sheikh, whose full name is Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, and his astonishing rise to power in Al Qaeda, his crucial role in 9/11, which is completely, utterly, missing from the 9/11 Commission report…“The 9/11 Commission which studied US intelligence and law enforcement community performance in great detail, (maybe not so much great detail, but they did), neglected to cover the community’s performance during the weeks following the attacks to determine who was responsible for them, not a word about that in the Report.“The Report does discuss the immediate US responses but the immediate investigation is never addressed, and anyone who has closely studied the post-9/11 investigation knows that the first breakthrough came two weeks into the investigation when the money transfers from the United Arab Emirates to the hijackers were uncovered.|
“Furthermore, if you have studied that investigation, you know there is no disputing that while investigators may have struggled with the identity of the paymaster, they were clear about one thing, he was Al Qaeda’s finance chief. For this reason alone you have to ask why the 9/11 Commission Report never mentions the finance chief’s role as the 9/11 paymaster.” 
Capt. Omar Pradhan, U.S. Air Force, is a former AWACS command pilot and Flight Instructor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In a 2007 statement to this author, Capt. Pradhan wrote, “As a proud American, as a distinguished USAF E-3 AWACS Aircraft Commander (with 350+ hours of combat time logged over Afghanistan and Iraq), and as a former U.S. Air Force Academy Flight Instructor, I warmly endorse the professional inquiry and pursuit of comprehensive truth sought by the Pilots for 911 Truth organization and the PatriotsQuestion911 website.”
Another senior officer questioning the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan. A highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart), he was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 – 1994), and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. He was Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. (1990 – 1994).
In an interview on Alex Jones’ radio show on June 30, 2006 , Col. Ray described the official account of 9/11 as “the dog that doesn’t hunt”, meaning it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. In response to Alex Jones’ question, “Is it safe to say or is the statement accurate that you smell something rotten in the state of Denmark when it comes to 9/11?” Col. Ray replied,“I’m astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that’s accurate. That’s true.”
|“After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back,” wrote Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret), in a statement to this author.A retired fighter pilot, Col. Razer served as an instructor at the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program and flew combat missions over Iraq. He continued, “The ‘collapse’ of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building’s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein’s video taped confession in which he states ‘they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse.’“We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic’. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it,” he concluded.|
|Maj. Scott RitterMaj. Douglas Rokke, PhDLt. Col. Anthony Shaffer||Maj. Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps, is a former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer who also served as Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq 1991 – 1998. In 2005, he said: “I, like the others, are frustrated by the 9/11 Commission Report, by the lack of transparency on the part of the United States government, both in terms of the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to putting out on the table all facts known to the 9/11 case.” Maj. Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret), former Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project and 30-year veteran, had this to say about the explosion at the Pentagon on 9/11, “When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile’s impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” The 9/11 Commission Report asserts that only three of the alleged hijackers were known to U.S. intelligence agencies prior to 9/11: Nawaf al-Hazmi, Salem al-Hazmi, and Khalid al-Mihdar. There is no mention in the Report that the names and photographs of alleged hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi and alleged ring-leader Mohamed Atta had been identified by the Department of Defense anti-terrorist program known as Able Danger more than a year prior to 9/11 and that they were known to be affiliates of al-Qaida. Able Danger also identified Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdar.|
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2006 , Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve, former Chief of the Army’s Controlled HUMINT (Human Intelligence) Program, overseeing Army Intelligence and Security Command’s global controlled HUMINT efforts, stated: “[B]asic law enforcement investigative techniques, with 21st Century data mining and analytical tools … resulted in the establishment of a new form of intelligence collection – and the identification of Mohammed Atta and several other of the 9-11 terrorists as having links to Al Qaeda leadership a full year in advance of the attacks. …
“After contact by two separate members of the ABLE DANGER team, … the 9-11 [Commission] staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation of the issues that were identified to them. … It was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims – to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a ‘preconceived’ conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell. … I consider this a failure of the 9-11 staff – a failure that the 9-11 Commissioners themselves were victimized by – and continue to have perpetrated on them by the staff as is evidenced by their recent, groundless conclusion that ABLE DANGER’s findings were ‘urban legend’.”
|A 23-year military intelligence veteran, Col. Shaffer was recently awarded the Bronze Star for bravery in Afghanistan. In a 2005 interview on Fox News, Col Shaffer asked, “Why did this operation, which was created in ’99 to target Al Qaeda globally, offensively, why was that turned off in the Spring of 2001, four months before we were attacked? I can’t answer that, either. I can tell you I was ordered out of the operation directly by a two-star general.” Supporting Col. Shaffer’s statement, Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy, currently Commanding Officer of the guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf and former head of the Able Danger data mining program, stated in 2005: “I will not discuss this outside of my chain of command. I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) Dr. Cambone as well as the 9/11 Commission. My story has remained consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger in January/February 2000.”  Capt. Phillpott is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, who during his 23 years of Navy service has been awarded the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, three Meritorious Service Medals, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, two Navy Commendation Medals, and the Navy Achievement Medal.|
|Joel SkousenGen. Albert Stubblebine||Former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot Joel M. Skousen also questions the official account of 9/11. After his military service, Mr. Skousen served as Chairman of the Conservative National Committee in Washington DC and Executive Editor of Conservative Digest.“In the March 2005 issue, PM [Popular Mechanics] magazine singled out 16 issues or claims of the 9/11 skeptics that point to government collusion and systematically attempted to debunk each one. Of the 16, most missed the mark and almost half were straw men arguments – either ridiculous arguments that few conspiracists believed or restatements of the arguments that were highly distorted so as to make them look weaker than they really were. …“I am one of those who claim there are factual arguments pointing to conspiracy, and that truth is not served by taking cheap shots at those who see gaping flaws in the government story … There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse [of the Twin Towers] …|
The issues of the penetration hole [at the Pentagon] and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives.” 
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret), former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), is a strong critic of the official account of 9/11. In a 2006 video documentary he said, “One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?” 
During his 32-year Army career, Gen. Stubblebine also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Gen. Stubblebine is one of the inductees into the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. 
|“There is a well-organized cover-up of the events of 11 Sep 2001. The 9/11 Commission was a white-washed farce. There is evidence that US Government officials had advance knowledge of and are probably implicated in the events of 9/11,” wrote retired military physician, Col. James R. Uhl, MD, U.S. Army (ret), in a statement to this author.“A huge body of physical evidence has been ignored, suppressed, and ridiculed by the media and by our Government. Why did WTC 7 collapse? It was never hit by an airplane and was apparently brought down by explosives. How could Al-Qaida terrorists have had access and time to plant bombs in a top secret installation? Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to seek the reason for the WTC 7 collapse?” continued Col. Uhl, a 38-year Army veteran, who served in several theaters of operations, from Viet Nam through Iraq.|
|Capt. Russ Wittenberg||Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, is a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions and a retired commercial pilot, who flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years.According to Capt. Wittenberg, “The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S., plain and simple.”In the 2007 documentary video, 9/11 Ripple Effect, he said “I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower.|
|“I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist, to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding its design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.” Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, Capt. Wittenberg said, ”The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous … It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.”|
|Col. Ann WrightCapt. Gregory Zeigler||Another senior officer questioning the official account of 9/11 is Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret), who said in a 2007 interview with Richard Greene on the Air America Radio Network, “It’s incredible some of these things that still are unanswered. The 9/11 Report — that was totally inadequate. I mean the questions that anybody has after reading that.” Col. Wright is one of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. She served for 13 years on active duty and 16 additional years on reserve duty in the U.S. Army. She joined the Foreign Service in 1987 and served for 16 years as a U.S. Diplomat. She served as Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan and she helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in December, 2001.She continued in her interview: “How could our national intelligence and defense operations be so inept that they could not communicate; that they could not scramble jets; that they could not take defensive action? And I totally agree. I always thought the Pentagon had all sorts of air defense sort of equipment around it; that they could take out anything that was coming at it. And for a plane to be able to just fly low right over Washington and slam into that thing is just — I mean, you still just shake your head. How in the world could that happen?”|
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, is a former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. In a 2006 statement to this author, Capt. Zeigler wrote, “I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. That was when I realized that the perpetrators had made a colossal blunder in collapsing the South Tower first, rather than the North Tower, which had been hit more directly and earlier.
“Other anomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers’ names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7, the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon, the impossibility of ordinary cell phone (as opposed to Airfone) calls being made consistently from passenger aircraft at cruising altitude, etc., etc., etc.”
|Shortly after the release of the 9/11 Commission Report, a group of over 100 prominent Americans signed a petition  urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. In addition to two former senior CIA officials  and several U.S. State Department veterans, the signers included Lt. Col. Robert Bowman and Capt. Eric H. May, both mentioned above.The petition stated, in part, “We want truthful answers to questions such as:1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?|
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn’t a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven’t authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?”
These questions and many others still remain unanswered three years after the petition was submitted and six years after the terrible events of 9/11. As the statements of these twenty-five former U.S. military officers demonstrate, the need for a new thorough, and independent investigation of 9/11 is not a matter of partisan politics, nor the demand of irresponsible, deranged, or disloyal Americans. It is instead a matter of the utmost importance for America’s security and the future of the entire world.
Statements questioning the official account of 9/11 and calls for a new investigation by more than 800 credible individuals can be found at http://PatriotsQuestion911.com
Additional information about prominent skeptics of the official account of 9/11 can be found in the author’s other articles on this subject, listed below.
Jan. 5, 2008 – Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up” featured statements by:
- Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, former U.S. State Department envoy to Viet Nam and Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
- Col. Ann Wright, former Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan. 16 years as U.S. Diplomat. 29-year U.S. Army career.
- Fred Burks, former simultaneous interpreter for President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and others. 18-year State Department career
- Melvin Goodman, PhD, former Senior Analyst, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department. Later served as Division Chief, CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs and Professor of International Security, National War College
- Michael Springmann, retired career Foreign Service Officer. Former Consular Officer in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 20-year career with the State Department and the International Foreign Trade Administration, Commerce Department
- George Kenney, former career Foreign Service Officer. Served as Yugoslav desk officer at the State Department headquarters.
- Michael Mennard, PhD, retired career Foreign Service Officer. Served as Regional Public Affairs Officer in India
- Edward Peck, former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs, U.S. State Department. Later served as Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq
Dec. 13, 2007 – Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11: “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Fatally Flawed” featured statements by:
- Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology
- David Griscom, PhD, Retired Research Physicist. Served 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
- Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, Former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Former Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association
- Enver Masud, MS, PE, Former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy
- James Quintiere, PhD, Former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
- Dwain Deets, MS, Former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center
- Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE, Former Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs. Contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities
Dec. 4, 2007 – Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – “Not Possible”, “a Whitewash”, “False” featured statements by
- Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan
- Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush
- Morgan Reynolds, PhD, Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush
- Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
- Mary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton
- Barbara Honegger, Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and White House Policy Analyst
- Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq
- Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter
Sept. 23, 2007 – Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a “Joke” and a “Cover-up” featured statements by CIA veterans Raymond McGovern, William Christison, Melvin Goodman, Robert Baer, Robert David Steele, Lynne Larkin, and David MacMichael.
Sept. 5, 2007 – U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ Pilot Questions 9/11, featured the statement of Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot.
Sept. 4, 2007 – Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11 featured the statement of Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association.
Aug. 27, 2007 – National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation featured the statement of Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., world renowned scientist.
Aug. 21, 2007 – Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation featured the statement of James Quintiere, Ph.D., one of the world’s leading fire science researchers.
July 16, 2007 – Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movementfeatured the statement of J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission.
|Endnotes Video of speech by Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD Sept. 11, 2004
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6900065571556128674 Video of speech by Lt. Col. Robert Bowman at the American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda June 25, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKoqEQ7hb_4
 Architects and Engineers Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Signed by More Than 230 Architects and Engineers 2007
 Statement by Maj. Jon Fox in support of Architects and Engineers petition 2007
 U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ Pilot Questions 9/11 by Alan Miller Sept. 5, 2007
 Photos of WTC victim, Edna Cintron, waving inside impact hole in World Trade Center North Tower
 U.S. Department of Defense News Transcript Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine Oct. 12, 2001
 Speech by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Baghdad Dec. 24, 2004
 Letter to the editor of the Michigan Daily by Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford Feb. 5, 2007
 Photos of WTC victim, Edna Cintron, waving inside impact hole in World Trade Center North Tower
 Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges by Paul Joseph Watson Jan. 5, 2006
 Audio recording of interview of Lt. Col. Jeff Latas by Rob Balsamo June 25, 2007
 Video documentary Pandora’s Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77 by Pilots for 9/11 Truth
 Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Signed by Over 100 Prominent Americans Oct. 26, 2004
 The American Reichstag Fire – 911 and Non-investigation by Capt. Eric May 2005
 Interview of Commander Ted Muga on the Alex Jones Show April 11, 2007
http://prisonplanet.tv/members/audio/110407muga.mp3 (Subscription required)
 Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity by Col. George Nelson, MBA
 Testimony of Maj. John M. Newman, PhD, Congressional Briefing: The 9/11 Commission Report – One Year later July 22, 2005
 Radio interview of Col. Ronald D. Ray by Alex Jones, June 30, 2006 (Subscription required.) Summarized in July 1, 2006 article on propagandamatrix.com
 Time Stamp Confirms BBC Reported WTC 7 Collapse 26 Minutes In Advance by Paul Joseph Watson
Feb. 28, 2007
 Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges by Paul Joseph Watson Jan. 5, 2006
 Video recording of statement by Maj. Scott Ritter July 22, 3006
 Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicate Depleted Uranium Used by Greg Szymanski Aug. 18, 2005
 Testimony of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer before the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, Feb. 15, 2006
 Interview of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on Fox News Aug. 24, 2005
 Navy Captain Backs Able Danger Claims, Fox News Aug. 23, 2005
 Debunking The Debunkers by Joel Skousen Feb. 14, 2005
 Video documentary, One Nation Under Siege Gen. Albert Stubblebine’s statement can be viewed at
 Military Intelligence Hall of Fame Wikipedia
 Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot Firm Believer 9/11 Was Inside Government Job by Greg Szymanski July 17, 2005
 Video documentary 9/11 Ripple Effect by William Lewis and Dave vonKleist August, 2007
 Pilot who flew 2 planes used on 9/11 doesn’t believe official story by American Buddhist Net Sept. 13, 2007
 Interview of Capt. Russ Wittenberg Sept. 16, 2004
 Interview of Col. Ann Wright and Laurie Van Auken by Richard Greene on the Clout show on Air America Radio Network Sept. 11, 2007
 Petition to Reinvestigate 9/11 Signed by Over 100 Prominent Americans Oct. 26, 2004
 Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report by Alan Miller Sept. 23, 2007
 Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 by Alan Miller Jan. 5, 2008
Dr. Alan Sabrosky,
formerly of the US Army War College,
who says “…The Military Knows Israel Did 911”
exposedeceivers 14 videos
SABROSKY INTERVIEW TIES ISRAEL TO 9/11
“ISRAEL DID IT”
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
Meet Dr. Alan Sabrosky, a brave man, a USMC Vietnam vet, an American of Jewish ancestry and someone devoted to the security of the United States at any cost. Ask any Jew what it takes to stand up against the most powerful and ruthless group in the world, the Israeli lobby inside the United States.
VIEW COMPLETE VIDEO INTERVIEW AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE
Sabrosky has been calling for a new 9/11 investigation for some time. What makes him unique is that we have a Jew who can hardly be called “self-hating” or “anti-Semitic” or against Israel. He is consistent in everything he says. His point is that you are an American or you are an Israeli but you can’t be both, especially now with Zionism turning Israeli foreign policy into a “runaway train.” 9/11, as Sabrosky sees it was the watershed in a relationship between America and Israel that has gone from bad to unsurviveable, especially for America. He contents that AIPAC exercises near total control over the electoral process in America through the ability to outspend any other group and destroy anyone who stands against them.
The unwillingness of the US to stand with the international community on humanitarian and war crime issues where Israel is found in continual violation is, to Sabrosky, a critial issue. In discussion the US and her lack of support for the Goldstone Report, Sabrosky says:
US criticism of the HRC resolution should be disregarded, as Washington only parrots Israel’s wishes here…
… it might have been better to have included Goldstone’s condemnation of Hamas offenses as well, but it is legitimate as it stands for five reasons: (1) Israel committed the great majority of the violations; (2) Israel had an overwhelming preponderance of military power; (3) Palestinians suffered almost all of the death and destruction; (4) Israel has a long, sordid history of ignoring UN commissions and resolutions, and of attacking UN facilities and killing UN staff, as when the clearly marked UNRWA facility in Gaza was bombed; and (5) the HRC focus is properly on the actions of the oppressor (Israel) and not on those of the oppressed (the Palestinians).
Another is that it did not accord Israel the right of self-defense. But Israel’s claim to self-defense in its savaging of Gaza is specious, because Israel — like all occupiers and oppressors — has no inherent right of self-defense against its victims. Who, for instance, would have accepted Nazi Germany’s assertion that its brutal reprisals against the Czechs for their assassination of a Nazi commander named Reinhard Heydrich was an exercise in self-defense? No one, and no one should accept Israel’s claim, either.
A third is that holding Israel accountable for its actions will somehow endanger the Middle East peace process. But there is no peace process, simply meaningless discussions to the dead end (for Palestinians and the rest of the region) of Israeli hegemony, and under Netanyahu or any electable government in Israel, there is not and cannot be one. There will be an enforced peace imposed from outside of the Middle East, over the objections and obstruction of Israel, or there will be none at all.
ZIONISM AND ISRAELI NATIONALISM
This is how Sabrosky describes the nature of Jewish nationalism as described within the term we call “Zionism”:
The differences between Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and that of other countries and cultures here I think are fourfold:
1. Zionism is a real witches’ brew of xenophobia, racism, ultra-nationalism and militarism that places it way outside of a “mere” nationalist context — for example, when I was in Ireland (both parts) I saw no indication whatsoever that the Provisional Irish Republican Army or anyone else pressing for a united Ireland had a shred of design on shoving Protestants into camps or out of the country, although there may well have been a handful who thought that way — and goes far beyond the misery for others professed by the Nazis;
2. Zionism undermines civic loyalty among its adherents in other countries in a way that other nationalist movements (and even ultra-nationalist movements like Nazism) did not — e.g. a large majority of American Jews, including those who are not openly dual citizens, espouse a form of political bigamy called “dual loyalty” (to Israel and the US) that is every bit as dishonest as marital bigamy, attempts to finesse the precedence they give to Israel over the US (lots of Rahm Emanuels out there who served in the Israeli army but NOT in the US armed forces), and has absolutely no parallel in the sense of national or cultural identity espoused by any other definable ethnic or racial group in America — even the Nazi Bund in the US disappeared once Germany and the US went to war, with almost all of its members volunteering for the US armed forces;
3. The “enemy” of normal nationalist movements is the occupying power and perhaps its allies, and once independence is achieved, normal relations with the occupying power are truly the norm, but for Zionism almost everyone out there is an actual or potential enemy, differing only in proximity and placement on its very long list of enemies (which is now America’s target list); and
4. Almost all nationalist movements (including the irredentist and secessionist variants) intend to create an independent state from a population in place or to reunite a separated people (like the Sudeten Germans in the 1930s) — it is very rare for it to include the wholesale displacement of another indigenous population, which is far more common of successful colonialist movements as in the US — and perhaps a reason why most Americans wouldn’t care too much about what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians even if they DID know about it, is because that is no different than what Europeans in North America did to the Indians/Native Americans here in a longer and more low-tech fashion.
Sabrosky is one of the few Americans who sees the nuclear threat of Israel as it is, blackmailing the United States, not only in how it could be used to draw America into an unwanted war, but how it could actually be used at some point to attack the United States itself. Only recently, Israel put Western Europe on notice that it would be attacked if its actions threatened Israel, attacked by nuclear weaons from Israel without warning. Martin van Creveld’s threat combined with Sabrosky’s analysis of Israeli intentions and culpability for 9/11 brings to mind something Sabrosky had once written.
He has always seen Moshe Dyan as a hero. Dyan saw Israel’s military role as that of a “junk yard dog,” ready to bite without warning, attack anything and anyone. Sabrosky notes that, eventually such an animal is always put down or as he puts it, ”the preferred response of everyone else is to kill that mad dog before it can decide to go berserk and bite.”
Sabrosky makes a case, not just for a coverup of 9/11 but goes much further. He points out as do so many that the physics of the attack are unworkable. He, however, is one of the few to point to a conclusion many find obvious but few have the nerve to admit, that it would have been impossible to stage 9/11 without the full resources of both the CIA and Mossad and that 9/11 served the interests of both agencies quite well.
There was nothing they could have wished for more.
Sabrosky also makes a point involving media coverage of 9/11:
Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media (MSM) have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the US Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath.
ZIONISM AND TREASON
The inescapable point isnt the 60,000 Americans killed or wounded in a war started out of treason or the world it threatens to destroy. Americans have been looking away from these glaring realities the way they looked away from Vietnam. Sabrosky leaves Israel and her American Jewish supporters who he sees as traitors with a warning:
If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering — and the suffering we have inflicted on others — is properly laid on the doorsteps of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and the pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault.
Do we take Sabrosky seriously because he is a Marine or a Jew? Do we wonder why the things he says reach so few? Is American in a shooting war where our biggest enemy sits behind us, killing us off, robbing us blind and whispering gently in our ears how much they love us?
It would seem so.
Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: 9/11 and Beyond
Dr. Alan Sabrosky
September 10, 2009 “Information Clearing House’ — The attacks on September 11, 2001 have been a defining moment for America. The political and psychological impact on Americans of a concerted and visible attack in America was enormous — indeed, it is an interesting “coincidence” that the attacks occurred on the one day of the year whose mention reinforces a public sense here of danger and emergency: 9-1-1.
A significant development in the 1990s was the formation of the neo-conservative think tank known as PNAC (Project for a New American Century), whose members prepared position papers for the Israeli government and for a future US Administration sharing their views. That happened in 2000 with the election of George W. Bush, and a contemporary writer summarized the tip of the neo-conservative iceberg in his first Administration this way:
The “outsiders” from PNAC were now powerful “insiders,” placed in important positions from which they could exert maximum pressure on US policy…PNAC had a lock on military policy-creation in the Bush Administration.
Especially significant in terms of subsequent events was the acknowledgement in one of PNAC’s own documents that their program for America (and Israel) would not readily be accepted by the American people. What this meant, PNAC opined in 2000, was 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.”
On September 11, 2001, the PNAC people in and out of government — and by extension AIPAC and Israel — “coincidentally” got the event they needed, barely eight months after coming into office. Most people are familiar with the basic details of that day — two commercial aircraft crashing into the two tallest buildings in New York City’s World Trade Center (WTC), a third striking the Pentagon, and a fourth ending up in a Pennsylvania field. Few people will forget the images of the burning buildings, their collapse, the casualties, and the sense of shock and tragedy that ensued.
The official 9/11 Commission’s work and report were at best an incomplete exercise. Many people dismiss the findings of the Commission, and that includes its co-chairs. Many others who utterly distrust the 9/11 Commission report, dismiss the US Government’s explanation of it, and point to both an official cover-up and an “inside job,” include veteran fighter pilots, EMTs (Emergency Medical Technicians), air defense experts, experienced commercial pilots, demolition experts, architects and civil engineers – none of them professions that inherently attract and retain the gullible and credulous.
Several things are very clear to me from a careful assessment of both official and critical evaluations of the 9/11 attacks. First, the striking aircraft alone simply could not have brought down either of the two buildings in the manner in which they fell, much less a third building which was not hit by a plane (I expect the one intended to do that as a “cover” had ended up in that Pennsylvania field), given the available physical evidence and a wealth of expert testimony. This means the attackers had assistance on the ground, and it had to have been active before the attacks occurred: preparing buildings for controlled demolition is not something done haphazardly in the midst of chaos.
Second, only two intelligence agencies had the expertise, assets, access and political protection to execute 9/11 in the air and on the ground: our CIA and Israel’s Mossad. Only one had the incentive, using the “who benefits” principle: Mossad. And that incentive dovetailed perfectly with the neo-con’s agenda and explicitly expressed need for a catalytic event to mobilize the American public for their wars, using American military power to destroy Israel’s enemies. Only the unexpected strength of the Iraqi resistance kept Syria and Iran from being attacked in the second Bush Administration. Thus, the evidential trail for 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq run from PNAC, AIPAC and their cohorts; through the mostly Jewish neo-cons in the Bush Administration; and back to the Israeli government. None of the denials and political machinations can alter that essential reality. Terms such as treason, betrayal and deceit do not overstate the case against them.
Finally, we need to take a hard look at why the mainstream media (MSM) have paid more attention to Sarah Palin’s wardrobe than they have to dissecting blatant falsehoods, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the US Government’s treatment of 9/11 and its aftermath. And the reason is that on this issue, all are on the same side, and the official line is the one they all prefer – “all” meaning the PNAC alumni who took over the Bush Administration’s national security apparatus and their counterparts in the Obama administration, AIPAC and the rest of the numerous Jewish PACs, the MSM owners and Israel. The depiction of the media management in America in 2002 is especially informative, and has not changed significantly since then:
CEOs and Directors of companies change as often as Boards of Directors vote. But if we could “freeze frame” the CEOs of the largest US Media companies in mid 2002, we would find that ten Jewish American men ran the vast majority of US television networks and other media companies including movies, radio, and publishing at that time. Not much has changed today.
Today we are getting the same line on Iran, from the same type of people — Obama himself tries to be more independent, but most of the key staff and national security people in his Administration do not differ greatly on Israel and the Middle East from those of his predecessor. And the Congress has shown itself to be even more of AIPAC’s lap-dog than the preceding Congress, an exercise in self-serving cowardice that admittedly has taken some doing.
But AIPAC and company are riding a tiger in America, and if they ever slip, the resulting convulsion will be catastrophic for them and for Israel. The open unfolding of the 9/11 tragedy and its ensuing wars that is now occurring can be that slip. The human cost to America to date is some 60,000 people, military and civilian, killed or wounded on 9/11 and in Iraq and Afghanistan together, with more to come once we go to war with Iran (or get dragged into it following an Israeli attack on Iran). Much of the deliberately misdirected rage that followed 9/11 has given way to endurance and grief.
But grief is a close cousin to rage, and an enraged America is not pretty, as anyone familiar with our history can appreciate. Americans are often deceptive without meaning to be. To much of the world, they often come across as naive, bumbling innocents in the world of global politics. And on a day-to-day basis, there is much truth to that.
But an enraged America is a very different character. You have only to look at what happened in WWII to German and Japanese cities, towns and villages, where America slaughtered literally millions of German and Japanese civilians — most of them women and children — knew it was doing it, and cared nothing at all. The goal was to crush, and restraint was not a word used much at all.
If these Americans and those like them ever fully understand just how much of their suffering — and the suffering we have inflicted on others — is properly laid on the doorsteps of Israel and its advocates in America, they will sweep aside those in politics, the press and the pulpits alike whose lies and disloyalty brought this about and concealed it from them. They may well leave Israel looking like Carthage after the Romans finished with it. It will be Israel’s own great fault.
Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs. In December 1988, he received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. He is listed in WHO’S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.). A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky’s teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Dr. Sabrosky has lectured widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad. You can email Dr. Alan Sabrosky at: email@example.com
Posted by Lone Wolf at 1:00 PM
and so much more…
Need for vigilance and continual investigation…
Concerned citizens for continuing research and investigation for truth and justice.
and so many others,,,,
Seek, search, see and hear, reflect: the truth will set you free.
‘Puffs of smoke’ observed during the Twin Towers collapses. [Source: Richard Lethin]
and another closeup
And Building no. 7 implodes upon itself in a amazingly neat, tidy (and very financially profitable) fashion
Larry Silverstein, and his statement about WTC Building No. 7, to “pull it.”
(an industry expression for controlled demolition)
Just search the evidence for yourself
and so many other sites with the evidence,
on and on
1,000 Architects Engineers Call for
New 9/11 Investigation
Fri Feb 19, 8:00 am ET
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 19 –
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Richard Gage, AIA, architect and founder of the non-profit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc. (AE911Truth), will announce a decisive milestone today at a press conference in San Francisco, as more than 1,000 worldwide architects and engineers now support the call for a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. After careful examination of the official explanation, along with the forensic data omitted from official reports, these professionals have concluded that a new independent investigation into these mysterious collapses is needed.
Mr. Gage will deliver the news around this major development, accompanied by signers of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition. The press conference will be held concurrently in 38 cities in 6 countries. http://www.ae911truth.org/info/160
These prominent architectural and engineering professionals will discuss the organization’s findings and concerns. A brief presentation of the explosive evidence they have compiled will be followed by Q & A. The presentation is an important update of “9/11: Blueprint for Truth – The Architecture of Destruction,” the DVD produced by the organization, and available on their website AE911Truth.org, which analyzes the scientific forensic evidence concluding that the three skyscrapers in New York City were demolished with explosives on 9/11. The petition will be delivered today to every congressional representative by AE911Truth petition signers throughout the country. Government officials will be notified that “Misprision of Treason”, US Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense which requires those with evidence of treason to act.
Gage and his group base their conclusions on forensic evidence. Gage states, “The official FEMA and NIST reports provide insufficient, contradictory, and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials. Gage points out the destruction of the third high-rise, World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper which was not hit by an aircraft, yet came down in pure free-fall acceleration for more than 100 feet, a significant fact that NIST has been forced to admit, due to research conducted by AE911Truth petition signers. Other disturbing facts emerging from the forensic evidence include:
- Complete destruction of both Twin Towers in just 10 to 14 seconds at near free-fall acceleration
- Over 100 first-responder reports of explosions and flashes at onset of destruction
- Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
- Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
- 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no “pancaked” floors seen in the debris pile
- Several tons of molten metal found in debris.
- Evidence of advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists
AE911Truth’s conclusions are shared by thousands of scientists; senior-level military, intelligence and government officials; pilots and aviation professionals; firefighters; scholars and university professors; and 9/11 survivors and their family members. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial.
The 9/11 Truth Movement, which Time magazine in 2006 called “a mainstream political reality,” continues to gain momentum. As AE911Truth’s own influence grows, Gage has embarked on well over 130 speaking events, covering 20 states and 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. He has been interviewed by media around the world – including the BBC, CBC, NatGeo, and Fox TV.
SOURCE Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Inc.
I proudly stand with 9/11 Truth, Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Donna Marsh O’Connor, and all critical thinking individuals that recognize that the official story of 9/11 is a fairy-tale at best.
The NIST report concerning the controlled demolition of World Trade Center 7 offers no final explanation and simply does not stand to reason.
We already know they “allowed” 9/11 to happen. We all see that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished with explosive force. Unfortunately the official explanation does not detail the questionable “collapse” of the CIA-leased WTC 7, nor 100’s of other questions raised by the families of the 9/11 victims that were ignored by the $15 million dollar “investigation” of 9/11. The Challenger explosion warranted a $175 million investigation. 9/11 has caused nothing but death, torture, and disgrace to America. A tragedy in every sense of the word.
Jesse Venturas Censored 911Commentary
Jesse Ventura’s Censored 9/11 Commentary
By Jesse Ventura
Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 01:08 PM
Editor’s Note: The following column by former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura was removed by Huffington Post after it was published March 9 and replaced with a note that states the site “prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11.”
You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but at a recent conference in San Francisco, more than 1,000 architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9-11.
That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy — because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the twin towers and WTC Building 7.
Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.”
He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 47 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon, even though it was never hit by an aircraft. This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies, published by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows: Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9-11 were going 440 and 550 mph.
Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings?
I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics.
These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately 10 seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.
NIST started its investigation on Aug. 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9-11, with Gov. Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever.
And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the twin towers and the nearby Building 7:
“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2,500 degrees Centigrade [4,532 degrees Fahrenheit]. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.”
Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”
A former Navy Seal, professional wrestler and actor Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket in 1998 where he served until 2002. Today, Ventura is best known for hosting the popular television show Conspiracy Theory, which airs on cable television. He is also the author of five books.
An interesting read from an
‘anonymous’ writer and seeker.
Like many, I had, and I continue to have, many ongoing questions and concerns about being duped, from either side of the fringe extremists on this issue of duplicity and conspiracy of the US government/military/media etc, in the events of 911 (September 11, 2001), without even thinking “outside the box (es)” and asking some pretty basic questions.
On one side there are those that buy the official stories and reports hook, line, and sinker. On the other side there are those who are gullible about every outlandish conspiracy theory, and grasp the flimsiest evidences. Then there are those out there apparently producing the misinformation and grinding their axes for both sides with dazzling, dizzying spin. Then there are the skeptics who want as much proof as they can get. Who must seek and search and ask. Why? Who? What? Where? When, How? And, why, again and again, why? I am a skeptic by nature, but if enough proof is ascertained I will accept that proof for its worth, and decide accordingly.
Below are a few outstanding points for why we believe at this time – and many others like us – that there is some kind of high-level US state-military-media-corporate collusion in these events? We are still investigating and are not all done in the investigation stage. The problem lies in suppressed information and misinformation. Remember that even if you have some of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle there are also many more pieces and you’ll probably never find all, but is the info you have, after verification, enough to see with certainty the big picture? For instance we have the theories and the counter theories, and debunkers, and debunkers of the debunkers, and the wackos, etc etc. Watch out. Keep your eyes open, and mind free of bias. Observe and analyze for yourselves, and sift through the evidence pro and con. Search and seek, investigate it for yourselves. And remember always remain open for all truly new evidence, pro and con. Etc Etc – this is a work in progress. The movement is moving.
Every investigator knows that there has to be sufficient motive for such an act of crime, and if there is precedent of similar acts, and cause for the perpetrators to reason that this is justifiable for some greater good to themselves or some group, then the probability increases and we can see that it is not without possibility.
- The “Project for the New American Century” think tank [involving Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and many neo conservatives with strong pro-Israeli and corporate interests who are now central members and ideologues of the Bush Administration] produces report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that outlines need to transform the military at a very expensive cost to maintain American global leadership.
- Problem of Peak oil; realization that resources are depleting and getting scarcer;
- Corporate greed to control as much of the resources and markets of the world as possible;
- Historical use by many “militant” governments of orchestrated massive “Security fear” to justify attacks, occupations, wars and suspensions of civilian liberties and rights to weed out 5th column saboteurs, etc,
- Called by some “False Flag” operations.
- “Remember the Maine” slogan of Spanish American war;
- The Reichstag fire used as key to have massive security scare against communist infiltrates, and enacting the decree “for the Protection of the People and the State, etc, leading to the Nazi dictatorship of Adolf Hitler,
- “Pearl Harbor” slogan of WWII;
- Gulf of Tonkin and Vietnam;
- Phoenix operations and Vietnam; assassinations and extermination of village chiefs, local labor and peasant leaders, etc (repeated many time over in Chile, Indonesia, Central and South America etc with our “friendly” regimes with US control or collusion);
- Operation Northwoods, U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Memo Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba (1962), by faked terrorist attacks to prompt US public opinion.
- Waco anomalies?
- Oklahoma anomalies?
Before the Attack, and up to first moments, that are suspicious
- The “Project for the New American Century” think tank [involving Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and many neo conservatives with strong pro-Israeli and corporate interests who are now central members and ideologues of the Bush Administration] produces report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that outlines need to transform the military at a very expensive cost to maintain American global leadership.
- Problem of Peak oil; realization that resources are depleting and getting scarcer;
- Over 50 warnings of the attack, yet no action; why?
- Famous August 6, 200 entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike within the United States”
- David Schippers, [the attorney who prosecuted Bill Clinton and is highly thought of in Republican circles] says he called up Attorney General John Ashcroft repeatedly to tell him that FBI agents were warning of an attack, that they knew the date, and that it was going to be in Lower Manhattan.
- Morning [of September 11], Bush was in a classroom in Sarasota, Florida, publicizing his education program. After the second building was struck, there could be no doubt the country was under attack and yet Bush just sat there for about ten minutes before moving; why?
- Inside trading allegations on stock markets
- Mobile phone warning calls
- Some prominent people stop using commercial airliners
- Ownership transfer of WTC, need of much renovation costing 100’s of millions, but now insurance claims will make the owners very rich and profit by billions
- Several people working in the towers have reported that shortly before the attack there were times when a certain parts of one tower or the other was sectioned off for days at a time and no one could go there except these special workers who were called “engineers.” Why? (And who, what, where, when, how?)
- Morning [of September 11], Bush was in a classroom in Sarasota, Florida, publicizing his education program. After the second building was struck, there could be no doubt the country was under attack and yet Bush just sat there for about ten minutes before moving; why?
- Bush said he saw first place strike on TV, but that picture of the first strike was only found or revealed until much later, and shown the next day; why?
September 11th, 2001, 4 spectacular crashes to place within an hour and fifteen minutes of one another.
(<|>) All planes hijacked, apparently on FAA screens, between and on 7:45 and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yet no scrambling jets to intercept them…. (?) Transponders were turned off on the doomed flights virtually at the same time (Cannot be tracked since no longer a blip on the radar screens) (?)
-(1)- At 8:45 eastern standard time when American Airlines flight 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
-(2)- 18 minutes later at 9:03 Eastern Time United Airlines flight 175 slammed into the South Tower of the world trade center.
(<|>) 9:05, Andrew Card, the Presidential Chief of Staff whispers to George W. Bush. Bush who “briefly turns sombre”
(<|>) 9:30 Bush make statement America under attack
-(3)- at 9:43 it was reported that American Airlines flight 77 had hit the Pentagon. American Flight 77 flies South and past the White House no-fly zone, and at 9:35 makes a turn 360 degrees over the Pentagon, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral, descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes to bring the plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across the street from the Pentagon, and then flies it the building at 460 nautical miles per hour.
-(4)- The Forth event at 10:00 Eastern Time, United Airlines flight 93 crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania.
Then South tower falls at ,,,, oh well you all know the story events,,, Its all there
NYC, WTC North Tower and the South Tower (WTC no.1 &2):
(1) WTC North Tower and the South Tower (WTC no.1), hit first by Flight no. xx crashes at 8:46 AM and then Collapse
(2) South Tower (WTC no.2), hit second by flight no. xx] which crashes at 9:02 and then Collapse
- Explosive flashes take place exactly about when the nose of planes hit WTC towers, seen from all photos of the two strikes; why?
- Planes not apparently commercial, why? [Many eye witness testimonies]
- Planes carrying elongated “pod” objects under fuselage; why?
- Of 19 men named as al-Qaeda terrorists, six of them subsequently show up very much alive; why?
- Steel-frame high-rise buildings have never in history been brought down by fire; Why these? [Jet fuel etc are not hot enough to melt so much steel]
- Most of the jet fuel exploded outside of the South Tower due to the angle of the hit, yet it collapsed in less than an hour after hit; why? [See pictures]
- Many report explosions in controlled series bringing the towers down floor by floor for a while until the progress of falling was on inertia; why? [Many eye witness testimonies]
- Many reports of explosions in basement before or just as planes hit above, and cracks appearing at that time in basement; why? [For instance, William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor, has testifies and swore that he heard explosions in the basement, along with 14 other people, seconds before the jetliner hit. Why hasn’t the story hit the major news networks?]
- No black boxes; why?
- Why no investigation on all these anomalies?
Collapse of WTC Building no.7, at 5:20 pm, imploding
- This building was not hit, was two blocks away, yet collapsed in a very suspicious way; why?
- Only small fires on floors 7 and 12 of this 47-story building, yet at 5:20 pm collapses; why? Larry Silverstein, in a PBS documentary from September 2002, said he told the fire commander that the smartest thing to do was “pull it.” and they “made that decision to pull” (a “controlled demolition” term) and watched the building collapse. He said: “(The Fire Department) were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. They made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse”
- Silverstein allegedly made almost $500 million in profit from the collapse of building; why?
- Why no investigation on anomalies?
Pentagon [a Boeing 757, flight no. 77]
- Flight 77, took off from Washington, D.C., went west, got hijacked, turned around, came hack, toward the Pentagon for about 40 minutes, without being detected.’ Why?
- The wing hit was under renovation, thus many absent and only civilians were present; why?
- Renovation work is cited as the reason that there was little amount of fire comparatively; why?
- Dumb terrorists planned all this amazing plan yet hit the worthless West Wing while all the top brass and Rumsfeld etc, the real targets, were in the East Wing; why?
- A Boeing 757 has a120-foot wingspan and 40-foot-high tail, with two huge engines, and it is said to have completely penetrated the building and that’s why no wreckage outside the building on ground, and yet this Pentagon hole of the plane entry was very very small for a huge commercial Boeing; why?
- Pentagon building section and roof remained standing for quite a while after strike of this huge plane; why?
- First there was no film footage available (in spite of all the surveillance cameras), then we see the official footage of US government of plane hitting with has big fire explosion at entry etc, and yet the many pictures of the building “on fire” show lack of fire damage, i.e. picture of desk with open book with pages intack, etc
- “Plane parts” seen at site do not look anything like Boeing 757 parts according to many experts; why?
- The fire chief in charge of putting out the fire stated that he saw no big pieces, no fuselage, no engine, etc. thus the official version of the story is that the wings folded back (and supposedly the engines also) to accommodate this huge plane into a small hole that leaves the roof and surrounding walls standing; why?
- Although their was little fire comparatively, the official version of the story says that the fire was so big and hot that it “vaporized” the plane and many of its parts; why?
- No black box; why?
- Why no investigation on anomalies?
Pennsylvania [flight no. 93] Crashes at 10:03 or 10:06 am (the “let’s roll” plane)
- All confirm that Cheney gave the order to shoot this plane down since it was headed to Washington DC, but that it went down before the order was carried out; why and how?
- All the evidence points to the fact that the government shot this plane down after it appeared the passengers were about to wrest control of it, with a certified pilot aboard as a passenger who would have been able to bring the plane down safely, with presumably live hijackers to interrogate. Yet it crashed; why?
- Reports of missiles, explosions, etc; why?
- No black box; why?
- Wreckage not normal pattern for crash-landing; why?
- Wreckage scattered; why?
- Time line inconsistencies; why?
- No black box; why?
- Why no investigation on anomalies?
Why no air force jets scrambles for interceptions???
Not a single plane was intercepted whereas normally any highjacked airplane over USA is intercepted within about 15 minutes after signs of problems and ordered to land. In the case of Flight 77, after almost 40 minutes, there’s no jet fighter on the scene, and it hit the PENTAGON (on the wrong side of course)
In the-first few days we got three different stories about why there were no interceptions. (1) The first story:
Meyers and NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] said that we didn’t send planes up until after the Pentagon was hit. In other words, an hour and a half went by before any planes were scrambled. That story created lots of questions, and so they immediately changed it.
(2) The second story:
On September 18, NORAD came out and said we did send up fighters, but the FAA was slow in contacting us, and we tried to get there in time, but didn’t make it. Then researchers examined the timelines. Those jets can go from scramble order to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes and fly 1,850 miles an hour, which means they should have arrived in plenty of time, even if the FAA was late.
(3) The third story:
The 9/11 Commission said that the military said that the FAA not only didn’t notify them until late but that they didn’t notify them at all. More precisely, they had only nine minutes notice with Flight 11, the first flight, and no notice about the other three flights until after they had crashed. This version of the story ignores the fact that the military has a radar system that is far superior to that of the FAA. But for now this is the official story.
Shortly after climb-out to flight level, their transponders are de-activated..…they are no longer a blip on the radar screens. Look at their departure times — two from Logan (Boston), one from Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) — all between 8 am and 8:15. Shortly after climb-out to flight level, their transponders are de-activated..…they are no longer a blip on the radar screens. This is something that really needs to be looked into. The only reason we turn them off is so they don’t interfere with ground systems when we land. (Note: Transponders identify a particular aircraft in flight on the radar screens of FAA flight controllers located throughout the country. Various codes are punched into the transponder, one displaying, “I am being hijacked.”)
That none of the four pilots executed such a maneuver points toward the fact that none of them had control of their aircraft, but had been overridden by an outside force, which was flying them by remote control.
9/11 Commission Report
- Henry Kissenger (yep, that’s the man in the loop) named to lead it originally, to adroitly cover up messy details, possibly like his jobs over SW Asia, C and S America, etc etc.
- Report a act of lies, misinformation, bluster, platitudes, un-researched areas, omissions
- Non-investigation of many anomalies
- The USA PATRIOT Act
- War costs in personal, honor and finances, etc
Why is there no scientific debate over the twin towers anomalies?
Why is there no scientific debate over the building no. 7 anomalies?
Why is there no scientific debate over the Pentagon anomalies?
Why is there no scientific debate over the Pennsylvania anomalies?
Now, after the acknowledged and proven lies of Bush and Blaire and others, about weapons of mass destruction and other lies, etc, used for occupation of Iraq, about torture and renditions, about corporate profits in peace and war, and about Wall Street greed and inside trading, and so much more, we surely must reflect upon our personal role in future events, about if we want to be or remaining being willing tools, servants and accomplices in falsehood, tyranny, corporate hegemony for the privileged, genocide, ethnocide, war, crime, and torture. Should we demand truth and justice?
Should we protect the truly guilty, and allowing them to get away unaccountable, and remain with impunity to blunder and blunder and yet get rich and richer?
How many times do the real thieves get away by yelling: Thief! Thief!
Should we destroy ourselves for the profits, comforts and privileges of others who reap the benefits of war and warmongering? One must think of one’s own ultimate salvation.
And then the pentagon issues,,,
And this is the size of hole of the very large plane?
And here belowis the Pennsylvania crash site picture
Aerial photographs show the crater made by the impact of Flight 93 in Shanksville PA. They were released as exhibits in the 2006 trial U.S. v. Moussaoui
And a close up
It all adds up to , well something terribly suspicious,
wrong and, in need of a new unbiased investigation
about “molten metal dripping” etc
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]
Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU News, 10/2001 ]
Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 ]
Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” [US News and World Report, 9/12/2002]
According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]
New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]
Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005] There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 ] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).
…..describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”….
The reports offer no explanation for the origins of the extremely high temperatures that are indicated. But physics professor Steven E. Jones (see November 8, 2005) will later claim that molten metal found in the debris of the WTC is evidence that the towers were brought down deliberately and involving the use of an incendiary substance called thermite, which can melt steel. [Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005; Deseret Morning News, 4/10/2006]
Above: Cooled Molten Metal “Meteorites” Found at WTC: Very High Iron Content
9/11 artifacts architect, Bart Voorsanger, discovers numerous multi-ton previously molten “meteorites” in the WTC rubble.
Video: THE EXPLODING FLOORS OF 9/11 WTC
and evidence of inside job, planted explosives
Building no 7 – the official story’s biggest problem
This newly released footage of the demolitions of WTC 7 and WTC 1 (North Tower) is very significant. There are several important aspects of the demolitions of 9-11 that are proven by these videos. The first is the incredible amount of pulverization of the concrete in WTC 7, which can be seen in the billowing pyroclastic clouds of dust rolling down the streets during its unexplained collapse at 5:25 p.m. on 9-11. Pyroclastic clouds are usually associated with volcanoes and are composed chiefly of rock fragments of explosive origin.
The dust clouds seen flowing down the street following the collapse of the 47-story Salomon Building, built and owned by Larry Silverstein, are identical to the pyroclastic clouds that accompanied the demolition and collapses of the Twin Towers, WTC 1 and 2. These dust clouds were caused by a super-explosive, a nano-composite form of thermite, fragments of which were found in the dust and identified by Dr. Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University and others.
This is the incredibly powerful explosive that evidently pulverized the 110 four-inch thick light-weight concrete floors of each tower. Besides reducing these concrete layers to pyroclastic dust, this super-thermite also destroyed everything on each floor and blew everything to smithereens and propelled the huge dust clouds of pulverized debris down the streets of lower Manhattan. The floors of the Twin Towers were exploded in a way that indicates that the super-thermite must have been in direct contact with the four-inch thick concrete floors or the metal pans the concrete was poured into. This is fairly obvious because these structures were primarily steel and glass towers with concrete floors. The only other surfaces would have been the temporary dry wall constructions on each floor, the suspended ceilings, plumbing, and elevator shafts. There was not much else in the way of surfaces that could have been applied with super-thermite.
This is why the newly-released video of the demolition of the North Tower is so important. It clearly shows that the floors and exterior walls were exploded first and that the crucial weight-bearing core columns of the tower were still standing! (NIST, please explain that and the absence of 110 floor pans stacked up in the rubble. How did 220 steel floor pans disappear?)
This is crucial evidence that helps explain how the towers were demolished. The floors and structures around the core were evidently exploded first – and then the core columns were cut with steel-cutting thermite charges, explosions that were shrouded by the dust and noise of the exploding floors. This is quite unlike the logical progression of a normal collapse even in the case of demolition. This is to say that the 47 weight-bearing core columns were not cut first leading to the collapses. The destruction of the Twin Towers were not really collapses although the demolition of WTC 7 resulted in a collapse that resembled a normal controlled demolition.
The 110 floors of each tower were simply exploded before, blowing downwards and away from the cores in a way that was designed to look like a collapse. There was one problem: the “collapses” fell faster than an object in free fall. This was the first solid piece of evidence that the towers had been demolished with explosives. The “collapses” occurred faster than the laws of physics allow — because they were not natural collapses. If they had been natural collapses there would have been layers of concrete pancaked on top of each other in the rubble pile, which is what often happens to multi-level buildings in strong earthquakes. We would expect to find 110 slabs of concrete and their steel pans stacked on top of each other, yet there is no evidence that any of these floor pans were found in the rubble, much less 110 of them stacked up. Where did these 220 steel floor pans go? How could they have simply disappeared? The fact that they were not found stacked up in the rubble clearly disproves the official version (NIST) of the “collapses” of the Twin Towers.
As we know there were no such solid remains of floor pans or the concrete floors of the Twin Towers — absolutely everything was reduced to dust, except for the structural steel that remained, although some of that was also vaporized. This is what the super-thermite did on 9-11. It exploded the concrete floors and everything on them. There was no so-called pancake collapse. This is certainly obvious to anyone who views these videos. Why have NIST and the media lied to the public that the demolitions were collapses caused by steel structures weakened by fire? This is pure rubbish.
Why is this video footage of the demolition of the North Tower so important? Because it suggests that the pulverizing super-thermite (a sol gel energetic bi-layer film) was applied directly to the acre-sized concrete floors surrounding the 47 core columns. That is to say that the super-thermite layer was evidently in direct contact with the floors in areas occupied by tenants, and not in the core area, which we can see remained standing for several seconds after the floors around it had been exploded away. So, how was this thermitic material applied to the floors? Was it sprayed to the undersides of the floor pans or was it applied to the floors themselves, perhaps disguised as a floor covering or as a layer beneath the floor covering? Perhaps it was applied to the floors in several ways.
One reader wrote to me after the show with Kevin Barrett with this interesting comment:
During the interview, you speculated that the nano thermite may have been sprayed on the floor during the asbestos abatement process while removing linoleum. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the asbestos abatement process would be removing the fireproofing from the floor trusses by accessing the trusses through the suspended ceiling located below. In other words, the sol jell could have been sprayed on the floor pans (which is 15-20 ga steel decking supported by the trusses that the concrete is poured in) and hidden by the ceiling tiles in the same day. No problem. Other areas of sol jell application would include the core columns located within the elevator shafts Ace Elevator was working on. If you think about it, as energetic as nano thermite is, relatively little sol jell would be needed for the exterior columns, and it would explain the shearing occurring at convenient truck size lengths.
It seems most likely that the undersides of the steel floor pans is where the super-thermite was applied. If the pans were sprayed with a layer of super-thermite disguised as a coating of rust-proofing for example, the force of the blast would be directed downwards. The steel pan and the concrete of the floor would be pulverized but the direction of the explosions would be downwards and outwards, which is what we see in the video. As each floor was detonated, the blast would be forced downwards by the steel and concrete above it. The blast would hit the floor below it and hasten the collapse. This is what seems to have occurred judging by the video evidence.
In my article, “Who Put Super-Thermite in the Twin Towers?” of July 20, 2009, I discuss how the super-thermite might have been put in the towers. One of the possible disguises for applying the thin layer of super-thermite could have been as a coating sprayed during asbestos abatement work in the towers, as the reader said in the comment above. As I wrote in this article:
We do know that a million-dollar contract for asbestos abatement in the twin towers had been put up for bids by contractors in the fall of 2000, exactly one year before 9-11:
Contract WTC-115.310 – The World Trade Center Removal and Disposal of Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tiles and Other Incidental Asbestos-Containing Building Materials Via Work Order Estimate Range: $1,000,000 annually Bids due Tuesday, October 17, 2000. (advertised by the PA on September 12, 2000)
Kevin Barrett asked me how I can say that the super-thermite was produced by the Zionists who I allege are behind 9-11? As I said in the interview, at this point I cannot say with absolute certainty that the nano-composite was made by Israeli scientists in the nuclear bomb factory near Dimona, but I suspect it was. It is a deduction I have made in the same way one solves an algebra problem. If we know the result of the equation and all of the factors except one we can determine the missing factor. This is what I have done. Every other aspect of this false-flag terror atrocity was done by Israelis or Zionists committed to Israel so I would conclude that Israelis were involved in the manufacture and application of the super-thermite in the World Trade Center towers that were demolished on 9-11, all three of them.
What we really need to find at this point is the names of the people who were responsible for placing the super-thermite in the towers and how it was done. When we have that information we will be able to determine who made the material and provided it. Then we will have the true culprits of 9-11. As we already know, this material was certainly not made by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida or the Taliban. We can safely say that no Muslim or Arab state or entity was responsible for loading the Twin Towers and WTC 7 with this advanced form of super-thermite. The government and media interpretation of 9-11 is, therefore, nothing but a pack of lies. This means that the war in Afghanistan has nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 — except that it is being done on behalf of those who carried out the false-flag terror attacks.
We must remember that we really have nothing to fear but fear itself. The ones who are truly afraid are those who carried out 9-11 and those who have assisted in this massive hoax and cover-up. They, the real terrorists of 9-11, are trembling with fear and unable to sleep. We need to be dedicated, determined, and tenacious in finding the guilty parties and exposing them.
Must See: How 9/11 was done
Urgent: Scientists Confirm Explosives Used to Demolish Towers on 9/11…
Physics Journal Publishes Hard Peer-reviewed Evidence of WTC Explosives…
Majority of 9/11 Commissioners Now Say Government Lied…
Twenty-five Military Officers Call Official 9/11 story “Impossible”, “Ludicrous”, “A well-organized cover-up”…
Pictured above are the actual Nano-thermitic explosives found in the aftermath of the World Trade Center catastrophe. These samples were gathered from the WTC ashes shortly after the towers fell. Dr. Steven Jones, a Physics Professor from Brigham Young University, discovered the explosives and joined an international team of nine scientists, who confirmed the findings in laboratory testing and published a paper, which is rocking the scientific community. The scientists published their rigorously peer-reviewed paper in the Bentham Chemical Physics Journal, which is well respected within the scientific community and has been endorsed by Nobel Laureates. The paper’s first author is Dr. Niels Harrit, a 37-year Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark and an expert in Nano-chemistry.
This alarming scientific conclusion provides hard evidence that all three WTC Towers were brought down by controlled demolitions. The paper leads to strong evidence that our U.S. government perpetrated this horrific crime as a “false-flag” operation to benefit its controlling constituents through the spoils of war.
The majority of the 9/11 Commissioners have now gone on record stating that the government lied, including its Chairman, Thomas H. Kean (Republican – former Governor of New Jersey), its Vice Chairman, Lee H. Hamilton (Democrat), both of whom claim “obstruction of justice”, and its Senior Legal Counsel, John Farmer Jr., who states, “at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”
These facts point to a monstrous threat looming against “We the People” and it is our constitutional duty to investigate 9/11 and bring these criminals to justice.
Twenty-five military officers call the official 9/11 story, “Impossible”, “A bunch of hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A well-organized cover-up”, “A white-washed farce”. Thousands of architects, engineers, academics, and professionals within the military intelligence complex as well as hundreds of 9/11 firemen, survivors, and family members have witnessed and/or investigated 9/11 and have challenged the U.S. government’s official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
According to a scientific poll by the New York Times & CBS News, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11, which mirrors a CNN poll indicating that 89% think that the U.S. government covered-up 9/11…
Our country needs our help. Please take action.
Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force Director of Advanced Space Programs, under Presidents Ford and Carter
“The official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.” –Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, former U.S. Air Force Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter, Doctorate of Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Cal Tech University.
Our two-party system is broken. Our country is being stolen by criminal conspirators. Supranational banking and finance oligarchs have hijacked our federal government and mainstream media by infiltrating and controlling both the democratic and republican parties for their own wickedness.
Now is the time for “We the People” to peacefully, legally, and lawfully organize our military forces, police, and other officials to take back our stolen Country with the brilliant mechanisms that our founding fathers provided within our Constitution to protect our Freedom. We must act now before it is too late!
We must create political power with a peaceful “Jeffersonian Revolution”, by uniting our local, county, and state governments in alliance with our military and militia powers and reclaim our seized federal government, by exposing the criminal conspiracy and its diabolical agenda, which includes mass depopulation and a totalitarian dictatorship.
As “We the People” take peaceful, legal, and lawful constitutional power of our system from the ground up, we well be able to perform a full investigation and bring the treasonous criminal conspirators to justice with a peaceful police action and avoid violent insurrection. Why fight our government when we can become our government?
When it is evident that treasonous criminals are threatening our Freedom, it is the constitutional duty of “We the People” to organize and defend our beloved country.
We can think of nothing more American or Constitutional than to rise up and defend our Country and liberate her from the traitors who have the audacity to overthrow her.
Forty-one U.S. counter-terrorism and intelligence agency veterans challenge the official 9/11 story, calling it, “terribly flawed”, “laced with contradictions”, “a joke”, “a cover-up”.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” –U.S. President Abraham Lincoln
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” –Martin Luther King Jr.
“Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God” –U.S. President Thomas Jefferson
One million U.S. Citizens assemble in Washington D.C. to protest our government on September 12, 2009
Although this assembly is impressive, it is somewhat futile to petition the traitors. The most effective strategy, as mentioned, is for “We the People” to unite our local and state governments to take political power over our federal government. As Tip O’Neill’s father said, “All politics is local.”
“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” –Dr. Howard Zinn, historian, political scientist, author, often misattributed to U.S. President Thomas Jefferson
“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like the evil spirits at the dawn of day.” —U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Pierre S. du Pont de Nemours, April 24, 1816
Dr. Niels Harrit, Professor of Chemistry at Copenhagen University in Denmark, expert in Nano-chemistry, lead author of the peer-reviewed paper concluding Nano-thermitic explosives in WTC dust
Frequently asked why he researches the September 11th attack, Dr. Harrit says, “First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask me, ‘Grandfather, which side were you on?’, I will be able to answer them; I was on your side.” Dr. Niels Harrit is lead author of a groundbreaking peer-reviewed paper by an international scientific team of nine scientists. The scientists discovered hard physical evidence of Nano-thermitic explosives in numerous samples of dust from the World Trade Center catastrophe on 911. Dr. Harrit says that these explosives are “extremely advanced” and that Journalists should investigate who was in charge of the WTC security and why did they permitted explosives to be placed in the three towers. “Our work should lead to demands for a proper criminal investigation of the 911 terrorist attack.”
Conclusion of paper: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Previous to this paper, scientists published “Smoking Gun” evidence of Thermitic residue found in the rubble of 911. Incriminating iron-rich microspheres with a chemical “fingerprint” of Thermitic reactions had been discovered in WTC debris and tested as positive by multiple scientific laboratories, of which, government studies corroborate evidence consistent with Thermitic reactions in WTC debris. This new forensic evidence represents the “Loaded Gun” itself. All test samples have a well-documented “chain-of-custody” record, which will be important in pursuing a successful Federal Prosecution. It is significant to note that sample (b) above, was documented as being collected ten minutes after the destruction of the second tower’s (North Tower) demolition.
James Quintiere, PhD, former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division calls for independent review of World Trade Center investigation.
“In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great mass of people will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one.” –Adolph Hitler
“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.” –John Lennon
Above, Dr. Niels Harrit interviewed by a mainstream Danish News station (English subtitles). Dr. Harrit said, “Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have long known that the three buildings were demolished. This has been crystal clear. Our research is just the last nail in the coffin. This is not the ‘smoking gun’, it is the ‘loaded gun’. Each day, thousands of people realize that the WTC was demolished. This is something unstoppable.”
Hundreds from the scientific, governmental, political, and intelligence communities, have stated under no uncertain terms that the government’s official conspiracy theory does not match the available facts of the 911 tragedy. Tens of millions of Americans have concluded that our government covered up 911. In May of 2006, a respected independent scientific poll by Zogby International revealed that 42% of Americans think that 911 was covered up by both the U.S. Government and the 911 Commission.
Was it merely a coincidence that PNAC published this ominous statement in 2000? “Further, 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.” –PNAC (think tank formed in 1997), Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (September, 2000, page 51)
“What luck for rulers that men do not think” –Adolf Hitler
“Those who would give up their essential liberties to gain a little security deserve neither liberty nor security.” –Ben Franklin, U.S. Founding Father, President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, Scientist, Civic Activist, Statesman, indebted the U.S. to secure the French alliance to help win the American Revolution
Colonel George Nelson, U.S. Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigator
“As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.” –Colonel George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigator, Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College, 34-year Air Force career
They once called the European Union a “Conspiracy Theory”.
The “European Union” does exist.
We present hard evidence that our Republic is under attack from within.
It is our constitutional duty to sound the alarm and organize the American People to defend our Republic!
We are a group of concerned people, who are urgently warning “We the People” of a serious threat to America’s Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. Endowed by Nature’s Creator, these rights are unalienable…
“…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government … when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” –Our Declaration of Independence
In accordance with our U.S. Constitution, it is not only our right, but also our duty, to defend our Republic from the very Government we empowered to serve “We the People”.
We are asking for your help in informing and organizing “We the People” in your local county and state governments. “We the People” must unite the political power of our states to gain control of our federal government. “Freedom” is the political platform that unites us all in the defense of our Constitution. Please share this solution and our Website investigate911.org with other civic organizations, blogs, email, and by word of mouth.
Use this easy tool to send a message to your representative and local newspaper.
Our military needs our involvement to help legitimize their defensive action. According to Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army, 70% of our military leaders are remaining true to their Constitutional oath and are preparing to defend our Republic against the traitors who have infiltrated our country.
“Information is the currency of democracy.” —U.S. President Thomas Jefferson
“It is the first responsibility of every citizen to Question Authority.” –Benjamin Franklin
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. –Edmund Burke, statesman, 18th century political philosopher
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Foreign Policy Advisor to President Obama and five previous presidents
It is important to understand the agenda of those who advise our public servants as well as for whom their allegiance lies. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Foreign Policy Advisor to President Obama, writes…
“…as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat [i.g. government contrived terrorism]. …Democracy is inimical [a hostile enemy] to imperial mobilization [i.g. a despotic takeover, so it must be abolished].” –Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997, pages 211 & 36 respectively)
Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of President Barack Obama’s Senior Foreign Policy Advisors. He was National Security Advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Co-chairman of the National Security Advisory Task Force for U.S. President George H. W. Bush (1988), member of the NSC Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-term Strategy under U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Reagan. Brzezinski has advised a total of six U.S. Presidents in Foreign Policy. His background is directly tied to supranational organizations, which desire to deindustrialize and strip sovereignty away from the U.S. Brzezinski was cofounder (with David Rockefeller), architect, and first Director of the Trilateral Commission (1973-1976), current member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), member of the Bilderberg Group, and taught at Columbia University while Obama pursued his Political Science Degree. The CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group have all been commissioned by the oligarchs of the European banking dynasties.
We are being overthrown by an international banking cartel, who is incrementally stealing our freedoms. Such freedoms stand in the way of the criminal conspirator’s agenda to create a totalitarian “One World Government,” governed by them under the United Nations, which they created in conjunction with the CFR.
The following “Orwellian” statements from Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisor are happening now. Zbigniew Brzezinski writes in his book, Between Two Ages…
“In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens, who are easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities, and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason. Reliance on television—and hence the tendency to replace language with imagery, which is international rather than national…” –Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970, page 11)
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong it’s reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” –U.S. President Abraham Lincoln
need to keep looking on and on ,,,,, the truth will set you free…. (if you act and follow it)
Al Qaeda’s Top Gun
Posted By Jeremy R. Hammond On April 17, 2010 @ 6:22 pm In Analysis, Featured, History, Jeremy R. Hammond, Media / Propaganda, Politics / Government, United States, War / Terrorism | 1 Comment
An examination of the documentary record reveals
a clear pattern of willful deception
on the part of the 9/11 Commission with regard to
alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour in an apparent effort
to manipulate the facts to suit the official theory.
Hani Hanjour is the hijacker who flew Ameri can Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001, according to the official account of terrorist attacks. “The lengthy and extensive flight training obtained by Hani Hanjour throughout his years in the United States makes it reasonable to believe that he was the pilot of Flight 77 on September 11″, concluded FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. The story is that while Hanjour had difficulties learning to fly at first, he persevered, overcame his obstacles, and became an extraordinary enough pilot to be able to precisely hit his target after performing a difficult flight maneuver.
The New York Times, for instance, asserted that “Mr. Hanjour overcame the mediocrity of his talents as a pilot and gained enough expertise to fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon.” The Washington Post similarly suggested Hanjour had the requisite skills, reporting that “Federal records show that a Hani Hanjoor obtained a commercial pilot’s license in April 1999 with a rating to fly commercial jets.”
The 9/11 Commission expanded upon this narrative in its final report. It noted that Hanjour first came to the United States in 1991 to study English, then again in 1996 “to pursue flight training, after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia.” In 1997, after returning to Arizona, he “began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot’s license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999.”
Subsequently, “Hanjour reportedly applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah after returning home, but was rejected.” By the end of 2000, Hanjour was back in the U.S. and “began refresher training at his old school, Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough. The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa. An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing. Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001.” A footnote in the report asserts that Hanjour was chosen specifically for targeting the Pentagon because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.”
John Ashcroft told reporters early in the investigation, “It is our belief and the evidence indicates that flight training was received in the United States and that their capacity to operate the aircraft was substantial. It’s very clear that these orchestrated coordinated assaults on our country were well-conducted and conducted in a technically proficient way. It is not that easy to land these kinds of aircraft at very specific locations with accuracy or to direct them with the kind of accuracy, which was deadly in this case.”
A pilot with a major carrier for over 30 years told CNN that “the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators”. An air traffic controller from Dulles International Airport told ABC News, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don’t fly a 757 in that manner. It’s unsafe.”
CBS News suggested that according to its sources, Flight 77, “flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed. The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.”
The Washington Post similarly noted that the plane “was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm”. Hanjour was so skilled, in fact, that “just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot” – later identified as Hanjour – “executed a pivot so tight it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.” The Post reported in another article that “After the attacks … aviation experts concluded that the final maneuvers of American Airlines Flight 77 – a tight turn followed by a steep, accurate descent into the Pentagon – was the work of ‘a great talent … virtually a textbook turn and landing,’”.
According to the report of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) cited by the 9/11 Commission, information from the flight data recorder recovered from the Pentagon crash site and radar data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) show that the autopilot was disengaged “as the aircraft leveled near 7000 feet. Slight course changes were initiated, during which variations in altitude between 6800 and 8000 feet were noted. At 9:34 AM, the aircraft was positioned about 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon, and started a right 330-degree descending turn to the right. At the end of the turn, the aircraft was at about 2000 feet altitude and 4 miles southwest of the Pentagon. Over the next 30 seconds, power was increased to near maximum and the nose was pitched down in response to control column movements. The airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM.”
The NTSB created a computer simulation of the flight from the flight data recorder information showing that the plane was actually at more than 8,100 feet and doing about 330 mph when it began its banking turn at 9:34 am. At that point, the alleged pilot Hanjour could have simply decreased thrust, nosed down, and guided the plane into what would have been 29 acres, or 1,263,240 square feet of target area – the equivalent of about 22 football fields. From this angle, proverbially speaking, it would have been like trying to hit the side of a barn. Hanjour could have guided the plane into the enormous roof of the building, including the side of the building where the office of the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was located, and where he happened to be that morning.
Instead, the plane began a steep banking descent, circling downward in a 330-degree turn while dropping more than 5,600 feet in three minutes before re-aligning with the Pentagon and increasing to maximum thrust towards the building. The nose was kept down despite the increased lift from the acceleration, while flying so close to the ground that it clipped lamp posts along the interstate highway before plowing into the building at more than 530 mph, precisely hitting a target only 71 feet high, or just 26.5 feet taller than the Boeing 757 itself.
In other words, by performing this maneuver, Hanjour reduced his vertical target area from a size comparable to the height of the Empire State Building to an area just 5 stories high. Instead of descending at an angle and plowing through the roof and floors of the building to cause the greatest possible number of casualties, including possibly taking out the Secretary of Defense, Hanjour hit wedge 1 of the Pentagon, opposite to Rumsfeld’s office, which happened to be under construction, and where the plane, travelling horizontally, had to penetrate through the steel- and kevlar-reinforced outer wall of the building’s southwest E-ring in addition to the numerous additional walls of the inner rings of the building.
But even more problematic than the question of why Hanjour would perform this maneuver is the question of how he performed it. Perhaps the most incredible thing about this, the official account of what happened to Flight 77, is that Hani Hanjour was in reality such a horrible pilot that he had trouble handling a light single-engine aircraft and even just one month before the attacks was rejected at two different schools because he was judged too incompetent to rent a plane and fly solo.
As the Los Angeles Times ironically put it, “For someone suspected of steering a jetliner into the Pentagon, the 29-year-old man who used the name Hani Hanjour sure convinced a lot of people he barely knew how to fly.”The Legend Unraveled
According to an FBI chronology for Hani Hanjour cited by the 9/11 Commission, Hanjour first travelled to the U.S. in 1991 on a visa issued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia under the name “Hani Saleh Hanjoor”, in order to attend the University of Arizona’s Center for English as a Second Language. After returning to Saudi Arabia, he was again issued a visa at Jeddah in March, 1996. Back in the U.S., he attended classes at the ELS Language Center in Oakland, California from May until August. For a week in September, he took ground training lessons at the Sierra Aeronautical Academy Airline Training Center (SAAATC). From the end of September until mid-October, he purchased flight instruction from Cockpit Resources Management (CRM) in Scottsdale, Arizona. He then returned to Saudi Arabia once more. The Washington Post reported that according to Hanjour’s brother, Yasser, “Hanjour applied for a job at the state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines but was told that he lacked sufficient grades…. He said the company told him it would reconsider his application only if he acquired a commercial pilot’s license in the United States.” Yasser characterized Hanjour “as a frustrated young Saudi who wanted desperately – but never succeeded – to become a pilot for the Saudi national airline.”
Hanjour made plans to return to the U.S. and was issued a third visa in Jeddah in November 1997. His visa application contained red flags that should have resulted in his visa being denied. He failed to write in the name and address of the school he would be attending and provided no proof, as required by law, that he could furnish financial support for himself. With that application accepted, he reentered the U.S. and took pilot training from CRM again in December.
It was at this time that, according the 9/11 Commission, Hanjour began his training “in earnest”. But in reality, while at CRM, Hanjour never finished coursework required to get his certificate to be able to fly a single-engine aircraft. The New York Times reported that “he was a lackadaisical student who often cut class and never displayed the passion so common among budding commercial airline pilots”. ABC News reported that when he returned to CRM that December, “He was trying for his private pilot’s license”, but according to one of his instructor’s, he “was a very poor student who skipped homework and missed flights.” The school’s attorney said that when Hanjour reapplied again later in 2000, “We declined to provide training to him because we didn’t think he was a good enough student when he was there in 1996 and 1997.” The school’s owner described him as a “weak student” who “was wasting our resources”. He said “One of the first accomplishments of someone in flight school is to fly a plane without an instructor. It is a confidence-building procedure. He managed to do that. That is like being able to pull a car out and drive down the street. It is not driving on the freeway.” Although it normally took three months for students to earn their private pilot’s certificate, Hanjour “did not accomplish that at my school.” He added that “We didn’t want him back at our school because he was not serious about becoming a good pilot.” The Chicago Tribune reported that at CRM, “A flight instructor said Hanjour left an impression by being unimpressive. ‘He was making weak progress,’ said Duncan Hastie, president of CRM.”
Hanjour switched schools, and from the end of December 1997 until April 1999, took flight lessons from Arizona Aviation in Mesa, Arizona. There, too, the 9/11 Commission’s own evidence contradicts the characterization that Hanjour was training “in earnest”. An FBI document cited by the Commission stated that “Hanjour often participated in flying lessons for a one to two weeks [sic] and then would disappear for weeks or months at a time.” The school “often had to call Hanjour in an effort to get Hanjour to pay his bill.”
Buried in the footnote for the paragraph suggesting Hanjour began training “in earnest”, the 9/11 Commission report acknowledged that “Hanjour initially was nervous if not fearful in flight training” and that “His instructor described him as a terrible pilot.” FBI documents cited by the Commission reveal that witnesses from the school told investigators that “Hanjour was a terrible pilot. Hanjour had difficulty understanding air traffic control, the methods for determining fuel management and had poor navigational skills.” The FBI was told by one witness that “the only flying skill Hanjour could perform was flying the plane straight”, and that “he did not believe Hanjour’s poor flying skills were due to a language barrier.” He was “a very poor pilot who did not react to criticism very well. Hanjour was very, very nervous inside the cockpit to the point where Hanjour was almost fearful.”
In April 1998, Hanjour applied for his private pilot certificate with a single-engine rating, but he failed his test. One of the tasks documents show he would need to be reexamined for was “coordinated turns to headings”  He tried again later that same month and this time received his private pilot certificate under the name “Hani Saleh Hanjoor”, with an “Airplane Single Engine Land” rating.
In an apparent attempt to bolster the misleading characterization that Hanjour began training “in earnest”, the 9/11 also stated that it took only “Several more months” to obtain his commercial pilot certificate. In fact, it took Hanjour another year of training before he managed to obtain that second certificate. On April 15, 1999, the FAA issued a commercial pilot certificate to him under the name “Hani Saleh Hanjoor”. The certificate was issued by Daryl M. Strong, an independent contractor for the FAA, with an “Airplane Multiengine Land” rating. To obtain the certificate, Hanjour’s records show he flew his check ride in a Piper PA 23-150 “Apache”, a four-seat twin-engine plane, which Hanjour was in command of for 14.8 hours of the 27 hours completed for the test.
Contrary to the Washington Post’s assertion that this certificate allowed him “to fly commercial jets”, in fact it only allowed him to begin passenger jet training. Hanjour did so, only to fail the class. As the Associated Press reported, the “certification allowed him to begin passenger jet training at an Arizona flight school despite having what instructors later described as limited flying skills and an even more limited command of English.”
Furthermore, there remains an open question about whether Hanjour was actually qualified to receive that certificate in the first place. According to Heather Awsumb, a spokeswoman for Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS), a union that represents FAA employees, “The real problem is that regular oversight is handed over to private industry”, since private contractors “receive between $200 and $300 for each check flight. If they get a reputation for being tough, they won’t get any business.”
To obtain a commercial pilot license, the applicant must “Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language.” It seems highly dubious that Hanjour met that qualification, as the 9/11 Commission itself acknowledges that his English skills were inadequate. The certificate does not allow its holder to fly any commercial aircraft, but is issued for “the aircraft category and class rating sought”. Hanjour only trained in light propeller planes like the single-engine Cessna and twin-engine Piper, and had never flown a jet aircraft.
Additionally, commercial pilot certification is different from the Airline Transport Pilot certification held by airline captains. To obtain a commercial certificate with a multi-engine rating, Hanjour only needed to log in 250 hours of flight time, whereas to obtain an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, pilots are required to log 1,500 hours. Needless to say, having the ability to control a Cessna 172 or Piper Apache propeller plane does not translate into the ability to handle a Boeing 757 jetliner – and Hanjour could barely do the former.
Anyone unfamiliar with pilot certification could easily make the mistake of thinking a “commercial pilot license” meant Hanjour was qualified to fly a jet airliner, a conclusion reinforced by the Washington Post’s false assertion that his certificate allowed him “to fly commercial jets”. The 9/11 Commission report reinforced that false impression, only vaguely hinting at the truth six paragraphs later by saying that Hanjour subsequently “wanted to train on multi-engine planes”. But the Commission then further obfuscated that truth by asserting that this was merely “refresher” training (a matter to which we will return).
Hanjour again left the country on April 28, 1999.  As the 9/11 Commission report observed, when he returned to Saudi Arabia to apply in the civil aviation school in Jeddah, he was rejected. He subsequently began making preparations to return to the U.S. once again. In September 2000, Hanjour was denied a student visa after indicating that he wanted to remain in the U.S. for three years, and yet listed no address for where he intended to stay in Arizona. But he tried again for a student visa under the name “Hani Hanjour” later that same month. This time, he wrote that he wanted to stay for one year instead of three, and listed a specific address in California, not Arizona, where he said he was going on his first application. Despite these obvious red flags, he was issued the visa. 
He entered the U.S. in December and took more flight lessons that month at Arizona Aviation. From February until mid-March, he attended Pan Am International Flight Academy, also known as Jet Tech International, in Mesa, Arizona.
It was upon his return to Arizona Aviation in 2000 that the 9/11 Commission stated he wanted “refresher” training on multi-engine planes but was advised to discontinue “because his English was not good enough.” The implications are that Hanjour was merely brushing up on skills he had already achieved through previous flight training, and that the only reason he was advised not to continue was because of his poor language skills. But turning to the report’s footnote, it reads: “For his desire to train on multi-engine planes, his language difficulties, the instructor’s advice, and his reaction, see FBI report of investigation, interview of Rodney McAlear, Apr. 10, 2002.” That document reveals that McAlear worked not for Arizona Aviation, but rather “instructed Hani Hanjour in ground school flight training at Jet Tech in the early 2001.” The 9/11 Commission, by misleadingly suggesting that this occurred at Arizona Aviation, apparently intended to bolster the claim that this was “refresher” training by making it sound as though this occurred at Hanjour’s old school, when the truth is that it occurred when he was at a different school he’d never been to before.
The 9/11 Commission was also deceiving the public suggesting that the sole reason Hanjour was not able to complete his training on multi-engine planes was because his English wasn’t good enough. As already noted, an instructor at Arizona Aviation thought his earlier failings there were due primarily to his poor flight skills, and not because of his language inadequacies. More importantly, again, this training actually occurred at Jet Tech. Turning to the documentary record, as article in the New York Times entitled “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence” noted, his instructors there “found his piloting skills so shoddy and his grasp of English so inadequate that they questioned whether his pilot’s license was genuine”. As a result, they actually reported him to the FAA and requested confirmation that his certificate was legitimate. The staff there “feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner.” Marilyn Ladner, a vice president at the academy, told the Times, “There was no suspicion as far as evildoing. It was more of a very typical instructional concern that ‘you really shouldn’t be in the air.’” 
As already discussed, it remains an open question whether Hanjour was actually qualified to hold his commercial pilot certificate. It was at this time, as the Associated Press reported, that “Federal aviation authorities were alerted in early 2001 that an Arizona flight school believed one of the eventual Sept. 11 hijackers lacked the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot’s license he already held, flight school and government officials say.” The manager of JetTech said, “I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.”Whereas the 9/11 Commission suggested that, because he “persevered”, Hanjour “completed the initial training”, thus leading the public to the conclusion that his skills had advanced accordingly, the Times offered a very different account: ”Ultimately administrators at the school told Mr. Hanjour that he would not qualify for the advanced certificate. But the ex-employee said Mr. Hanjour continued to pay to train on a simulator for Boeing 737 jets. ‘He didn’t care about the fact that he couldn’t get through the course,’ the ex-employee said. Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. ‘I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,’ the former employee said. ‘He could not fly at all.’”
Another Times article similarly noted that when Hanjour enrolled in February 2001 “at a Phoenix flight school for advanced simulator training to learn how to fly an airliner, a far more complicated task than he had faced in earning a commercial license”, his “instructors thought he was so bad a pilot and spoke such poor English that they contacted the Federal Aviation Administration to verify that his license was not a fake”.
According to FAA inspector Michael Gonzales, when Pan Am International Flight Academy contacted the FAA to verify that Hanjour’s license was valid, “There should have been a stop right then and there.” The Associated Press reported that Gonzales “said Hanjour should have been re-examined as a commercial pilot, as required by federal law.” But that was not done. Instead, the FAA inspector who “even sat next to the hijacker, Hani Hanjour, in one of the Arizona classes” and “checked records to ensure Hanjour’s 1999 pilot’s license was legitimate” concluded that “no other action was warranted” and actually suggested that Hanjour get a translator to help him complete his class. “He offered a translator,” said the school’s manager, who “was surprised” by the suggestion. “Of course, I brought up the fact that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license.”
As with the fact that multiple visa applications from Hanjour should have been denied, the 9/11 Commission made no mention of any of this. One would think that a commission tasked with investigating the events of 9/11 with the goal of assessing what went wrong and fixing the system to prevent any loss of life in the future would have looked into who issued Hanjour visas in Jeddah and why the red flags were ignored. One would think that misconduct from FAA officials and contractors that allowed a terrorist to improperly obtain certification to fly a plane would also not be outside of the purview of the investigation – yet the Commission’s report is absolutely silent on this.
Turning to the footnote for the claim that Hanjour “completed” training at Jet Tech, one can read (emphasis added): “For his training at Pan Am International Flight Academy and completion by March 2001, see FBI report ‘Hijackers Timeline,’ Dec. 5, 2003 (Feb. 8, 2001, entries…)”. But turning to that source, the FBI timeline does not state that Hanjour “completed” the training, only that he “ended” the course on March 16. The truth is that, as the Washington Post reported, “Hanjour flunked out after a month” at Jet Tech. Offering corroboration for that account, the Associated Press similarly reported that “Hanjour did not finish his studies at JetTech and left the school.”
The 9/11 Commission additionally noted that Hanjour had later gone to Air Fleet Training Systems in New Jersey and “requested to fly the Hudson Corridor” along the Hudson River, which passed the World Trade Center. He was permitted to fly the route once, “but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour’s poor piloting skills”, the Commission admits. However, the report continues, “Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour – likely accompanied by Hazmi – rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June.”
But here, the pattern of deception continues by omission of other relevant facts. The report does not explain that when Hanjour was permitted to fly the Hudson Corridor in May of 2001, unlike his subsequent rental flights, it was with an instructor on a check ride, and not a solo flight. By saying his instructor there “considered” Hanjour’s skills to be poor, the 9/11 Commission implied this was merely a subjective judgment, but that others considered him perfectly capable. Although it would have been a standard practice, there’s no indication from FBI records that Caldwell actually required him to go on a check ride before renting the plane. Even more significantly, the 9/11 Commission omitted altogether the fact that, while Hanjour was allowed to rent from Caldwell Flight Academy, he was rejected yet again by yet another school shortly thereafter that the record shows did require a check ride.
In August 2001, less than one month before 9/11, Hanjour took flight lessons at Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland. As the New York Times observed, Hanjour “still seemed to lack proficiency at flying”. When he showed up “asking to rent a single-engine plane”, he attempted three flights with two different instructors, and yet “was unable to prove that he had the necessary skills” to be allowed to rent the plane. “He seemed rusty at everything,” said Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the school. The Washington Post similarly reported that to “the flight instructors at Freeway Airport in Bowie”, Hanjour “was just a bad pilot.” And “after supervising Hanjour on a series of oblong circles above the airport and Chesapeake Bay, the instructors refused to pass him because his skills were so poor, Bernard said. ‘I feel darn lucky it went the way it did,’ Bernard said, crediting his instructors for their good judgment and high standards.” The London Telegraph also reported that Hanjour claimed to have 600 hours of flight time, “but performed so poorly on test flights that instructors would not let him fly alone.” Newsday reported that when flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner took Hanjour on three check rides, “they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172.” The Los Angeles Times reported, “‘We have a level of standards that we hold all our pilots to, and he couldn’t meet it,” said the manager of the flight school. Hanjour could not handle basic air maneuvers, the manager said.”
The deception does not end with this rather egregious omission. As noted, the 9/11 Commission also suggested that Hanjour obtained further training in a flight simulator, again, in an apparent attempt to exaggerate his training. But a review of the records shows that the preponderance of evidence indicates Hanjour was actually in New Jersey throughout the time period in question in June. FBI records show that on May 31, 2001, after having been rejected at Air Fleet Training Systems, Hanjour rented a Cessna 172 at Caldwell Flight Academy, where he “made an error taxing [sic] the airplane upon his return.” On June 6, he rented a single-engine aircraft. The FBI placed him in Paterson, New Jersey, on June 10. Then he rented a plane again on June 11, 18, and 19. The FBI has Hanjour (along with Nawaf Al-Hazmi) obtaining a mailbox at Mailboxes, Etc. in Fort Lee, New Jersey, on June 26, and opening a bank account and making an ATM withdrawal in New Jersey on June 27.
Somewhere in there, the 9/11 Commission would have the public believe that “evidence suggests” Hanjour again trained on a simulator in Arizona. To begin with, the simulator at the Sawyer School of Aviation in Phoenix was for small aircraft and was nothing like the cockpit of a Boeing 757 – another fact omitted by the Commission. But this perhaps becomes a moot point when one realizes that the evidence shows Hanjour never left New Jersey. Turning to the footnote for this claim, the Commission stated that documents from Sawyer “show Hanjour joining the flight simulator club on June 23, 2001″. But, the footnote acknowledges, “the documents are inconclusive, as there are no invoices or payment records for Hanjour, while such documents do exist for the other three” who joined the club at that time. The actual evidence thus demonstrates clearly that while Hanjour may have signed up (something which may have been possible over the phone or via the internet), he did not actually attend. The footnote further acknowledges that “Documentary evidence for Hanjour, however, shows that he was in New Jersey for most of June, and no travel records have been recovered showing that he returned to Arizona after leaving with Hazmi in March.”
The second piece of “evidence” that “suggests” Hanjour took further flight simulator training is a Sawyer employee who “identified Hanjour as being there during that time period, though she was less than 100 percent sure.” The FBI document cited in the footnote for that claim was obtained by Intelwire.com, but it is almost entirely redacted, so it’s impossible to verify the actual nature of this eyewitness testimony. But another document cited further into the same footnote also refers to the eyewitness from Sawyer, who described the four men who had joined the club. The first “UNSUB” (unidentified subject) was “short and stocky”. The second was 5’9″-5’10″, 170 pounds, and “medium build”. The third was 5’8″, 170 pounds, and “medium build”. And the fourth was 5’6″-5’7″ with a beard and mustache. Other eyewitness descriptions for Hanjour offered in the same FBI document have him as being no more than 5’6″ (one witness from Arizona Aviation, the document notes, “confirmed that he was only about 5’0″ tall”), 140-150 pounds, and very slight and thin, with short, curly hair. This clearly rules out the first three subjects, leaving only the detail-lacking fourth description as being the only one possibly matching Hanjour’s description. But the details given are far too vague to suggest a positive identification, particularly given the witness’s own admission that she wasn’t sure if it was Hanjour.
Even more significantly, that same FBI document reveals that it was not during the FBI’s initial interview with the witness that she identified that fourth “unsub” as Hanjour, as the 9/11 Commission report implies by citing the report from the FBI’s initial interview for that claim in the footnote. Rather, it was later, during a second interview that occurred after the names and images of the hijackers had been shown repeatedly in the media that she picked Hanjour’s out of a photo lineup. The FBI summary of that later interview states that according to the witness, Hanjour “has the same general characteristics and is very similar appearing as the person she saw at Sawyer…. However, she could not be 100% sure.”
The third and final piece of “evidence” is another witness who identified Hanjour as being “in the Phoenix area during the summer of 2001″, citing the FBI document just discussed, which is redacted enough that this claim cannot be readily verified. But the document does show additionally that Hanjour’s membership was good only from June 23 until August 8, at which time it expired.
Thus, the 9/11 Commission would have the public believe that sometime after June 19, Hanjour went from the east coast to Arizona without leaving any paper trail (i.e. airline or car rental records, ATM withdrawals, etc.), signed up for a two-week flight simulator club on June 23 without leaving any record he ever actually paid or even showed up (whereas records did exist for other members), only to change his mind and return again to be back in New Jersey with Nawaf Al-Hazmi three days later. In other words, what the evidence actually suggests is that the eyewitness testimony is unreliable and that, contrary to the Commission’s assertion, Hanjour never left New Jersey during that time.
There is a clear pattern of misleading and untruthful statements in the 9/11 Commission’s final report that cannot be dismissed as mere error. Rather, the evidence is incontrovertible that the Commission willfully and deliberately sought to present a falsified story of the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour; not to relate the facts to the public, but rather to cement a legend in the public mind; not to investigate and draw conclusions based on the facts, but to start with a conclusion – the official account of 9/11 – and manipulate the facts to suit the government’s own conspiracy theory.The Fiction Perpetuated
The mainstream media has dealt with the problematic nature of the official story in a number of ways. As already seen, one method has simply been to exaggerate characterizations of Hanjour’s competence. The official story as related by the New York Times that Hanjour “overcame the mediocrity of his talents” is not merely unsupportable by the evidence, but stands in stark contrast to the available known facts. The legend is also maintained by the mainstream media through false claims, such as the Washington Post’s assertion that Hanjour’s pilot certificate allowed him to fly commercial jets. While the Los Angeles Times suggested Hanjour “convinced a lot of people he barely knew how to fly”, the underlying assumption of the article was that, despite his apparent ineptitude in the cockpit, he really did know how to fly. The public is apparently supposed to believe that he was merely pretending to an incompetent pilot even though he was actually quite skillful. The mainstream media have a tendency to mock and ridicule anyone who dares even to just question the official narrative, all the while putting forth such utter absurdities as this.
As the evidence surfaced that Hanjour was not the pilot extraordinaire the public was initially told he must have been in order to carry out the attack on the Pentagon, another narrative began to emerge. While most of the mainstream media simply ignored the evidence, or, as in the case of the New York Times, drew conclusions that were contradicted by some of their own reporting. In no small part due to the 9/11 Commission report’s findings, the fiction remained firmly embedded in the minds of the public that Hanjour, through determination and perseverance, overcame all obstacles in order to acquire the skills necessary to pilot Flight 77 into the Pentagon.
There was, however, at least some acknowledgment of the major hole in that theory. A few media reports did acknowledge that Hanjour was a horrible pilot and that all evidence demonstrated that he never “overcame his mediocrity”. But rather than calling the official theory into question in doing so, these accounts simply offered a revisionist account in order to maintain the legend.
Gone was the story that the hijackers’ “capacity to operate the aircraft was substantial”, that the attacks were “conducted in a technically proficient way”, that “It is not that easy to land these kinds of aircraft at very specific locations with accuracy or to direct them with the kind of accuracy, which was deadly in this case”. No more was the expert opinion that “the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators”, that Flight 77’s final maneuver was “a difficult high-speed descending turn”. Vanished was the view that Flight 77 “was flown with extraordinary skill”, even so that it “reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver”, that this was evidence of “a great talent” in the cockpit.
In the place of that conventional wisdom, the new narrative that began to emerge in some accounts was that it really wasn’t that difficult a maneuver after all, and even a novice pilot like Hani Hanjour – or anyone who’s ever flown a small aircraft and perhaps spent some time playing a flight simulator game, for that matter – could have, with just a bit of luck, pulled it off.
The New American presented this new narrative by quoting Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, as saying, “It’s not that difficult, and certainly not impossible.” But Bull was apparently not speaking specifically with regard to the Pentagon, as he then added, “If you’re doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you’d just keep the nose down and push like the devil.” In this case, Bull seems to have had the attacks on the World Trade Center, and not the Pentagon, in mind. Moreover, even if Bull also had the Pentagon in mind, he was obviously only considering a situation where the pilot was flying in a straight line towards his target. Thus, if he was also speaking with regard to the Pentagon, he was quite apparently uninformed as to the actual flight path the plane took.
Similarly quoted was George Williams, a pilot for Northwest Airlines for 38 years, who said, “I don’t see any merit to those arguments [that Hanjour couldn’t have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon]. The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I’d say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do.”  It’s true that the Pentagon was a very big target. But Williams was apparently similarly aware, when he was asked to comment, of the plane’s final descending maneuver; or of the fact that this maneuver put the plane on a path that reduced the margin to a mere 26.5 feet (a few feet lower, the plane crashes into the ground; a few feet higher, the plane overshoots the target); or that the plane wasn’t flying at a constant airspeed, but was rather accelerating rapidly, thus creating more lift that needed compensating for with subtle precision in order to stay within that margin for error; or that the plane wasn’t just ambling along at something near landing speed, but was screaming along at an incredible 530 mph. To put that into perspective, cruising speed for airliners is about 600 mph at 30,000 feet of altitude, where the air is less dense. At sea-level that would be equivalent to about 300 mph hour, about double safe landing speed. A velocity of 530 mph at sea-level would be supersonic speed if it were possible to maintain at cruising altitude.
In both cases, the expert pilots seem to assume that Hanjour simply lined up the hijacked plane and flew a straight line into the building at a speed at which an aircraft could more easily be controlled by an inexperienced pilot. Needless to say, neither pilot’s statements accurately reflect the actual situation with regard to Flight 77. There is no indication that the New American bothered to fill either Bull or Williams in on the specifics of what Flight 77 actually did when it sought them out to “debunk” the assertion that Hanjour wasn’t a capable enough pilot to have pulled it off.
Offering a similar revisionist account, airline pilot Patrick Smith, writing for Salon, said that it was one of “the more commonly heard myths that pertain to the airplanes and their pilots” that “the terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training to fly jetliners into their targets. This is an extremely popular topic with respect to American 77. Skyjacker Hani Hanjour, a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater, seemed to pull off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon.” Smith’s answer to this was simply to flip conventional wisdom on its head. He opined that “If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with the help from the 757’s autopilot. Striking a stationary object – even a large one like the Pentagon – at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn.” Hanjour had all the skill that was required, Smith suggested, adding “You can learn it at home.”
So, according to this narrative, Hanjour’s “textbook” “fighter jet maneuver” in a Boeing 757 is evidence that he was a “shitty pilot” and any pilot wannabe with some rudimentary training and maybe just a little bit of luck could have done it. It was easier to hit a target merely 5 stories high at a nearly horizontal angle (“obliquely” as Smith misleadingly claims), than to simply point the nose down to hit a target the size of 22 football fields. These remarks are perhaps not so much the result of an attempt to challenge conventional wisdom as they were simply demonstrative that Smith made very little effort to actually understand the actual nature of Flight 77’s final flight path before writing that it is a “myth” that Hanjour was not a pilot capable of having performed that maneuver. His characterization of Hanjour’s final maneuver as “loops and turns and spirals” indicates that Smith was generalizing without having any real concept of what Flight 77 actually did in its final minutes. A further indication that Smith really just didn’t know what he was talking about was his suggestion that Hanjour “possibly” had “help from the 757’s autopilot” in pulling off those final maneuvers, which is both patently ridiculous and demonstrably false.
The German magazine Der Spiegel also made the rare attempt to actually address this issue, but found it sufficient enough merely to opine that “This is not difficult to accomplish” and similarly suggesting practically anyone could do it since it was “a maneuver that can be practiced with any flight simulator software.” End of discussion.
The public was originally told that attack on the Pentagon obviously required a fairly high level of sophistication in the cockpit. It was conventional wisdom that being able to maneuver a large jetliner required a certain level of training, a certain level of skill. The public was then told that Hanjour was the pilot among the 19 hijackers who had the most training and the greatest piloting skill. As the facts emerged and it became evident that Hanjour did not have the requisite level of skill, the government chose to manipulate the evidence in order to maintain its theory. The 9/11 Commission served to cement the legend of Hani Hanjour into history, and the mainstream media, for the most part, accepted and maintained that legend even when much of their own reporting revealed facts that contradicted it. In a few cases, there was acknowledgment that Hanjour was a “shitty” pilot after all, but in such cases the official account was still maintained by throwing common sense out the window and reversing the original consensus that it must have taken a skilled pilot to have performed that final, fatal maneuver.
Perhaps this revisionist retelling of the official story is the correct one. Perhaps the conventional wisdom that it would actually take a skilled pilot to competently control a large jetliner is really wrong. Perhaps it’s true that any second-rate pilot who has trouble controlling even a Cessna-172 could get into the cockpit of a Boeing 757 and do what Hani Hanjour is said to have done. Or, on the other hand, perhaps the revisionist account is just as much nonsense as the story that Hanjour “persevered” and “overcame his mediocrity”.
Whichever the case, many questions about the events of 9/11 remain to this day unanswered, despite the appointment of the 9/11 Commission ostensibly to investigate and provide answers to those questions. And whichever the case, the conclusion is inescapable that the 9/11 Commission deliberately attempted to deceive the public about the piloting capabilities of Hani Hanjour.
 Statement for the Record FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry, September 26, 2002 <http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html >. Jim Yardley and Jo Thomas, “For Agent in Phoenix, the Cause of Many Frustrations Extended to His Own Office”, New York Times, June 19, 2002 <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/national/19ARIZ.html?pagewanted=all >. “FBI Names 19 Men as Hijackers”, Washington Post, September 15, 2001; Page A01 <http://old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1127.pdf >.
 “Working Draft Chronology of Events for Hijackers and Associates”, FBI, November 14, 2003 (hereafter “FBI Hijackers Timeline”), p. 41. The complete FBI timeline is available for download online. See: “Newly Released FBI Timeline Reveals New Information about 9/11 Hijackers that Was Ignored by 9/11 Commission”, HistoryCommons.org, February 14, 2008 <http://www.historycommons.org/news.jsp?oid=140393703-423 >. The timeline reads: “FAA issued Commercial Pilot certificate #2576802 to [redacted] [sic].” The “[sic]” is in the original. Why the name “Hani Saleh Hanjoor” is redacted is unclear.
 The Final Report of the National commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, pp. 225-227 (hereafter “9/11 Commission Report”).
 9/11 Commission Report, p. 530 (see footnote 147).
 Global Security, September 14, 2001.
 “Hijackers ‘knew what they were doing’”, CNN, September 12, 2001 <http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/hijackers.skills/ >. The quote is CNN’s paraphrase of what the flight expert told them.
 “‘Get These Planes on the Ground’: Air Traffic Controllers Recall Sept. 11″, ABC News, October 24, 2001 <http://web.archive.org/web/20011025074733/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html >.
 “Primary Target: 189 Dead Or Missing From Pentagon Attack”, CBS News, September 21, 2001 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml >.
 Marc Fisher and Don Phillips, “On Flight 77: ‘Our Plane is Being Hijacked’”, Washington Post, September 12, 2001; Page A01 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11 >.
 Steve Fainaru and Alia Ibrahim, “Mysterious Trip to Flight 77 Cockpit”, Washington Post, September 10, 2002 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300752_pf.html >.
 “Flight Path Study – American Airlines Flight 77”, NTSB, February 19, 2002 <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm >.
 A copy of the NTSB video was obtained by the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth <http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ >. It is available for viewing on YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0& > (accessed April 8, 2010).
 “The Pentagon”, GlobalSecurity.org <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/pentagon.htm > (accessed April 8, 2010).
 Don Van Natta and Lizette Alvarez, “A Hijacked Boeing 757 Slams Into the Pentagon, Halting the Government”, New York Times, September 12, 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/day-terror-attack-military-hijacked-boeing-757-slams-into-pentagon-halting.html >.
 “The Pentagon”, Great Buildings Online <http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html > (accessed March 27, 2010). Boeing 757 Technical Specifications from Boeing.com <http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/technical.html > (accessed Marcy 27, 2010).
 “DoD News Briefing on Pentagon Renovation”, Department of Defense, September 15, 2001 <http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1636 >.
 Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2001.
 “FBI Summary about Alleged Flight 77 Hijacker Hani Hanjour”, Scribd.com <http://www.scribd.com/doc/13120414/-FBI-Summary-about-Alleged-Flight-77-Hijacker-Hani-Hanjour > (accessed April 6, 2010; herafter “FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour”). This document was cited by the 9/11 Commission. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) possesses the Commission’s records and has released many documents to the public. See: “9/11 Commission Records”, NARA <http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/index.html > (accessed March 28, 2010). Many of the released records are available online at Scribd.com. See: “9/11 Document Archive”, Scribd.com <http://www.scribd.com/911DocumentArchive > (accessed March 28, 2010).
 Washington Post, September 10, 2002.
 Charles M. Sennott, “Why bin Laden plot relied on Saudi hijackers”, Boston Globe, March 3, 2002 <http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/driving_a_wedge/part1.shtml >.
 Joel Mowbray, “Visas that Should Have Been Denied”, National Review Online, October 9, 2002 <http://old.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp >.
 FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.
 Thomas Frank, “Tracing Trail of Hijackers”, Newsday, September 23, 2001 <http://web.archive.org/web/20050314224950/911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html >
 David W. Chen, “Man Traveled Across U.S. In His Quest to Be a Pilot”, New York Times, September 18, 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/us/nation-challenged-suspect-man-traveled-across-us-his-quest-be-pilot.html >.
 “Who Did It? FBI Links Names to Terror Attacks”, ABC News, October 4, 2001 <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/540045/posts >
 Newsday, September 23, 2001.
 “Hanjour an unlikely terrorist”, Cape Cod Times, October 21, 2001.
 Carol J. Williams, John-Thor Dahlburg, and H.G. Reza, “Mainly, They Just Waited”, Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2001 <http://web.archive.org/web/20010927120728/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-092701atta.story >.
 V. Dion Haynes, “Algerian man didn’t try to hide, neighbors say”, Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2001 <http://web.archive.org/web/20011119115104/http://chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0110020305oct02.story >.
 FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.
 “FBI Summary of Information, Lofti Raissi”, January 4, 2004 <http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2004-01-04-FBI-summary-Lofti-Raissi.pdf >.
 9/11 Commission Report p. 520.
 FBI Summary of Information, Lofti Raissi.
 Hanjour’s FAA airman documentation from the 9/11 Commission records released by NARA are available online at Scribd <http://www.scribd.com/doc/13120915/Airman-Records-for-Alleged-911-Hijacker-Hani-Hanjour > (accessed March 28, 2010).
 “FBI Summary about Alleged Flight 77 Hijacker Hani Hanjour”, Scribd.com <http://www.scribd.com/doc/13120414/-FBI-Summary-about-Alleged-Flight-77-Hijacker-Hani-Hanjour > (accessed April 6, 2010; herafter “FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour”). This document was cited by the 9/11 Commission. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) possesses the Commission’s records and has released many documents to the public. See: “9/11 Commission Records”, NARA <http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/index.html > (accessed March 28, 2010). Many of the released records are available online at Scribd.com. See: “9/11 Document Archive”, Scribd.com <http://www.scribd.com/911DocumentArchive > (accessed March 28, 2010).
 Hanjour’s FAA airman records are available online at Scribd <http://www.scribd.com/doc/13120915/Airman-Records-for-Alleged-911-Hijacker-Hani-Hanjour > (accessed March 28, 2010).
 Kellie Lunney, “FAA contractors approved flight licenses for Sept. 11 suspect”, Government Executive, June 13, 2002 <http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0602/061302m1.htm >.
 “Report: 9/11 Hijacker Bypassed FAA”, Associated Press, September 30, 2004 <http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91553&page=1 >.
 Government Executive, June 13, 2002.
 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 12. The report notes that “To our knowledge none of them [the hijackers] had ever flown an actual airliner before.”
 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Sections 61.123, 61.129. Present requirements in these regards are the same as they were when Hanjour obtained his certificate. See the version revised as of January 1, 1999: <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_99/14cfr61_99.html >.
 FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.
 See also: FBI Hijackers Timeline,
 FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.
 National Review Online, October 9, 2002.
 National Review Online, October 9, 2002.
 FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.
 9/11 Commission Report, p. 521-522.
 “FBI FD-302, James Charles McRae”, April 10, 2001 <http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-17-FBI-FD302-james-charles-mcrae.pdf >.
 Jim Yardley, “A Trainee Noted for Incompetence”, New York Times, May 4, 2002 <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/04/us/a-trainee-noted-for-incompetence.html >.
 “FAA Probed, Cleared Sept. 11 Hijacker in Early 2001”, Associated Press, May 10, 2002 <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52408,00.html >.
 David Hancock, “FAA Was Alerted To Sept. 11 Hijacker”, CBS News, May 10, 2002 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/attack/main508656.shtml >.
 New York Times, May 4, 2002.
 Jim Yardley and Jo Thomas, “For Agent in Phoenix, the Cause of Many Frustrations Extended to His Own Office”, New York Times, June 19, 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/us/traces-terror-fbi-for-agent-phoenix-cause-many-frustrations-extended-his-own.html >.
 Associated Press, September 30, 2004.
 Associated Press, May 10, 2002.
 FBI Hijacker’s Timeline, p.123.
 Washington Post, September 10, 2002.
 Associated Press, May 10, 2002.
 9/11 Commission Report, p. 242.
 FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.
 FBI Timeline for Hani Hanjour.
 New York Times, September 18, 2001.
 Brooke A. Masters, Leef Smith, and Michael D. Shear, “Dulles Hijackers Made Maryland Their Base”, Washington Post, September 19, 2001; Page A01 <http://old.911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1124.pdf >.
 “Piecing together the shadowy lives of the hijackers”, Telegraph, September 20, 2001 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1341136/Piecing-together-the-shadowy-lives-of-the-hijackers.html >.
 Thomas Frank, “Tracing Trail of Hijackers”, Newsday, November 24, 2004 <http://web.archive.org/web/20050314224950/911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html >
 Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2001.
 FBI Hijackers Timeline, pp. 150, 154, 156-157, 161-162, 166-167.
 Jacques Billeaud, “More Arizona ties to terror suspect”, Associated Press, September 20, 2001.
 9/11 Comission Report, p. 529. The document cited by the 9/11 Commission was obtained by Intelwire.com. “FBI Memorandum, Sawyer Aviation records”, October 12, 2001 <http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-10-12-FBI-memo-sawyer-aviation.pdf >.
 “FBI FD-302, Interrogation of Tina Beth Arnold (Sawyer Aviation)”, FBI, October 17, 2001 <http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-10-17-FBI-FD302-tina-beth-arnold.pdf >.
 “FBI Summary of Information, Lotfi Raissi”, FBI, January 4, 2004 <http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2004-01-04-FBI-summary-Lofti-Raissi.pdf >.
 FBI Summary of Information, Lotfi Raissi.
 FBI Summary of Information, Lotfi Raissi.
 William F. Jasper, “9-11 Conspiracy Fact & Fiction”, The New American, May 2, 2005.
 “Airplane Flight: How High? How Fast?”, NASA <http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sflight2.htm > (accessed April 17, 2010). Relative airspeed is calculated by the equation B d v2 = W, where factor B depends on the profile of a given set of wings (larger wings produce more lift), d is air density, v is velocity, and W is the airplane’s weight. At 30,000 feet, air density is about ¼ that at sea level, allowing an airliner to double its speed to produce the same amount of lift.
 Patrick Smith, “Ask the pilot”, Salon, May 19, 2006. <http://www.salon.com/technology/ask_the_pilot/2006/05/19/askthepilot186 >.
 “What Really Happened: The 9/11 Fact File”, Der Spiegel, December 20, 2006 <http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,451741,00.html >.
Article printed from Foreign Policy Journal: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com
URLs in this post:
Click pictures below to enlarge
International Center for 911 Studies Secures Release of Thousands of Photos and Videos from NIST
International Center for 9/11 Studies Secures Release of Thousands of Photos and Videos from NIST
Submitted by JGourley on Tue, 08/31/2010 – 11:32pm
The International Center for 9/11 Studies has secured the release of hundreds of hours of video footage and tens of thousands of photographs used by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for its investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7. This material is being released to the Center under the Freedom of Information Act, in response to a lawsuit the Center filed against NIST.
The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.” Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records. To date, the Center has received over 300 DVDs and several external hard disk drives that contain responsive records – more than 3 terabytes of data so far – and NIST has indicated that additional records will be released in the future.
We are currently looking at the best ways to distribute these materials to interested researchers and journalists around the world. It has taken NIST more than 8 months so far to produce a partial archive of photographs and videos in their possession, but we hope to be more efficient in our efforts. Because of the huge volume of data, we are working on a wiki-style website to facilitate review and discussion of any interesting items that are discovered by researchers.
Justin Keogh, our Chief Technical Officer, is preparing the website and materials for release. The first batch of materials we are releasing is a group of video clips sent to us on an external hard disk drive labeled “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips.” We believe NIST entered these clips into a searchable database called the Cumulus database, and used them as the basis for the investigation and reports. Researchers may be interested to see which video clips NIST determined were important to its investigation, and compare these clips to the raw footage we release at a later date. Justin will be posting more details about the data release in the next week or two. Any questions about the FOIA Request, lawsuit, or data release should be submitted via the Contact Us page at the Center’s website: http://www.ic911studies.org/Contact_Us.html
Although the Center has extremely limited resources with which it can review this mountain of data, several interesting items have already been discovered. Below are five items the Center has uncovered so far. The items below have not been altered from the original provided by NIST, except in three cases where a short section of footage was extracted from a much longer video. Otherwise, no alterations have been made to the video or audio. For the best viewing experience, you should watch all of the videos below in the highest resolution available. We will supplement the list below in the coming days and weeks.
1. Video Footage of Explosion Before Collapse
In the video below, at about the 0:59 mark, a high-pressure explosion occurs in one of the Twin Towers, below the impact zone, while the building is still standing.
1. Video Footage of Explosion Before Collapse
In the video below, at about the 0:59 mark, a high-pressure explosion occurs in one of the Twin Towers, below the impact zone, while the building is still standing.
In the final report on the collapse of the Twin Towers issued by NIST, it appears to attempt an explanation for this explosion by suggesting it is a smoke puff resulting from a pressure pulse inside the building, perhaps from a collapsing wall or ceiling, or sudden opening of a door. (See NCSTAR1-5A, p. 52) However, as can be seen from the screen capture below, it isn’t merely smoke and dust being ejected. There appears to be a massive object being ejected along with the explosion.
2. Audio Evidence of Explosions During Collapse
Several videos released to the Center have clear audio tracks that contain distinct sounds of explosions occurring at the World Trade Center. These audio tracks provide support to the many eyewitness statements referring to explosions occurring when the buildings collapsed. Explosions can be heard at the initiation of the South Tower collapse in the following two videos. The explosions are clear enough at normal volumes, but turning your speaker volume up a bit can help provide a full appreciation of the sound.
The video below contains distinct sounds of explosions occurring throughout the collapse of the North Tower. The native audio track is at very low volume, so your speakers should be turned up enough to hear the explosions. (Please be careful to turn your volume back down after watching this video.)
In the next video, a loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls.
David Chandler will soon be publishing a video that contains a more in depth analysis of this footage, including audio enhancements of the explosion.
3. Visual Evidence of Explosions During Collapse
Several videos also have clear visible explosions that occur above the airplane impact/collapse zone in the South Tower. In the video below, the collapse begins at about the 3:45 mark. If you watch the corner of the South Tower nearest the camera, at a point about halfway between the airplane impact zone and the top of the building, you will see puffs of smoke and a flash at about the 3:49-3:50 mark. The corner of the building also appears to lose structural support (or “kink”) at this same location. These are the obvious result of explosive charges severing the steel structure at the near corner.
In the next video, a similar phenomenon can be seen, but from a different angle and not quite as clearly.
The video below is raw footage from a news outlet of the South Tower exploding. Explosions can be seen ahead of the collapse front. The newscaster even calls it a “huge explosion.”
4. Missing Video
Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented in item 2 above.
Another clip from the Cumulus database (below) begins after initiation of the WTC 7 collapse. The soundtrack is curiously silent during the entire collapse, only to turn on after the collapse has already finished.
In the next video, the camera catches the South Tower collapse from very close to the building. The initiation of the collapse is missing and appears to have been cut from the original.
The video clip below also begins after collapse initiation.
There are many video clips in the Cumulus database that do not show collapse initiation – the only event even purportedly explained in the final report from NIST on the Twin Towers.
5. Footage of WTC 7 Before Collapse
The video below is a series of clips taken near World Trade Center 7 after at least one of the Twin Towers has collapsed. This video shows Michael Hess yelling for help from the 8th floor window, beginning at about the 1:09 mark.
Edited on 9/1/2010 to replace a video that was not working.
Understanding the context
The goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement (hererafter “TM”) is for there to be a criminal investigation into possible complicity by the US government in the attacks of that day. Consequently, the baseline proposition of the TM is, logically, that there is sufficient evidence of government complicity in 9/11 to warrant such an investigation.
This distinction, one that is rarely made, is crucial, since it changes drastically the dynamic of most, if not all, of the debates that have been happening in the public domain about the subject. Given that the goal of the TM is one of illustrating evidence of a sufficiently significant gravity to warrant a criminal investigation, there are many “debunking” tactics that have absolutely no relevance any more. The idea that it is the role of the TM to prove the government’s guilt, for instance, is a common assertion that, with a moment’s reflection, is illustrated to be neither here nor there. It is not the duty of the TM to prove something so that it can then be proved. To state that there is an onus on the TM to prove the guilt of an accused party, regardless of whether it can or cannot, is as ridiculous as if one were to ask someone who is accusing someone else of murder to prove it, and only then can any criminal investigation into the murder take place. Since it is not the TM’s job to be judge jury and executioner, such arguments have no place.
A similar dynamic is true for another accusation, which is that the TM needs to construct an alternative scenario under which the attacks could have proceeded, one that is watertight, and covers all eventualities. This again, just shows a drastic misunderstanding the TM, and the entire dynamic of the debate. It is not the TM that is constructing an scenario to be defended- this is the job of the other side. They have drawn up a very intricate and improbable scenario that needs to be defended at every corner; a scenario that if there is one flaw, the whole tapestry comes crashing down. Though it is tempting to make hypotheses about who did what and when, this is something that I feel the TM should not get into too publicly, since it is not something that has any relevance. I don’t care who did what and when to WTC7, and the details are utterly irrelevant- all that matters is that I can show that there is sufficient evidence to illustrate that the government could have been criminally involved in its demise to warrant an investigation into such. That’s all I need to show, given the goal and baseline proposition of the TM as outlined at the top.
Furthermore, one of the most common retorts, “Yes, but maybe it was just a coincidence/built that way/an off day for NORAD…” again, no longer has any validity whatsoever. While it may well be that, for instance, military grade incendiaries got into the WTC dust by accident, the point is that this is a significant piece of evidence pointing to government complicity that needs to be part of a criminal investigation. Even the man with a smoking gun may have a genuine alibi, but does this mean that you do not perform a criminal investigation against him? Of course not. So the standards that are being demanded of the TM do not really represent a serious analysis of the situation on the part of any of its detractors.
A priori reasoning is also something that doesn’t hold. It is useless, logically speaking, to state, “It’s impossible, since there would have had to have been x thousand people involved”. Or, “It’s impossible, since there’s no way a US government would do that to its own people”. Or, “Bush isn’t smart enough to have pulled off such a complex plot- he couldn’t even plant WMDs in Iraq”. It is not a problem to employ such axioms if you can prove them to be axiomatic. But how can you do such a thing with the above 3 comments- 3 of the most common a priori rejoinders to any TM argument? Since none of them hold axiomatically, they cannot be employed as axioms. Thus any serious analysis of the situation would have to avoid such prima facie arguments.
Deductive vs. Cumulative reasoning
Structurally therefore, the position of the TM is one that is essentially impossible to refute. Given that there are probably around 100 different pieces of serious evidence that point to government complicity, the job of an opponent is not just to prove that they each might be wrong, as has been the stance until now, but that each of them stand so little chance of being right, that the sum total of all of the 100 or so accusations’ probabilities of having actually occurred is lower than the probability necessary for the overall accusation to warrant criminal investigation. This becomes mathematically impossible. To take an example, if the chances that NORAD’s inactivity was not indicative of criminal complicity on the behalf of the government were, for the sake of argument, ¾ and then you apply the same reasoning to just 20 arguments that the TM has proffered- very easy to list- then your combined probability of the weight of the evidence not being indicative of criminal complicity on the part of the government is 1/300. So in essence, the debunkers, once they have understood what the debate actually is, cannot but lose. This is because the arguments are structurally different. The TM argument relies on cumulative reasoning, which is to say that only one argument has to be true for the argument to carry. At the same time, the weight of the case is reflected by the combined probabilities of the total accusations. On the other hand, the government case is based on deductive reasoning, which means that only one element in the chain has to be wrong for the entire story to fold. If, for example, it was indeed the case that Dick Cheney told the young man in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center not to shoot the plane down, as Transport Secretary Norm Mineta intimated, then the entire rest of the government story (that is not contingent on that piece of the jigsaw of course) may well be true, but it would not make a bit of difference- the government story would be wrong, and criminal complicity would be proven. If one can illustrate that that piece of testimony is sufficiently serious that it deserves a criminal investigation, then the reasoning of the TM carries. And if you are not sure about that one piece, for whatever reason, then it is simply a matter of numbers, since there are so many serious accusations of holes in the government story, that the combined probability of these accusations makes any acceptance of the need for criminal enquiry essentially impossible to hold off.
The need to rebuild America’s defences
To look at how this works in detail, let us take what I feel to be one of the strongest examples, and that is the policy statements of the neo-conservatice think tank, the Project for a New American Century. Now one thing that startles me about 9/11, is that if it is so simple for an amateur pilot to hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon, one of the most secure buildings in the world, well then why don’t terrorists fly planes into less secure buildings- surely this should be easier? Why don’t Algerian terrorists fly into the Algerian Parliament building, or some other such building? Why don’t Sri Lankan terrorists fly into an important building in Sri Lanka? These buildings do not have a fraction of the protection of the Pentagon- why has it so far proved impossible to pull off? Why has this never happened in the history of mankind, given that on one day it occurred with relative ease, on not one, but 3 such buildings? The simple answer is that even in a tinpot security infrastructure, pulling off such an attack is very hard to do. So how did it happen in the US? In our quest for an answer to that question, it is useful to start with the neo-conservative policy white paper that was published in September 2000, exactly 1 year prior to the attacks. The document is called “Rebuilding America’s Defences”.
Basically speaking, this document, signed by a significant number of the men and women who would be charged with defending the US from a catastrophic terror attack on and up to 9/11, detailed that such an attack would in fact be propitious to US policy. This is because the document cites the need to create a new paradigm that will allow for a decades long shift in military and strategic radicalisation. With the threat of the Cold War gone, the US can no longer rest on its laurels as it did under Clinton- it needed to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, develop the capacity to fight 2 major wars at the same time, utilise space as a defence mechanism, utilise cyberspace as a defence mechanism, secure radical upheavals in defence spending etc. This, it stated, would be very hard to achieve “absent a catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor”. Now given that such an event is close to impossible to occurring in a country with a tinpot security infrastructure like Sri Lanka or Algeria, the chances that it should happen within a trillion dollar security infrastructure, like the US, without government involvement, moreover when the same government- in fact the people charged with preventing such an attack within said government- had effectively advocated such an occurrence only 12 months prior, are very slim indeed. So the case against the TM, bearing in mind our precisions about burdens of proof necessary as stated at the top, is already looking pretty tough. What the administration did when it came to power- the lengths the administration went to to secure its election victory over Gore in 2000 now making more sense- was, within 6 days, to demote the main guy who was charged with preventing a terror attack who was not one of them- head of counter terrorism, Richard Clarke. He was demoted, incidentally, one day after handing Condaleeza Rice a document entitled “Strategies for eliminating the threat of Al Qaeda”. And this 3 months after the bombing of the USS Cole, by Al Qaeda. As has been outlined in overwhelming detail by Paul Thompson, this pattern of warnings being ignored, and safeguards against threats being defused, was very much par for the course on a regular basis leading up to the attacks. Even the 9/11 Commission Report states that Bush was given 40 Presidential Daily Briefs that warned him that Al Qaeda was plotting to attack the US. 40 times he did nothing. We are told that George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, stated that the threat level was “unprecedented”, and that he was running around “with his hair on fire”. And yet nothing was done in response.
There is only so far that apathy can go before it ceases to become something passive and transforms into something active, and there is one evident way to explain the active apathy of the Bush administration prior to 9/11 faced with daily warnings of a catastrophic terror attack against them- and that is, as we know, that the occurrence of such an attack was effectively openly stated policy. Once viewed in this light, the insouciance becomes perfectly normal, and things make sense again. Otherwise there is no explanation why an administration made up of some of the most hawkish figures in recent American political history, would not violently react to the idea that there was anything threatening national security- a rare legitimate use of the term.
Let’s just pull back for a second and analyse this data in the light of our earlier expounded framework of reasoning. It could well be the case that the pieces of evidence I have cited do indeed lead nowhere. It could well be that it was just a coincidence that a once in a lifetime event should occur 12 months after it was more or less wished for by the people- undeniably ruthless and unscrupulous people at that- who were in a position to make it happen. This I don’t deny. But it’s irrelevant. The point is that one cannot look at that evidence and state that this is not sufficiently indicative of criminal complicity to warrant an investigation into such. That cannot be said, in any serious way. And this is merely one of dozens of such pieces of evidence.
World Trade Center 7
It is a remarkable truth, that still so few people are aware of how many buildings fell on 9/11. It is the most rudimentary fact concerning the most reported on event of all time, and so few people know this. The fact is that not 2, but 3 skyscrapers collapsed on that day, the Twin Towers (World Trade Centers 1 and 2) and World Trade Center 7, a 47 story building 100 metres away from the twin towers that collapsed at around 17:20 on the same day. It contained the offices of Salomon Brothers Bank, as well as those of the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, the SEC, as well as the Mayor’s Emergency Command Center.
Shortly after the planes hit the towers, the entire WTC 7 was evacuated. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, 2 high level city bureaucrats, happened to enter the Mayor’s Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor, found it deserted, and were told by emergency staff to leave the building. On their way down, there was an explosion within the building that blew up part of the 6th floor. This was, according to Jennings, a significant time before either Twin Tower had collapsed. They made their way down to the ground floor, where Jennings describes how it was “in total ruins”, as if from explosions, and saying that in the lobby, he was told “not to look down” by a firefighter, and that, walking through the lobby, he was “stepping over people”- the suggestion being, of course, dead people.
Jennings was interviewed for the excellent Loose Change Final Cut, but then asked for his testimony to be removed, due to threats he was receiving, and then shortly after, being interviewed for the BBC Conspiracy files debunking attempt, he reneged on his testimony. Shortly after that he was dead, in his early-mid 50’s.
The events he relayed all happened on the morning of 9/11. The building collapsed later in the day. There is, in fact, little need to go into the specifics of something so simple- watch the collapse for yourself, and you can witness that it is as much of a controlled demolition as you are likely to see.
Official explanations of the building’s demise, initially evaluated by FEMA as having “a low probability of occurrence” evolved into the notion that that due to the fires that were set off by falling debris from the twin towers, and the water supply being cut off for the firefighters, the metal beams in the building underwent “thermal expansion”, making the building unsteady, and causing its collapse. Were this explanation one taken seriously by even its formulators, there is something very evident that we would see, namely a revision of fire and building codes for skyscrapers all over the world, since if a fire can cause a building to collapse at the speed of gravity, we had better all go and work in bungalows. Since this is not a serious explanation, there have been no such revisions that I am aware of anywhere in the world- the notion that a fire can cause a building to collapse on itself in the manner of WTC7 is clearly not one that makes any sense.
More sense is provided by first responder witnesses to the collapse. Along with Craig Bartmer, Kevin Mcpadden who was one of the first responders that day, gives testimony that is devastating to the official story, stating that there was a countdown leading up to the collapse of the building.
First responder Indira Singh also states that they were told to evacuate the area, since with regards to WTC7, “(they) were going to have to bring it down”.
In an interview with an emergency worker broadcast on local radio on 9/11 just after 7 collapsed, we hear that “We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder, we turn around and were shocked to see that the building was… ah well….it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through he building and the windows were all busted out… About a second later the bottom floor collapsed and the building followed after that.” Doesn’t sound too much like “thermal expansion”, but such testimonies were never made the subject of any serious media coverage, to say nothing of any official enquiry. Nonetheless, they are devastating to any support for the official version of events.
To add further fuel to the fire, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex, Larry Silverstein, who had purchased the lease weeks prior to the attacks, interviewed for a PBS special on the attacks, stated the following:
“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we’ve had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is, pull it. They made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”
Now, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding by both sides of the debate surrounding this comment. Some members of the TM initially stated that “to pull” is industry jargon for “to implode”, which is not correct. Opponents of the TM sided with Silverstein’s later clarification attempt, when he put out a statement saying that by “pull”, he meant in fact “pull the firemen out of the building”. The debate has centred around the first interpretation, which is, in my eyes, totally misguided- given that Silverstein is not a demolition professional, the idea that he would be using demolition jargon, especially in a reported conversation with a fireman, for a public television show, is not very well thought through. The position from which one should be interpreting this comment, is that of a layperson- i.e. a non demolition industry insider, since this is the standpoint from which Silverstein is coming. If such a person were to hear, or indeed make that comment, it is fairly clear what their interpretation of it would be- that the building was brought down intentionally, by one means or another. Hence the consecutive nature of “making the decision to pull- watching the building collapse”. There is only one thing that pull could be referring to, realistically, and it certainly is not firemen. So Silverstein’s comment, when analysed intelligently, is another piece of evidence indicating insider complicity in the attacks.
This is not to state, as I have emphasised above, that the evidence given rules out all possibility of an alternative explanation. It may well have been the first time in history that a building collapsed by fire, while coincidentally exploding on the inside and its owner subsequently making suspect comments as to its demise; but it is this very fact that renders the probability of its veracity so unlikely, and screams for the need for an investigation into the attacks.
Very often, people point to official reports as support for their argument that the government was not involved. This is clearly erroneous, as since the government is the entity that is suspected of misdemeanour, pointing to a report issued by one of its agencies that defends its point of view is not an impartial way of viewing things. A useful thought experiment to do if one wants to analyse the situation impartially, is to consider if this event had happened in the country of a “designated enemy”, say Iran, and a building containing its secret service and other secretive agencies had collapsed in the same manner as WTC7, with the same background and motives for the attacks as the US had for 9/11, and what our reaction would be when Iranian government scientists came out and said that no, there is no conspiracy, nothing to see here. People just wouldn’t take it seriously. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, and it is us who are the potential suspects, a government agency’s defence of the government is seen as being something representing serious academic rigour. This is a level of double standards that needs to be bypassed if any progress is to be made in our analysis of such situations. One prima facie refutation that is often given cited above is that the US Government would never kill its own people. But it is not a stretch to believe that the US government would kill 3,000 of its own for imperial grand strategy. After Hurricane Katrina, it is widely accepted that government apathy in the face of spending money to save poor black people led to the death of close to 2,000 there. So if that is accepted to be the case, is it really inconceivable that they would engineer the deaths of a similar number to ensure lasting power and hegemony for the foreseeable future? Not at all. We are aware that the US will willingly sacrifice lives of millions of foreign civilians, and thousands of its own military, to ensure its own global power, so when viewed in this light, and in the stark light of events in New Orleans, it becomes hard to accept the idea that 9/11 is indeed a step that the US Government would not go beyond.
The financing of the attacks
The attacks, according to the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission Report, Tom Kean, cost $400,000-500,000 to carry out. A critical question therefore, though Kean inexplicably deemed it to be “of little practical significance”, is where did this money come from. As has been reported in The Guardian, The Times of India, Asia Times, as well as the Wall Stree Journal, the Australian, and other media outlets from France to India, Indian Intelligence were informed by the FBI that $100,000 of this came from Mahmoud Ahmed, who was the head of the ISI- the Pakistani Intelligence Service- via renowned terrorist Saeed Sheikh. In any normal circumstances, Ahmed would surely be living in hiding having been labelled as a sponsor of state terrorism. But this is not the case. Ahmed, the man who is widely reported to have financed 20-25% of the worst ever terrorist attack on the US, spent the week of those attacks in Washington, meeting with senior government and intelligence officials of the country whose people he was helping to attack. This included breakfasting on the morning of 9/11 with Porter Goss and Bob Graham, the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as well as meetings with George Tenet, the Director of the CIA on the 9th September.
Given the historical links between the CIA and the ISI, going back to US rapprochement with China under Nixon-Kissinger, and then the adding to that equation of the Taliban during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, it is unsurprising that revelations should surface linking the CIA and the ISI to attacks that are purported to have come out of Afghanistan. What is manna from heaven from anyone suspecting government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, is that such a link should have been made so explicit, with such wide reports regarding the financing, and then such an obvious connection manifested between the financer and US intelligence. Once more, if we apply these inputs to the framework of reasoning that is outlined above, the case for 9/11 Truth becomes increasingly hard to reject.
Some of the other issues
As stated at the top, the strucural strength of the movement comes from the fact that there are so many areas of improbability in the government report, and only one of them has to turn out to be false and indicative of government complicity for the TM argument to carry. Due to this nature of the argument, I will not be able to list all of the issues in this piece, but an excellent list of 50 key points is provided here by Jon Gold. To deal with some key questions:
– This is the crash sight of United 93 in Shanksville.
Does this look like a plane has crashed here?
– Regarding American Airlines flight 77, that hit the Pentagon. The flight was23% full, and the passengers that were on board included members of Raytheon, Boeing, the Army, the Navy, the Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, American Airlines, and other government agencies. Is this normal?
– Is it normal that a plane, flown by an inexperienced pilot, should be able to crash into the walls of a 6 storey building, at 500mph, leaving no mark on the lawn, and leaving a 20 foot sized hole in the wall? Or that for a building which had dozens of security cameras around it, not one piece of serious footage has been released of the impact- footage that would put any qualms regarding this instance to rest?
Absent government complicity, how can it be, as is now peer reviewed science, that traces of a military incendiary that can be used to slice through steel girders, have been found in the dust from the World Trade Center Collapse?
Is it normal that there should be molten metal for weeks after the event on the site of the collapse of the building, “running like lava”, when there was, according to the official story, no elements that could have caused such a phenomenon?
If we return to our original proposition, which is that there is sufficient evidence of government complicity in the attack, I think it is hard to conceive that even given the limited number of instances I have been able to look at into depth here (given time and space considerations), that this is not the case. This is not at all to say that there is not a conceivable scenario under which the government’s story could hold. As I have been at pains to underscore, the validity of the TM’s case is not contingent on it offering judge, jury and executioner proof of the guilt of the US Government in the attacks. This is the job of an official investigative body, whose pursuits will be catalysed by the evidence that the TM is, and has been able to bring to light. The job of the TM, and one that has been rendered very easy, given the evident facts of the day, is simply to illustrate the instances that point to likely criminal conduct on the part of the US Government. This serves as the basis for an investigation to be conducted.
Engaging in belief and understanding
The reaction of many people I meet to whom I explain some of these basic facts, is one of what I would call disengaged belief. That’s to say that they understand the facts, they are convinced by them, but the engagement in the belief is not there. This fact also explains the discrepancy between poll numbers- which show that around 40% of Americans are convinced by the TM’s overall case- and the fact that such numbers are not out on the street in open revolt against what they have understood to be their criminal government. To actually engage in the belief means to fully comprehend its implications. It means to fully comprehend the nature of government, industry and other power centres, and the lengths to which these entities will go to to preserve their own power. It would mean the drastic reevaluation of the images that we see on television and the internet of the leaders that we elect, and an utterly unpalatable realisation of our own implication and responsibility in the crimes our government commits. Such a radical reevaluation of world affairs is difficult for almost all people to swallow. As J Edgar Hoover said, “The individual is handicapped confronted with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists”. This was precisely the phenomenon he was referring to. What handicaps the individual is the dichotomy between his current world view where leaders and power centres are essentially benign, if occasionally misbehaving individuals, and a reality where such “monstrous” conspiracies, implemented to further the true interests of power centres, are possible, logical, and do happen. They are indeed all the more likely to happen given the handicap of general members of the public, and their inability to engage in their belief in a monstrous conspiracy. It is just simple fact that if 40% of the US, 120 million people, engaged in their belief that the government needs to be investigated for possible criminal connections to 9/11, life in that country would become unrecognisable- precisely what it must become if justice is to be served.
It is essential that when reading this article, the belief that gets engendered must be engaged upon- it is no use just believing it and setting it aside, and becoming another one of the 120 million who believes, but does not act. If you do this, you become part of Hoover’s handicapped public, that allows for future conspiracies to unfurl. This in turn allows for future murders, wars, and repressions. The issue of government connivance in the murder of 3,000 of its own citizens to launch a fraudulent war, the War on Terror, is not one that needs to be explained. Engage in the belief, actively demand a new investigation, and that way, not only will you be on the side of justice for the over 1 million who have died as a result of that day, but you will be involved in the effort to make such a catastrophic event less likely in the future.
O and the fake Usama tapes
and they say the steel core melted
And they didn’t explain this detail about the steel core in the official cover-up white-wash 9/11 commission report
And what about those interesting holes at the Pentagon (and missing security tapes, etc)
Oh, and then quick cover up of all evidence like at WTC site in NYC.
Hmm,, I think we have a problem here.
–>>> And they say we should not open a new investigation.
And that you should stay away from conspiracy theories.
The Destruction of Building 7’s Remains
Engineering is a science that melds theory and experience to create robust structures. Unintended structural failures are rare events that warrant the most careful scrutiny, since they test engineering theory.
That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes, and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangars. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.
Unintended structural failures are less common in steel-framed highrises than in aircraft. Being the only such building in history in which fire is blamed for total collapse, Building 7’s remains warranted the most painstaking examination, documentation, and analysis.
Building 7’s rubble pile was at least as important as any archeological dig. It contained all the clues to one of the largest structural failures in history. Without understanding the cause of the collapse, all skyscrapers become suspect, with profound implications for the safety of occupants and for the ethics of sending emergency personnel into burning buildings to save people and fight fires.
There was no legitimate reason not to dismantle the rubble pile carefully, documenting the position of each piece of steel and moving it to a warehouse for further study. No one was thought buried in the pile, since, unlike the Twin Towers, Building 7 had been evacuated hours before the collapse. The pile was so well confined to the building’s footprint that the adjacent streets could have been cleared without disturbing it.
Yet, despite the paramount importance of the remains, they were hauled away and melted down as quickly as possible. The steel was sold to scrap metal vendors and most of it was soon on ships bound for China and India. Some of the smaller pieces and a few token large pieces of steel marked ‘save’ were allowed to be inspected at Fresh Kills landfill by FEMA’s BPAT volunteers.
This illegal evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections of attack victims’ family members and respected public safety officials. Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old Fire Engineering Magazine, wrote in an article condemning the operation:
|Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? … That’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately. 1|
Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the Fire Protection Engineering Department at the University of Maryland, was quoted in the New York Times as saying:
|I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling. 2|
Officials running the “cleanup operation” took pains to make sure the structural steel didn’t end up anywhere but in blast furnaces. They installed GPS locator devices on each of the trucks hauling loads from Ground Zero at a cost of $1000 each. One driver who took an extended lunch break was dismissed.
and did you know
Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney
Main 9/11 Suspect
Official version of events a conspiracy theory,
says drills were cover for attacks
The former head of the Star Wars missile defense program under Presidents Ford and Carter has gone public to say that the official version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory and his main suspect for the architect of the attack is Vice President Dick Cheney.
Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.
Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.
In an interview with The Alex Jones Show aired nationally on the GCN Radio Network, Bowman (pictured below) stated that at the bare minimum if Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved in 9/11 then the government stood down and allowed the attacks to happen. He said it is plausible that the entire chain of military command were unaware of what was taking place and were used as tools by the people pulling the strings behind the attack.
Bowman outlined how the drills on the morning of 9/11 that simulated planes crashing into buildings on the east coast were used as a cover to dupe unwitting air defense personnel into not responding quickly enough to stop the attack.
“The exercises that went on that morning simulating the exact kind of thing that was happening so confused the people in the FAA and NORAD….that they didn’t they didn’t know what was real and what was part of the exercise,” said Bowman
“I think the people who planned and carried out those exercises, they’re the ones that should be the object of investigation.”
Asked if he could name a prime suspect who was the likely architect behind the attacks, Bowman stated, “If I had to narrow it down to one person….I think my prime suspect would be Dick Cheney.”
Bowman said that privately his military fighter pilot peers and colleagues did not disagree with his sentiments about the real story behind 9/11.
Bowman agreed that the US was in danger of slipping into a dictatorship and stated, “I think there’s been nothing closer to fascism than what we’ve seen lately from this government.”
Bowman slammed the Patriot Act as having, “Done more to destroy the rights of Americans than all of our enemies combined.”
Bowman trashed the 9/11 Commission as a politically motivated cover-up with abounding conflicts of interest, charging, “The 9/11 Commission omitted anything that might be the least bit suspicious or embarrassing or in any way detract from the official conspiracy so it was a total whitewash.”
“There needs to be a true investigation, not the kind of sham investigations we have had with the 9/11 omission and all the rest of that junk,” said Bowman.
Asked if the perpetrators of 9/11 were preparing to stage another false-flag attack to reinvigorate their agenda Bowman agreed that, “I can see that and I hope they can’t pull it off, I hope they are prevented from pulling it off but I know darn good and well they’d like to have another one.”
A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. These charges are ridiculed by the fact that Sheen is an expert on 9/11 who spends hours a day meticulously researching the topic, something that the attack dogs have failed to do, aiming their comments solely at Sheen’s personal life and ignoring his invitation to challenge him on the facts.
In addition, from the very start we have put forth eminently credible individuals only for them to be ignored by the establishment media. Physics Professors, former White House advisors and CIA analysts, the father of Reaganomics, German Defense Ministers and Bush’s former Secretary of the Treasury, have all gone public on 9/11 but have been uniformly ignored by the majority of the establishment press.
Will Robert Bowman also be blackballed as the mainstream continue to misrepresent the 9/11 truth movement as an occupation of the fringe minority?
Bowman is currently running for Congress in Florida’s 15th District.
How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight:
The 9/11 “Official Story” and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven
by Prof David Ray Griffin
|// // // //|
|Global Research, May 30, 2010|
|911Truth.org – 2010-05-29|
|Email this article to a friend Print this article|
|At 5:21 PM on 9/11, Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed, even though it had not been hit by a plane – a fact that is important because of the widespread acceptance of the idea, in spite of its scientific absurdity, that the Twin Towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airliners plus the ensuing jet-fuel-fed fires. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) thereby challenges the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, according to which it was accomplished by al-Qaeda hijackers, even if one accepts the government’s scientifically impossible account of the Twin Towers. This fact was recently emphasized in the title of a review article based on my 2009 book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, by National Medal of Science-winner Lynn Margulis: “Two Hit, Three Down – The Biggest Lie.”
1. Why the Collapse of WTC 7 Created an Extraordinary ProblemThe collapse of WTC 7 created an extraordinary problem for the official account of 9/11 for several reasons.
An Unprecedented Occurrence
One reason is that, because of the collapse of WTC 7, the official account of 9/11 includes the dubious claim that, for the first time in the known universe, a steel-frame high-rise building was brought down by fire, and science looks askance at claims of unprecedented occurrences regarding physical phenomena. New York Times writer James Glanz, who himself has a Ph.D. in physics, wrote: “[E]xperts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.” Glanz then quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down?”
Visual Evidence of Implosion
Equally remarkable, besides the mere fact that this building came down, was the way it collapsed: straight down, in virtual free fall, making the destruction of this building appear to be an example of the type of controlled demolition known as “implosion,” in which explosives and/or incendiaries are used to slice the building’s steel support columns in such a way as to cause the building to collapse into its own footprint. CBS anchor Dan Rather, not one to let a remarkable fact go unremarked, said:
“[I]t’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen . . . on television . . . , where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.”
Dan Rather, moreover, was not the only reporter to make such a comment. Al Jones, a reporter for WINS NYC News Radio, said: “I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion – looked like it had been done by a demolition crew.”
Moreover, whereas Jones and Rather, being laymen in these matters, merely said that the collapse of Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition, experts, upon seeing the video, could tell immediately that it actually was a controlled demolition. In 2006, for example, a Dutch filmmaker asked Danny Jowenko, the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands, to comment on a video of the collapse of WTC 7, without telling him what it was. (Jowenko had been unaware that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.) After viewing the video, Jowenko said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition.” When asked if he was certain, he replied: “Absolutely, it’s been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.”
Testimonies about Explosions
Besides the obviousness from the very appearance of the collapse of Building 7 that it was a product of controlled demotion, there were testimonies about explosions in this building.
One of these was provided by Michael Hess, New York City’s corporation counsel and a close friend of Mayor Rudy Giuliani. While on his way back to City Hall, Hess was stopped for an interview at 11:57 that morning, during which he said:
“I was up in the emergency management center on the twenty-third floor [of WTC 7], and when all the power went out in the building, another gentleman and I walked down to the eighth floor [sic] where there was an explosion and we were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half. But the New York Fire Department . . . just came and got us out.”
Hess thereby reported a mid-morning explosion in WTC 7.
The other gentleman, Barry Jennings of the New York City Housing Authority, reported the same thing during another on-the-street interview, reporting that he and “Mr. Hess” had been walking down the stairs when they became trapped by a “big explosion.” Jennings, in fact, said that explosions continued going off while they were waiting to be rescued.
There were also reports of explosions in the late afternoon, just as WTC 7 started coming down. Reporter Peter Demarco of the New York Daily News said:
“[T]here was a rumble. The building’s top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.”
NYPD officer Craig Bartmer gave the following report:
“I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down. . . . That didn’t sound like just a building falling down to me . . . . There’s a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. . . . [A]ll of a sudden. . . I looked up, and . . . [t]he thing started pealing in on itself. . . . I started running . . . and the whole time you’re hearing ‘boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.’”
A New York University medical student, who had been serving as an emergency medical worker that day, gave this report:
“[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. . . . [T]urned around – we were shocked. . . . [I]t looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out. . . . [A]bout a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.”
In addition to the visual and testimonial evidence, there was clear physical evidence that explosives and incendiaries were used to bring down WTC 7.
Swiss-Cheese Steel: Within a few months of 9/11, three professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) had issued a report about a piece of steel from Building 7 that was described in a New York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton as “[p]erhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”13 Part of the mystery was the fact that the steel was “extremely thin,” indicating that the steel had “melted away,” even though “no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” Another part of the mystery was that atoms in the steel seemed to have combined with sulfur “to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures,” but as to the source of the sulfur, “no one knows.”
Describing this mysterious piece of steel more fully, an article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel” in WPI’s magazine, said:
“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies . . . reveal that . . . a eutectic reaction . . . caus[ed] intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese . . .. A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes. A eutectic compound is a mixture [involving sulfur]. . . . ‘The important questions,” says [one of the professors], ‘are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from?’”
The thinning and the holes even suggested that the steel had vaporized. Explaining as early as November 2001 why fire could not account for this mysterious steel, Glanz paraphrased one of the three WPI professors, Jonathan Barnett, as saying that it “appear[ed] to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.”
Another New York Times story reported that the same phenomenon was described by Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of the University of California at Berkeley, who had received a National Science Foundation grant to spend two weeks at Ground Zero studying steel from the buildings. According to reporter Kenneth Change, Professor Astaneh-Asl, speaking of a horizontal I-beam from WTC 7, said: “Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.”
These reports clearly showed that something other than fire had been making things happen in the buildings, because the fires could not possibly have been higher than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, while the boiling point of steel is roughly the same as that of iron, which is 5182°F. But even if the steel had not evaporated but had simply melted, that by itself would have proved the point, because the melting point of steel is only a little less than that of iron, which is 2800°F. (An obvious source of both the melting and the sulfidation would be a well-known incendiary, thermate – a “mixture of thermite and sulfur . . . which lowers the melting point of iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system,” which is “useful in cutting through steel.”)
Evidence in Plain Sight
Therefore, clear evidence against the official account of Building 7, according to which it was brought down by fire, existed in plain sight in the form of videos of its collapse, published testimonies about explosions in the building, and physical evidence reported in the New York Times. The reasonable inference to draw from this evidence – namely, that the official account is false – was reinforced by the first official report on this building’s collapse, which was issued in 2002 by FEMA. Besides including as an appendix the paper by the WPI professors containing the study of the Swiss-cheese piece of steel recovered from WTC 7 – a study that attributed the erosion to “oxidation and sulfidation” while adding: “No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified” – the engineers who wrote the FEMA report admitted that their “best hypothesis” about why WTC 7 collapsed had “only a low probability of occurrence.”
Failure to Become Well Known
In addition to all these facts, WTC 7 was a very big building, being 47 stories high and having a base about the size of a football field. Although it was dwarfed by the 110-story Twin Towers, it would have been the tallest building in half of the states in the nation. For all of these reasons, the collapse of this building should have become one of the best-known facts about 9/11. But it did not.
2. Widespread Ignorance about WTC 7
A Zogby poll in May 2006 found that 43 percent of the American people were unaware that WTC 7 had collapsed, and that same year, as mentioned earlier, Danny Jowenko of the Netherlands still did not know about it, even though controlled demolition was his field.
A dramatic example of the fact that this building’s collapse has not been prominent in the public consciousness was provided in a New York City courtroom in September 2009. Judge Edward Lehner was hearing arguments about a petition sponsored by NYC CAN to allow residents to vote on whether New York City should have its own investigation of the World Trade Center attacks. After Judge Lehner had observed that the 9/11 Commission had carried out an investigation and issued a report, Dennis McMahon, a lawyer for NYC CAN, said that this report left many unanswered questions. “One of the biggest questions,” he added, “is why did Building 7 come down” – at which point Judge Lehner asked: “Building what?” McMahon replied: “World Trade Center Seven. There were three buildings that came down.” When the judge, continuing to illustrate his ignorance about this building, asked if it was owned by the Port Authority, McMahon replied that it was owned by Larry Silverstein.
Judge Lehner, it should be emphasized, was not simply an ordinary American citizen. Besides being a judge presiding in New York City, he had been assigned to a case involving the 9/11 attacks in this city. So his ignorance about this building was surprising. And yet it was typical. With his query – “Building what?” – he expressed the ignorance manifested in 2006 by controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko and almost half of the American people. How can we account for this ignorance?
In a New York Times story in November 2001, James Glanz wrote that the collapse of WTC 7 was “a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world.” Clearly these were not normal circumstances.
Part of the abnormality was the fact that Building 7, while huge, was overshadowed by the Twin Towers, which were over twice as tall. This fact by itself, however, would not account for the enormous ignorance of this third building’s collapse. Knowledgeable people had said right away, as Glanz pointed out, that there was a sense in which the collapse of Building 7 should have been the bigger story. Why was it not?
The answer seems to be that it was a deliberately suppressed story. This conclusion is supported by the following facts:
First, after 9/11 itself, our television networks played videos of the Twin Towers being hit by planes, then coming down, over and over, but the collapse of Building 7 was seldom if ever shown.
Second, when The 9/11 Commission Report was issued in 2004, it did not even mention that Building 7 came down.
Third, after NIST – the National Institute of Standards and Technology – took over from FEMA the task of explaining the destruction of the World Trade Center, it repeatedly delayed its report on WTC 7. In 2003, NIST said that this report would be issued along with its report on the Twin Towers, the draft of which was to appear in September 2004. However, even though NIST’s report on the Twin Towers did not actually appear until 2005, the promised report on WTC 7 was not included: NIST said that it would appear in 2006. But when August of 2006 came, NIST said: “It is anticipated that a draft report [on WTC 7] will be released by early 2007.” But it was not released in 2007 – either early or late. Instead, NIST in December 2007 “projected” that it would release draft reports on July 8, 2008, followed by final reports on August 8, 2008. Instead, the draft report did not appear until August, and the final report not until November of that year – when the Bush-Cheney administration was about to leave office.
Moreover, when in 2008 NIST was accused of having deliberately delayed its report on WTC 7 (which the 9/11 Truth Movement had long considered the “Achilles Heel” or “Smoking Gun” of the official account of 9/11), NIST lied, saying that it had worked on this report only since 2005 and hence for only three years – the same length of time it had worked on its Twin Towers report. Actually, however, NIST had filed progress reports on WTC 7 in December 2002 and May 2003; in June 2004, it published an Interim Report on WTC 7; and in April 2005, NIST released another preliminary report on WTC 7.Then, after ceasing work on this building until after the report on the Twin Towers was issued in October 2005, NIST reported, “the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed.” In truth, therefore, NIST had worked on its report on WTC 7 for almost six years, not merely three. So there was good reason to suspect that this report had been deliberately delayed for as long as possible.
3. NIST’s Draft for Public Comment: Mystery Solved?
Be that as it may, when the Draft for Public Comment did finally appear in August 2008, it was announced at a press conference with much bravado. Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator for its World Trade Center projects, said:
“Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives.”
The mainstream media for the most part simply repeated Sunder’s claims. For example, an Associated Press story entitled “Report: Fire, Not Bombs, Leveled WTC 7 Building,” began by saying: “Federal investigators said Thursday they have solved a mystery of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a source of long-running conspiracy theories.” Then, after reinforcing this message by quoting Sunder’s assurance that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” this story concluded by quoting his claim that the science behind NIST’s findings is “incredibly conclusive,” so that “[t]he public should really recognize that science is really behind what we have said.”
Reporters, however, could easily have discovered that this was not so. They could have seen, in fact, that NIST’s WTC 7 report repeatedly committed scientific fraud in the technical sense, as defined by the National Science Foundation.
4. NIST’s Falsification of Evidence
One type of fraud is falsification, which includes “omitting data.” While claiming that it “found no evidence of a . . . controlled demolition event,” NIST simply omitted an enormous amount of evidencefor that conclusion.
Omitting Testimonial Evidence
NIST failed, for one thing, to mention any of the testimonial evidence for explosions. Besides claiming that the event described as a mid-morning explosion by Michael Hess and Barry Jennings was simply the impact of debris from the collapse of the North Tower – which occurred at 10:28 and hence about an hour later than the explosion they had described – NIST failed to mention any of the reports of explosions just as the building started to come down.
Omitting Physical Evidence:
NIST’s report on this building also omitted various types of physical evidence.
The Swiss-Cheese Steel: One of these was the piece of Swiss-cheese steel reported by the three WPI professors in a paper that was, as mentioned earlier, included as an appendix to the 2002 FEMA report. After describing the erosion of this piece of steel, the professors had said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed.” When NIST took over from FEMA the responsibility of issuing the official reports on the World Trade Center, NIST’s director promised that its reports would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” However, when NIST’s report on Building 7 appeared in 2008, it did not even mention this mysterious piece of steel, let alone explain how it had been produced. NIST even claimed that no recovered steel from WTC 7 had been identified, because the steel used in this building, unlike the steel used in the Twin Towers, “did not contain . . . identifying characteristics.”
NIST made this claim, incidentally, even though it had previously published a document in which it had referred to steel recovered from WTC 7, including the piece discussed by the WPI professors in the appendix to the FEMA report. This claim about not identifying any steel was made by NIST (in August 2008), moreover, even though one of these professors, Dr. Jonathan Barnett, had during a BBC program on WTC 7 (in July 2008) discussed an “eroded and deformed” piece of steel that he and his colleagues had studied in 2001, explaining that they knew “its pedigree” because “this particular kind of steel” had been used only in WTC 7, not in the Twin Towers.
Melted Iron: Deutsche Bank, which had a building close to the World Trade Center that had been contaminated with dust, hired the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to prove to its insurance company that the dust contaminating its building was not ordinary building dust, as its insurance company claimed, but had resulted from the destruction of the World Trade Center. Reports issued by the RJ Lee Group in 2003 and 2004 proved that the dust was indeed WTC dust, having its unique chemical signature. Part of this signature, the RJ Lee Group said in its final (2004) report, was “[s]pherical iron . . . particles,” and this meant, it had pointed out in its 2003 report, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.”
The RJ Lee reports thereby provided additional evidence that temperatures had been reached that significantly exceeded those that could have been produced by fire. These reports, which were made known in an article published in January 2008 by a group of scientists led by physicist Steven Jones, were simply ignored by NIST.
Melted Molybdenum: Another study was carried out by scientists at the US Geological Survey. Besides also finding the spherical iron particles, these scientists found that something had melted molybdenum – which has an extremely high melting point: 4,753°F (2,623°C). Although these USGS scientists failed to mention this discovery in the published version of their report, a group of scientists led by Steven Jones, having obtained the USGS team’s data through a FOIA request, reported evidence that this team had devoted serious study to “a molybdenum-rich spherule.” NIST, however, failed to mention this discovery by the US Geological Survey, although it is another federal agency.
Nanothermite: A peer-reviewed report by University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit and several co-authors, including physicist Steven Jones and chemist Kevin Ryan, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite. Unlike ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive.
This report by Harrit, Jones, Ryan, and their colleagues did not appear until 2009,45 so it could not have been mentioned in NIST’s final report, which came out at the end of November 2008. However, given the standard guidelines for the investigation of building fires, NIST should have tested the WTC dust for signs of incendiaries, such as ordinary thermite (including thermate), and explosives, such as nanothermite.
When asked whether it had carried out such tests, NIST said it had not. When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied: “[B]ecause there was no evidence of that.” When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “[H]ow can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?” Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”
5. NIST’s Fabrication of Evidence
Besides omitting and otherwise falsifying evidence, NIST also committed the type of scientific fraud called fabrication, which means simply “making up results.”
No Girder Shear Studs
For example, in offering its explanation as to how fire caused Building 7 to collapse, NIST said that the culprit was thermal expansion, meaning that the fire heated up the steel, thereby causing it to expand. Expanding steel beams on the 13th floor, NIST claims, caused a steel girder connecting columns 44 and 79 to break loose. Having lost its support, column 79 failed, starting a chain reaction in which all the other columns failed.
Leaving aside the question of whether this is even remotely possible, let us simply ask: Why did that girder fail? NIST’s answer was that it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote: “In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.” In another passage, NIST said: “Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.”
However, NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it published in 2004 before it had developed its girder-failure theory, said shear studs were used to anchor “[m]ost of the beams and girders,” including the girder in question.
A Raging 12th Floor Fire at 5:00
Although in its 2004 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST said that by 4:45 PM, “the fire on Floor 12 was burned out,” it claimed in its 2008 report that at 5:00, just 21 minutes before the building collapsed, the fire on this floor was still going strong.
6. NIST’s Final Report: Affirming a Miracle
NIST’s final report on WTC 7, which appeared in November 2008, was for the most part identical with its draft report, which had appeared in August. But NIST did add a new element: the affirmation of a miracle, meaning a violation of a fundamental law of physics.
This issue is treated in a cartoon in which a professor has written a proof on a chalkboard. Most of the steps consist of mathematical equations, but one of them simply says: “Then a miracle happens.” This is humorous because one thing scientists absolutely cannot do in their scientific work is appeal to miracles, even implicitly. And yet that is what NIST does. I will explain.
NIST’s August 2008 Denial of Free Fall
Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that Building 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, or at least virtually so. But in NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, issued in August 2008, it denied this, saying that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”
As this statement implies, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning the laws of physics. Explaining why not, during a “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” on August 26, 2008, Shyam Sunder said:
“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
In saying this, Sunder was, of course, presupposing NIST’s rejection of controlled demolition – which could have produced a free-fall collapse by causing all 82 columns to fail simultaneously – in favor of NIST’s fire theory, which necessitated a theory of progressive collapse.
Chandler’s Challenge and NIST’s November Admission of Free Fall
In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler, who was able to speak at this briefing, challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, stating that Sunder’s “40 percent” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.” Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”
Amazingly, in NIST’s final report, which came out in November 2008, it admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].” So, after presenting over 600 pages of descriptions, photographs, testimonies, graphs, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”
Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.” In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance. If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second, a miracle – meaning a violation of laws of physics – would have happened.
That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance. But then in November, while still defending its fire theory of collapse, NIST agreed that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”
Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. In its August draft, in which it said that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had repeatedly said that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.” One encountered this phrase at least three times. In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase had been removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives and incendiaries were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics.
NIST thereby implicitly acknowledged that Building 7 was intentionally demolished. It also thereby implicitly admitted the same about the Twin Towers, because the collapses of these buildings manifested many of the same tell-tale signs of controlled demolition as did WTC 7, plus some additional ones, including the horizontal ejection of sections of steel columns, weighing many thousands of pounds, more than 500 feet from the towers. (These ejections occurred at the outset of the collapses, after which the Towers came straight down.).
And with this implicit admission that the collapses were examples of controlled demolition, NIST undermined the al-Qaeda theory of 9/11. Why?
For one thing, the straight-down nature of the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 means that the buildings were subjected to the type of controlled demolition known as “implosion,” which is, in the words of a controlled demolition website, “by far the trickiest type of explosive project,” which “only a handful of blasting companies in the world . . . possess enough experience . . . to perform.” Al-Qaeda terrorists would not have had this kind of expertise.
Second, the only reason to go to the trouble of bringing a building straight down is to avoid damaging nearby buildings. Had the World Trade Center buildings toppled over sideways, they would have caused massive destruction in Lower Manhattan, crushing dozens of other buildings and killing tens of thousands of people. Does anyone believe that, even if al-Qaeda operatives had had the expertise to make the buildings come straight down, they would have had the courtesy?
A third problem is that foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant incendiaries and explosives. Only insiders could have done this.
7. Explaining the Ignorance about WTC 7
NIST’s admission that Building 7 came down in free fall for over two seconds should, therefore, have been front-page news. The same is true, moreover, of the various other things I have reported – NIST’s fabrications; NIST’s omission and distortion of testimonial evidence; NIST’s omissions of physical evidence, such as the Swiss-cheese steel and the particles showing that iron and molybdenum had been melted; and the later discovery of nanothermite particles in the WTC dust. Especially given the fact that the collapse of Building 7 had been declared a mystery from the outset, the world should have been waiting with bated breath for every new clue as to why this 47-story building had come down. Upon hearing Building 7 mentioned, nobody in the world with access to CNN should have asked, “Building what?” How do we explain the fact that five and even nine years after the mysterious collapse of this building, ignorance about it was still widespread?
To begin answering this question, let us return to James Glanz’s statement that the collapse of WTC 7 was “a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world.” As I stated before, the abnormality seems to have been such that videos and even the very fact of this building’s collapse were deliberately suppressed. What was this abnormality?
A symposium in the February 2010 issue of American Behavioral Scientist, one of our leading social science journals, argues that social scientists need to develop a scientific approach to studying an increasingly important type of criminality: State Crimes Against Democracy, abbreviated SCADs, understood as “concerted actions . . . by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty.” Having the “potential to subvert political institutions and entire governments . . . [SCADs] are high crimes that attack democracy itself.”
Distinguishing between SCADs that have been officially proven, such as “the Watergate break-ins and cover-up . . . , the secret wars in Laos and Cambodia . . . , the illegal arms sales and covert operations in Iran-Contra . . . , and the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson by revealing his wife’s status as an intelligence agent,” on the one hand, and suspected SCADs for which there is good evidence, on the other, the symposium authors include in the latter category “the fabricated attacks on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 . . . , the “October Surprises” in the presidential elections of 1968 . . . and 1980 . . . , the assassinations of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy . . . , the election breakdowns in 2000 and 2004 . . . , the numerous defense failures on September 11, 2001 . . . , and the misrepresentation of intelligence to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq.”
Besides regarding 9/11 as one of the suspected SCADs for which there is good evidence, this symposium treats it as its primary example. The abstract for the introductory essay begins by asserting: “The ellipses of due diligence riddling the official account of the 9/11 incidents continue being ignored by scholars of policy and public administration.” The symposium’s final essay, criticizing the majority of the academic world for its “blithe dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics” that is violated by the official theory of the World Trade Center collapses, also criticizes the academy for its failure to protest when “Professor Steven Jones found himself forced out of a tenured position for merely reminding the world that physical laws, about which there is no dissent whatsoever, contradict the official theory of the World Trade Center Towers’ collapse.”
The authors of this symposium point out, moreover, that the official theory of the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers has serious implications for science and engineering. If NIST’s explanation “provides the most robust account of the Towers’ collapse, based on known science,” then some previously accepted physical laws would need to be revised:
“[These laws] would have to succumb, at some point, to the theoretical claims purported to explain the Towers’ collapse: New laws determining when steel melts and the phases at which such material loses its tensile strength would have at some point to replace existing science-based presumptions.”
This revision of physical laws would also have practical implications for building codes: “[T]he specifications of design for all skyscrapers ought, in the public interest, to be subjected to major review.” The acceptance of NIST’s account, therefore, creates an “obvious crisis,” which should be evoking scientific and practical responses.
The practical crisis that should have been caused by NIST’s report on WTC 7 had previously been addressed by four of the “Jersey Girls,” who had been instrumental in getting the 9/11 Commission created. In a statement released in September 2008, they wrote:
“Over the past seven years, the Families of the 9/11 Victims have been repeatedly told by fire experts, engineers and architects that we should NOT FOCUS our efforts on advocating for building and fire code changes based on the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2 towers. We were continuously reminded that the crashing of airplanes into buildings was a unique event. Additionally, we were told that the design and construction of WTC Towers 1 and 2 was unique and that there were no other buildings of that particular height or design in the world. We were repeatedly told that the key was WTC 7 since this building was of conventional design and height, yet it too collapsed without the unique event of an airplane striking it. . . .
“Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST . . . stated that WTC 7 met all New York City codes. Yet, WTC 7 is the first steel high-rise building of traditional construction in the United States — and the world, to completely collapse as a result of fire. According to . . . Dr. Sunder, “there were no flaws with the construction of the building.”
“We don’t how the rest of the country is feeling about this news, but we are very scared! These findings suggest that ANY EXISTING building is prone to a progressive collapse if a fire should start and the sprinkler system fails for whatever reason. . . .
“The ultimate purpose of advocating for the $16 million to have NIST study this event was to determine how to make buildings safer in the future. If we are now to believe that any skyscraper is subject to total collapse from fire, why isn’t NIST emphasizing the impact on EXISTING buildings? . . . NIST needs to . . . provide guidance for EXISTING buildings.
“NIST should put the most important conclusion in plain English and announce it to the entire country: UNCONTROLLED FIRES IN HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS CAN LEAD TO THEIR TOTAL COLLAPSE. . . . NIST must address this dangerous issue immediately. The future safety of the public and the fire services hangs in the balance.”
Like the SCADs symposium, this brilliant piece of satire makes clear that NIST’s explanation of WTC 7’s collapse should have created a crisis in many fields, both theoretical and practical. The implications of NIST’s explanation should have been extensively discussed in technical journals of various types and then in newspapers and on television programs and radio talk shows. But no such discussion occurred. The worlds of physics, engineering, building codes, and public safety continued on as if the report had never been issued. How can we understand this?
Hiding the Most Obvious Evidence that 9/11 Was a SCAD
If the reason why the collapse of WTC 7 did not occur “under normal circumstances” is the fact that it was part of 9/11, which was a SCAD, then it would not be surprising that the collapse of this building, which “under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world,” did not do so.
If 9/11 was a SCAD, the collapse of WTC 7 would not have been allowed to capture the world’s attention for the reasons mentioned earlier: Unlike the Twin Towers, it was not hit by a plane; because of this, there was no jet fuel to spread big fires to many floors; its collapse, unlike that of each of the Twin Towers, looked exactly like a classic implosion, in which the collapse begins from the bottom and the building folds in upon itself, ending up almost entirely in its own footprint; and the videos show that it came down, at least part of the way, in absolute free fall. The fact that Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition was, therefore, more obvious.
This greater obviousness is illustrated not only by Danny Jowenko’s response, but also by the many engineers and scientists who joined the 9/11 Truth Movement only after seeing a video of this building’s collapse. For example, Daniel Hofnung, an engineer in Paris, wrote:
“In the years after the 9/11 events, I thought that all I read in professional reviews and French newspapers was true. The first time I understood that it was impossible was when I saw a film about the collapse of WTC 7.”
Likewise, civil engineer Chester Gearhart wrote:
“I have watched the construction of many large buildings and also have personally witnessed 5 controlled demolitions in Kansas City. When I saw the towers fall on 9/11, I knew something was wrong and my first instinct was that it was impossible. When I saw building 7 fall, I knew it was a controlled demolition.”
This video was also decisive for University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, who later became the first author of the nanothermite paper. When asked how he became involved with these issues, he replied:
“It all started when I saw the collapse of Building 7, the third skyscraper. It collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers. And there were only two airplanes. When you see a 47-storey building, 186 meters tall, collapse in 6.5 seconds, and you are a scientist, you think “What?” I had to watch it again…and again. I hit the button ten times, and my jaw dropped lower and lower. Firstly, I had never heard of that building before. And there was no visible reason why it should collapse in that way, straight down, in 6.5 seconds. I have had no rest since that day.”
Given these reactions, it is obvious why, if 9/11 was a State Crime Against Democracy, the fact of Building 7’s collapse, especially the video of this collapse, had to be suppressed as much as possible.
WTC 7 as a Dud?
Having made this point, I need to respond to an obvious objection: If those who were responsible for bringing down Building 7 were going to need to suppress the video of its collapse, why did they wait until late in the afternoon, when the air was clean and cameras would be trained on this building, with the consequence that we have perfectly clear videos of the collapse of this building from various angles, each one showing its straight-down free-fall descent? Why did they not bring it down in the morning, shortly after one of the Twin Towers had collapsed, when the resulting dust cloud would have made any images impossible? After the collapse of the North Tower at 10:28, for example, visibility did not return sufficiently for film crews to come back to the area, NIST reported, until 11:00. Had Building 7 been imploded at, say, 10:45, its collapse would still have been a big mystery, but there would have been no videos showing that it had come straight down and, for over two seconds, in absolute free fall.
There are many reasons, as I showed in an appendix to The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, to believe that this had indeed been the plan, but that this building was, as one researcher put it, “a dud” – meaning that “the demolition system in WTC 7 simply did not respond as intended and the building defiantly remained intact.” As a result, agents were perhaps sent into the building to set fires to provide the basis for a cover-story saying that fires had brought the building down. This hypothesis — that fires were set in the building only after a controlled demolition system had failed to bring it down in the morning — would explain why, although the fires in Building 7 were supposedly started by burning debris from the North Tower’s collapse at 10:28, no flames are visible in this building, as NIST admits, until after noon, and on some floors there is no photographic evidence of fire until 3:40 PM or even later.
I have emphasized this likelihood – that the destruction of WTC 7 was a botched operation – because if true it provides the clearest possible illustration of the theme of this essay, namely, that SCADs can be hidden in plain sight. There are literally dozens of problems in the official account of 9/11 sufficiently serious to show the official story to be false. But the clearest proof is provided by the video of this enormous building coming straight down in absolute free fall. And yet even though this proof has existed in plain sight for all these years, the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, and hence a State Crime Against Democracy, has remained a hidden fact, at least in the sense that it is not part of the public conversation. If the destruction of WTC 7 was a botched operation, then the hiding of the fact that 9/11 was a SCAD is even more impressive. How has this hiding been achieved?
Hiding SCADs: The Role of the Mainstream Media
Peter Dale Scott, discussing the erosion of the US Constitution in recent times, suggests that “this erosion has been achieved in part through a series of important deep events in [post-World-War-II] American history – events aspects of which . . . will be ignored or suppressed in the mainstream media.” Indeed, Scott adds:
“[T]he mainstream U.S. media . . . have become so implicated in past protective lies . . . that they, as well as the government, have now a demonstrated interest in preventing the truth about any of these events from coming out. This means that the current threat to constitutional rights does not derive from the deep state alone. . . . [T]he problem is a global dominance mindset that prevails not only inside the Washington Beltway but also in the mainstream media . . . , one which has come to accept recent inroads on constitutional liberties, and stigmatizes, or at least responds with silence to, those who are alarmed by them. . . . [A]cceptance of this mindset’s notions of decorum has increasingly become a condition for participation in mainstream public life.”
Referring thereby to events such as the JFK assassination, the Tonkin Gulf hoax, and 9/11, Scott by “deep events” means the same types of events called SCADs by the authors of the symposium on that topic. Indeed, one of those authors explicitly cites Scott’s writings, treating his “deep events” as examples of SCADs and quoting his statements about the complicity of the mainstream media in covering up the truth about these events.
These authors also make the same point themselves, remarking that “the U.S. government’s account of 9/11 [is] parroted by the mainstream media” and commenting on “the profound disavowal of still burning, molten questions originating at 9/11 Ground Zero gone begging by the American media.”
Besides parroting the government’s account of 9/11 and stigmatizing those who provide alternative accounts with the discrediting label “conspiracy theorists,” how has America’s mainstream media kept the truth about WTC 7 hidden from the majority of the American people? Through various means, including the following:
First, by never replaying the statements by Dan Rather and other reporters about how the collapse of WTC 7 looked just like a controlled demolition.
Second, by seldom if ever replaying the video of this building’s collapse.
Third, by never mentioning credible critiques of the official account. For example, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False, which has been endorsed by prestigious scientists and engineers, has never been reviewed in the mainstream media, even though my previous 9/11 book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, was a Publishers Weekly “Pick of the Week” in 2008.
Fourth, by never mentioning, except for one story that apparently slipped through, the existence of an organization called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which by now has some 1,200 professional architects and engineers calling for a new investigation of WTC 7 as well as the Twin Towers.
Fifth, by never reporting scientific evidence contradicting the official account of these buildings’ destruction, such as the reported discovery of nanothermite in the WTC dust.
Sixth, by overlooking the fact that NIST’s report on WTC 7 omitted an enormous amount of evidence showing that explosives and/or incendiaries must have been used. For example, although the New York Times in 2002 called the piece of Swiss-cheese steel recovered from this building “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” it did not issue a peep when NIST’s 2008 report on this building failed to mention this piece of steel and even claimed that no steel from this building had been identified: The Times clearly knew better but said nothing.
Seventh, by not mentioning the fact, even after it was reported in my 2009 book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, that NIST had used various types of fabricated evidence to support its theory of a fire-induced collapse.
Eighth, by reporting NIST’s August 2008 press briefing, in which Shyam Sunder announced, triumphantly, that the “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery” and that “science is really behind what we have said,” but then not reporting on NIST’s final report in November of that year, in which NIST almost explicitly admitted that science does not stand behind, but instead contradicts, its theory of this building’s collapse.
Ninth, by systematically ignoring the fact that the official account of WTC 7’s collapse has implications for many fields that, if taken seriously by leaders in those fields, would demand revolutionary changes in both theory and practice.
Conclusion and Proposal
Through these and related means, the truth about the collapse of WTC 7 has been effectively hidden, even though it has existed in plain sight all these years. Even the bare fact of the collapse itself has been so effectively hidden that in 2006 over 40 percent of the American public did not know about it, and in 2009 a judge in New York City, upon hearing a reference to Building 7, asked: “Building what?”
I offer this essay as a case study in the power of the forces behind SCADs or deep events to hide things that exist in plain sight, because if they can hide the straight-down free-fall collapse of a 47-story building captured on video in broad daylight, they can hide almost anything.
I say this, however, not to instill despair, but to point to the seriousness of the problem, and also to pave the way for making a proposal. Recognizing the high correlation between those who know about the collapse of WTC 7 and those who believe that a new – or rather real – 9/11 investigation is needed, I propose that the international 9/11 Truth Movement initiate, starting this September, a world-wide, year-long “Building What?” campaign. Through this campaign, we would seek to make the fact of its collapse so widely known that the mention of Building 7 would never again evoke the question: “Building What?”
David Ray Griffin is the author of 36 books on various topics, including philosophy, theology, philosophy of science, and 9/11. His 2008 book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, was named a “Pick of the Week” by Publishers Weekly. In September 2009, The New Statesman ranked him #41 among “The 50 People Who Matter Today.” His most recent book is The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False (2009). His next book will be Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (September 2010). He wishes to thank Tod Fletcher, Jim Hoffman, and Elizabeth Woodworth for help with this essay.
1 David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009).
2 Lynn Margulis, “Two Hit, Three Down – The Biggest Lie,” Rock Creek Free Press, January 24, 2010 (http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/353434420/two-hit-three-down-the-biggest-lie).
3 James Glanz, “Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel,” New York Times, November 29, 2001 (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html).
4 Rather’s statement is available on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o).
5 See the video 911 Eyewitness (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444) at 29:05.
6 See “Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 Controlled Demolition,” YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc), or, for more of the interview, “Jowenko WTC 7 Demolition Interviews,” in three parts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&feature=related).
7 “Michael Hess, WTC7 Explosion Witness,” YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64). Hess should have said “down to the sixth floor.” As Barry Jennings later clarified, the explosion that blocked their descent occurred when they reached the sixth floor, after which they walked back up to the eighth floor, where they waited to be rescued; see “Barry Jennings-–9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview,” Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUj6UgPODo), at 5:08-5:33.
8 See “Barry Jennings – 9/11 Early Afternoon ABC 7 Interview” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI).
9 This statement could previously be seen in “Barry Jennings-–9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview,” Part 1, at 3:57-4:05. But at the time this essay was posted, this portion of the interview had been blocked from the Internet, because it is now in the film Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup.
10 Quoted in Chris Bull and Sam Erman, eds., At Ground Zero: Young Reporters Who Were There Tell Their Stories (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2002), 97.
11 Bartmer’s statement is quoted in Paul Joseph Watson, “NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs,” Prison Planet, February 10, 2007 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm).
12 This unnamed medical student can be seen making this statement in 911 Eyewitness (at 31:30).
13 James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “A Search for Clues in Towers’ Collapse,” New York Times, February 2, 2002 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E0DE153DF931A35751C0A9649C8B63).
15 Joan Killough-Miller, “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring 2002 (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html).
16 James Glanz, “Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center,” New York Times, November 29, 2001 (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html). I have here quoted Glanz’s paraphrase of Barnett’s statement.
17 See Kenneth Change, “Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies,” New York Times, October 2, 2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63).
18 For the melting point of iron, see “Iron,” WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web (http://www.webelements.com/iron/physics.html). The description of thermate is from “Thermite,” Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite), as of May 25, 2010.
“Iron,” WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web (http://www.webelements.com/iron/physics.html).
19 Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” Appendix C of World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA, 2002 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf); also available on Jim Hoffman’s website (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm); see “C.2: Sample 1 (from WTC 7),” pages 1-5.
20 See FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf), Chap. 5, Sect. 6.2, “Probable Collapse Sequence,” at page 31.
21 “A Word about Our Poll of American Thinking Toward the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks,” Zogby International, May 24, 2006 (http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231).
22 In the ensuing exchange, Judge Lehner showed that he was not completely unaware of this building’s destruction, asking if it was “the one that has been rebuilt.” Shortly thereafter, however, the judge confused this building with the Twin Towers. See pages 16-19 of “Proceedings, Christopher Burke et al, Petitioners. vs. Michael McSweeney as City Clerk of New York and Clerk of the City Council of New York and the Board of Elections in the City of New York, before Honorable Edward H. Lehner, J. S. C., Supreme Court of the State of New York, September 29, 2009.”
23 Glanz, “Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center.”
24 “National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee 2003 Report to Congress” (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC2003ReporttoCongressFinal.pdf), 4.
25 NIST, “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” August 30, 2006 (http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html), Question 14. This is the original version of the document, which contained what is stated in the text. But NIST, never a stickler for retaining past statements that later prove embarrassing, “updated” this document over two years later, on January 28, 2008 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm). This “updated” version of this 2006 document gives the reader the impression that NIST in 2006 – instead of having said, “It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007” – actually said: “It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.” The original document, as updated August 30, 2006, has been preserved in Jim Hoffman, “NIST’s World Trade Center FAQ” (http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html).
26 NIST, “WTC Investigation Overview,” December 18, 2007 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC_December18(Sunder).pdf). Like the NIST 2006 document discussed in the previous note, this one has also been revised, so that it now says merely July and August, 2008, respectively, without giving exact dates.
27 See “WTC 7: The Smoking Gun of 9/11” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc7NPn8Ok), and Paul Joseph Watson, “BBC’s 9/11 Yellow Journalism Backfires: Building 7 Becomes the Achilles Heel of the Official Conspiracy Theory,” Prison Planet, March 5, 2007 (http://infowars.wordpress.com/2007/03/05/bbcs-911-yellow-journalism-backfires).
28 “Progress Report on the NIST Building and Fire Investigation into the World Trade Center Disaster,” National Institute of Standards and Technology (henceforth NIST), December 9, 2002 (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03040.pdf); “Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster,” NIST, May 2003 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/MediaUpdate%20_FINAL_ProgressReport051303.pdf).
29 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST, June 2004 (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf).
30 “WTC 7 Collapse,” NIST, April 5, 2005 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf).
31 “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” NIST, August 30, 2006 ((http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html), Question 14 (see note 25, above).
32 Shyam Sunder, “Opening Statement,” NIST Press Briefing, August 21, 2008 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html).
33 Associated Press, “Report: Fire, Not Bombs, Leveled WTC 7 Building,” USA Today, August 21, 2008 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-21-wtc-nist_N.htm).
34 National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, “What is Research Misconduct?” in New Research Misconduct Policies, (http://www.nsf.gov/oig/session.pdf). This document is undated, but internal evidence suggests that it was published in 2001.
35 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, November 2008, Vol. 1 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201.pdf) : 324.
36 Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and Richard D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, Appendix C (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf): 13.
37 Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., testimony before the House Science Committee Hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse,” May 1, 2002 (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/official/nist/bement.htm). In the quoted statement, “FEMA” replaces “BPAT,” which is the abbreviation for “Building Performance Assessment Team,” the name of the ASCE team that prepared this report for FEMA.
38 “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation,” August 21, 2008 (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_082108.html). In response to the question, “Why didn’t the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7? ” NIST replied: “Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.” This document was originally available on NIST’s website (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html). However, like some other NIST reports, it has been removed. But is preserved at Jim Hoffman’s website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_082108.html). This statement was repeated in a version of this document that was updated April 21, 2009, which is also preserved at Hoffman’s site (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_042109.html).
39 In NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components, September 2005 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Damage%20and%20Failure%20Modes.pdf), the authors, Stephen W. Banovic and Timothy Foecke, referred to “the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study) where corrosion phases and morphologies were able to determine a possible temperature region” (233). The BBC program was The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 – The Third Tower, July 6, 2008 (available at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250# and http://www.911blogger.com/node/16541); the statement by Barnett is at 48:00. I am indebted to Chris Sarns for both of these discoveries.
40 RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature,” Expert Report, May 2004 (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf): 11; “WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology,” December 2003 (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf): 17. For discussion of the differences between these two versions of the RJ Lee report, see Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse, 40-42.
41 Steven E. Jones et al., “Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008 (http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf): 8.
42 Ibid., 4-5.
43 “Molybdenum,” WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web (http://www.webelements.com/molybdenum/physics.html).
44 For the published USGS report, see Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust,” 2005 (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html). The USGS’s evidence for the molybdenum-rich spherule is reported in Steven Jones et al., “Extremely High Temperatures,” 4.
45 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et al., “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2 (2009): 7-31 (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm).
46 According to the Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, put out by the National Fire Protection Association, investigators should, in seeking to determine the cause of a fire, look for evidence of accelerants, which are any substances that could be used to ignite a fire or accelerate its progress (National Fire Protection Association’s 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 1998 Edition, Section 12-2.4 (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/92112m.asp), and thermite mixtures are explicitly classified as accelerants (Section 19.2.4, “Exotic Accelerants” and “Thermite Mixtures”).
47 “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” NIST, August 30, 2006 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm), Question 12 (NIST’s answer to this question has not been “updated” [see note 25, above]).
48 Jennifer Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford Advocate, January 29, 2008 (http://www.ae911truth.org/press/23).
49 National Science Foundation, “What is Research Misconduct?”
50 See Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse, 150-55.
51 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1: 346.
52 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf), 462.
53 See NIST, Interim Report on WTC 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf): L-6-7, and Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse, 212-15.
54 Interim Report on WTC 7: L-26. This contradiction is pointed out in a video, “NIST Report on WTC7 Debunked and Exposed!” YouTube, December 28, 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY), at 0:45 to 1:57.
55 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2: 384, Figure 9-11.
56 This cartoon can be seen on the Internet (http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php).
57 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment, Vol. 2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf), 595-96. In “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation,” which was issued August 21, 2008 (simultaneously with NIST’s Draft for Public Comment), NIST repeated this denial, saying: “WTC 7 did not enter free fall.” As pointed out in note 38, above, NIST has removed this document from its website, but it has been preserved by Jim Hoffman (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_082108.html).
58 “WTC 7 Technical Briefing,” NIST, August 26, 2008. NIST has removed this video and the accompanying transcript from the Internet. However, Nate Flach has made the video available at Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/11941571), and the transcript, entitled “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on WTC 7 for Public Comment,” is available at David Chandler’s website (http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf).
60 David Chandler, “WTC7 in Freefall – No Longer Controversial,” September 4, 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I), at 2:45.
61 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2: 607. The same point is stated in the brief version of NIST’s WTC 7 report, NIST NCSTAR 1A, which states: “In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories” (45).
62 Chandler, “WTC7 in Freefall – No Longer Controversial,” at 3:27.
63 “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation,” NIST, updated April 21, 2009 (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_042109.html). (This version was “updated” from the original, which was posted August 21, 2008: see notes 38 and 57, above.) This updated document, originally available at NIST’s website (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html), has been removed it. It is preserved, however, at Jim Hoffman’s website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_042109.html).
64 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment, Vol. 2: 595-96, 596, 610.
65 See my discussion in Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 30-31.
66 “The Myth of Implosion” (http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html).
67 As to how domestic terrorists could have gotten access, an answer becomes possible if we are aware that Larry Silverstein, who owned Building 7 and had recently taken out a lease on the rest of the World Trade Center, stood to make several billion dollars if it was destroyed in a terrorist attack, and that a brother and a cousin of George W. Bush were principals of a company that handled security for the World Trade Center (Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory [Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007], 111).
68 Glanz, “Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center.”
69 Symposium on State Crimes Against Democracy, American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010): 783-939 (http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6). Online access is expensive, but the entire issue can be purchased for $24 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
70 Lance deHaven-Smith, “Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government,” American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010): 795-825 (http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6), at 796.
71 Ibid. 797.
72 Ibid., 783.
73 Matthew T. Witt, “Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship,” American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010): 921-39 (http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6), at 934.
74 Ibid., 932 (emphasis in original).
75 Ibid., 932.
77 “Statement of September 11th Advocates Regarding the Release of the NIST Final Draft of Collapse of WTC7” (signed by Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and Lorie Van Auken), September 26, 2008 (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080927030009489).
78 Daniel Hofnung, Patriots Question 9/11 (http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Dhofnung).
79 Chester W. Gearhart, Patriots Question 9/11 (http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Gearhart).
80 “Danish Scientist Niels Harrit, on Nanothermite in the WTC Dust (English subtitles),” YouTube, April 6, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o).
81 NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (brief report), November 2008 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf): 51; NIST NCSTAR 1-9: 119.
82 Jeremy Baker, “Was WTC 7 a Dud?” Serendipity, 2005 (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc7_dud.htm).
83 Jeremy Baker, “Last Building Standing,” Serendipity, 2007 (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/last_building_standing.pdf). This is a revised and updated version of Baker, “Was WTC 7 a Dud?”
84 NIST NCSTAR 1: 1-9: 194, 243, 244, 247.
85 Peter Dale Scott, “9/11, Deep State Violence, and the Hope of Internet Politics,” Global Research, June 11, 2008 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9289).
86 Ibid. More recently, Scott has ceased speaking about a “deep state,” because it suggests an organized entity with a location, and speaks instead only of “deep events” brought about by “deep forces.” This revised language is reflected in his forthcoming book, American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010), in which he refers to “deep events” as “events that are systematically ignored, suppressed, or falsified in public (and even internal) government, military, and intelligence documents as well as in the mainstream media and public consciousness,” and says that underlying these events “is frequently the involvement of deep forces linked either to the drug traffic or to agencies of surveillance (or to both together).” He then adds: “A clearly defined deep event will combine both internal features – evidence, such as a discernible cover-up, that aspects are being suppressed – and external features – an ongoing and perhaps irresoluble controversy as to what happened.”
87 Laurie A. Manwell, “In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11,” American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010): 848-84 (http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6), at 867-70.
88 Ibid., 863.
89 Matthew T. Witt and Alexander Kouzmin, “Sense Making Under ‘Holographic’ Conditions: Framing SCAD Research,” American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010): 783-94 (http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6), at 789.
90 Publishers Weekly, November 24, 2008 (http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/1-legacy/15-web-exclusive-book-reviews/article/6017-web-exclusive-reviews-week-of-11-24-2008-.html).
91 Jennifer Harper, “Explosive News,” Washington Times, February 22, 2010 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns).
92 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org).
93 On the failure of the press release about WTC 7 by the Jersey Girls (see note 77, above) to receive any press coverage: Email letter from Lorie Van Auken, May 23, 2010.
94 This essay is based on a lecture of the same title delivered at a conference, “Understanding Deep Politics,” held May 14-16, 2010, in Santa Cruz, California, which was organized by Gabriel Day, Cheryl Curtiss, Jason King, and Kevin Zenzie.David Ray Griffin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by David Ray Griffin
The Twin Towers
Gallery of Evidence
W T C 7
Tidy Rubble Pile
|Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.|
Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?
|Halfway through Building 7’s 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.|
Explosives Found in
World Trade Center Dust
Scientists Discover Both Residues
And Unignited Fragments
Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics
In Debris From the Twin Towers
The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples. The present review of the paper and related research is intended to summarize those findings for the non-technical reader. To that end, I first provide a short introduction to the subject of aluminothermic explosives, then outline the methods and results of analysis of the dust samples, and finally explore the significance of these findings.
- Aluminothermics 101
- Aluminothermics at the WTC
- FAQ: Controlled Demolition With Aluminothermics
- How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?
- Why Weren’t Demolition Charges Triggered by the Plane Crashes or the Subsequent Fires?
- How Could the Demolition Equipment Have Been Installed in the Twin Towers Without Tenants Noticing?
- FAQ: Controlled Demolition With Aluminothermics
- Glossary of Analytical Methods
|Image from AmazingRust.com of a simple thermite reaction involving iron oxide and aluminum. This video shows thermite melting through a car.|
Aluminothermic reactions are a class of energy-releasing oxidation-reduction chemical reactions in which elemental aluminum reduces a compound, typically by stealing the oxygen from a metal oxide. Aluminothermics range from low-tech preparations that take seconds to react and therefore release nearly all their energy as heat and light, to advanced engineered materials with accelerated reaction rates that yield explosive powers similar to conventional high explosives.
Backers of the official account of 9/11, including NIST officials, have dismissed evidence that aluminothermics were used to destroy the World Trade Center skyscrapers, claiming that thermite’s slow reaction rate makes it an unsuitable tool for demolishing buildings. Despite repeated requests by scientists and researchers to address the potential role of advanced aluminothermic composites with high explosive power, officials have refused to acknowledge such materials.
2 Al + Fe
+ 2 Fe
|The canonical thermite reaction is simple, lacks the aromatic hydrocarbons and nitrogen found in conventional high explosives, and is highly exothermic.|
The most familiar aluminothermic material is thermite, a mixture of a powdered metallic fuel such as aluminum, and a powdered oxide of another metal such as iron or copper. The thermite reaction involves the transfer of oxygen from the oxidizer (metal oxide) to the fuel (metal).
Because oxygen atoms bind more tightly to aluminum atoms than to iron or copper atoms, the reaction releases large amounts of energy and is described as highly exothermic. Whereas primitive thermite preparations release most of their energy as heat, modern preparations, such as found in munitions employed by the US military in recent decades, produce a targeted mix of heat and pressure through an accelerated but controlled reaction rate and the addition of pressure-generating compounds such as hydrocarbons.
|ABOVE: Relationship of particle size to reaction rate in thermites
BELOW: General relationship of reaction rate to the form of energy released in compositions that have the capacity to be high explosives
The reaction rate of a thermitic material determines how quickly its aluminum atoms find oxidizer molecules to react with, and therefore how quickly the energy is released. Whereas the energy density of an explosive is determined by its chemistry, its power density is determined by its reaction rate, which, in the case of a thermitic material, is determined by its physical characteristics. Specifically, the reaction rate increases with the fineness of the metal and oxide powders and the uniformity with which they are mixed.
Because the particle sizes of the reactants must be very small to attain rapid reaction rates, such thermites are often referred to as nano-thermites. Such nano- or “super-thermites” typically have particle diameters on the order of a few hundred nanometers, requiring their synthesis by special methods. The reaction rate in turn determines the destructive character of the material. Whereas a cup of conventional thermite will melt a hole clear through a car’s engine block, the same quantity of a nano-thermite composite explosive will blow the car apart.
Nano-thermite composite explosives typically embed the metal and oxide particles within a matrix containing compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and silicon. These additional elements generate high gas pressures upon exposure to the thermite reaction, which may be instrumental in imparting high-explosive properties to such materials.
(Al + Fe2O3)
(Al + CuO)
In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives.  
Because thermites have historically had much lower power densities than conventional high explosives, they are classified as incendiaries rather than explosives — a classification that has been exploited to conceal the use of aluminothermics in the World Trade Center attack. Despite the fact that high-tech aluminothermics have existed and been used by the military since the mid-1990s or earlier, methods of identifying explosive residues at crime scenes are frequently limited to analysis of nitro-aromatic explosives. 
The term ‘nano-thermite’ applied to the unignited thermitic material discovered in World Trade Center dust is potentially misleading because it doesn’t capture the complexity and sophistication of this material or its known analogs. Perhaps a better term is energetic nanocomposites, a class of materials that has been used by the military for some time in applications spanning propellants, armor-piercing munitions, and reactive armor. In their diverse roles, energetic nanocomposites fulfill a range of requirements including: “high density, good mechanical properties, low sensitiveness, good stability, low cost, ease of manufacturing, and environmental acceptability.”  To achieve these requirements, scientists developing advanced aluminothermic materials have learned to embed the fine powders in a carbon- and silicon-rich matrix. Kevin Ryan explains:
The mixing [of ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides] is accomplished by adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways. 
|Graphic from a DTIC (Defense Technical Information Center) Review publication on advanced energetic materials.|
Energetic materials such as aluminothermic sol-gels have been an active area of research in the US national labs since the mid-1990s or earlier, including under the auspices of NIST itself — a fact documented by Kevin Ryan in his extensively footnoted article The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites. Also called “metastable intermolecular composites”, “nano-structured energetic materials”, or just “nanoenergetics”, these materials have been the subject of numerous conferences, research papers, and patents in the past two decades.       It’s also not difficult to find recent published papers on methods of reliably igniting such materials with minute low-power devices described as MEMS (microelectromechanical systems) and manufactured much like conventional integrated circuits.        It requires little imagination to grasp how such techniques could be exploited to implement a covert, all-wireless controlled demolition.
The discovery of unexploded super-thermite in the WTC dust augments a large body of evidence pointing to the use of aluminothermic materials in the destruction of the skyscrapers. The present review looks only at the evidence of explosives found in the dust and debris expelled from the Twin Towers.
Even before WTC dust was subjected to the kind of microscopic scrutiny described in Active Thermitic Material Discovered, several features of the dust analysis published by the USGS pointed to the use of aluminothermics. For example, the USGS data shows high levels of barium — a fact that is difficult to explain, barring pyrotechnics. The high levels of iron and aluminum in the dust — each ranging from 1.3 to 4.1 percent of the dust samples by weight — also appears anomalous, although prosaic sources of the metals can be imagined.
Micro-spheroidal particles in WTC dust consisting mostly of iron were documented in at least two scientific reports by 2005: a compilation of data by the USGS and a report for the owners of a skyscraper adjacent to the World Trade Center complex that sustained heavy damage in the attack. 
|Two images of iron-rich spheroids from the USGS Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust. |
|Illustration from a damage assessment report prepared for Deutsche Bank, the owners of a skyscraper severely damaged by projectiles from the South Tower. The report was commissioned, in part, to determine the nature and extent of contamination of the building, which is slated for demolition.|
Although it may be overlooked, the significance of these nearly microscopic iron-rich droplets is not difficult to grasp. Molten iron is one of the two principal products of the thermite reaction, the other being aluminum oxide, which tends to dissipate as an aerosol. The molten iron condenses and solidifies into particles whose size is a function of the thermite’s reaction rate. Fast-acting super-thermites produce tiny droplets that become very nearly spherical due to surface tension.
The inescapable fact is that these spheroidal droplets in the WTC dust look exactly like the products of the combustion of nano-thermite explosives, and their discovery in consistently substantial concentrations in diverse samples of dust from the day of the attack weighs heavily against theories that they were generated by something other than the Twin Towers’ destruction. Elemental analysis of these droplets described below would show that they are dead ringers for known aluminothermic residues.
In a 2007 paper, Steven Jones described the importance of the iron-rich microspheres. 
|Dr. Steven E. Jones describing molten metal seen at Ground Zero.|
As usual, we search for possible prosaic explanations for these metallic spherules in the WTC dust. The most obvious possible source is the melting of large quantities of steel in the buildings followed somehow by formation of tiny droplets of molten steel. As discussed above, however, steel melts at about 1538ºC (2800ºF) – and the temperatures in the buildings were no where near [sic] hot enough to melt steel, and certainly not in large quantities required for the amounts seen in the dust (and pouring out of the South Tower before collapse). Furthermore, we have looked at the chemical compositions of a number of iron-rich spherules as well as that of steel, and the compositions are not the same at all. It should not be surprising, however, as we analyze more spherules to find some that are steel-like in composition, assuming that thermite cutter-charges were in fact used to cut through steel. We should then find both steel- and thermite-residue spherules.
Could these droplets be due to molten aluminum alloy (from the jets) striking rusty steel and/or other office materials to somehow generate the iron-rich spheres? We performed experiments with molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel, then onto crushed gypsum and concrete (on the rusty steel) – and observed no formation of iron-rich droplets at all nor any sign of vigorous chemical reactions.
After addressing arguments that the iron-rich droplets could have been produced by the rubble pile or clean-up operation — the dust samples were collected too early and were too distant from the site to have been thus contaminated — Jones makes a rough estimate of the total quantities of reactants involved in the attack based on the fraction of the dust comprising the iron-rich spheres.
One can estimate the implied amount of thermite needed to generate so many iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust. In a sample of 32.1 grams of WTC dust, I observed with the unaided eye two metallic-looking spheres, in addition to the micron-sized spherules collected using a magnet. The mm-size spheres proved to be iron-aluminum rich. The mass of these two larger spheres (0.012g) found in this sample can be used to provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012g/32.1g = 0.04%. If the mass of the WTC dust was about 30,000 tons, then the iron-rich spherule content would be of the order of ten tons. This is a very rough estimate based on one small sample, and is only provided to give an idea of the amount of thermite-type reactants and products which may be involved here. An investigation well beyond the scope of this paper would look for purchases of aluminum and iron-oxide powders (and sulfur) in multi-ton-quantities prior to 9/11/2001.
A paper published a year earlier than Active Thermitic Material Discovered showed that metal-rich spheroids in WTC dust had iron-to-oxygen ratios indicating abundant elemental iron, such as found in thermite residues. It also pointed out several other features of WTC remains that indicated exposure to temperatures far above what could be produced by fires burning jet fuel and office contents, including: iron-rich and silicate spherules, volatilized lead, a molybdenum spherule, and materials with a “Swiss-cheese appearance”.  Molybdenum has a very high melting point of 2617ºC.
If finding aluminothermic residues in the form of spheroidal micro-droplets was like finding fired bullets at a crime scene, then the discoveries presented in Active Thermitic Material Discovered are like finding the gun loaded with several rounds of unspent ammunition that match the fired bullets.
|Fig. 2 from Active Thermitic Material Discovered showing chips from the four different dust samples.|
|Map of Lower Manhattan showing locations of the four samples (blue points) and the Twin Towers (red points).|
First described by Steven Jones in late 2007, distinctive chips found in the dust samples had red and gray layers, were weakly attracted to a magnet, and were composed mostly of iron, oxygen, aluminum, silicon, and carbon. Jones and his colleagues subsequently subjected the chips to detailed analysis using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), and published their results in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.
The paper’s findings are based primarily on the analysis of particles derived from four separate samples of dust generated by the destruction of the Twin Towers, samples whose provenance the paper describes in detail. Each of the samples was collected by a different individual who has described the time, place, and methods of collecting and storing their sample. Each individual collected dust that had settled directly after the fall of one of the Twin Towers, with the one exception, Janette MacKinlay, who collected dust when allowed to re-enter her apartment a week after it was carpeted with shovel-fulls of dust and debris from the South Tower.
Chips having distinctive and similar physical features were found in all four of the dust samples, ranging in length from from about 0.2 to 3 mm. Each chip has stratified layers of two types: a red layer and a lighter gray layer, where each layer is between roughly 10 and 100 microns in thickness. Despite their small size, the chips are readily visible in the samples because of their flat shapes, distinctive color, and layered structure. The chips are tough despite being as thin as eggshells.
|Portions of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5: Two scanning electron microscope images of bi-layered chips.|
Magnification reveals that the gray layers are composed of an opaque homogeneous material, whereas the red layers have small particles embedded in a matrix of slightly translucent material.
|Fig. 9, showing a highly magnified view of the red layer. Note the hexagonal plate-like particles, and the smaller faceted particles, both lighter in color than the porous matrix.|
At magnification of 50,000 the structure of the two types of particles is clear: small bright particles having a faceted shape and measuring about 100 nm in diameter, and larger particles having a flat and often hexagonal shape and measuring about 1000 nm across and 40 nm thick.
The particles are held in place and in close proximity to each other by the porous matrix. Soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone, a solvent that dissolves paint, caused the red layer to swell while remaining intact.
Up to this point, I have reviewed only characteristics of the chips revealed by macro- and micro-scopic visual examination, but already the implications are stunning: the chips are clearly a nano-engineered material with two types of extremely small particles, each highly consistent in shape and size, held in close stable proximity by a durable matrix which is laminated to a hard homogeneous material. The student of energetic materials will appreciate that this description matches exactly that of a super-thermite in which the reactant particles are suspended in a sol-gel matrix applied to a substrate.
Chemical analysis of the chips relied primarily on performing elemental analysis of the materials and their components using XEDS, and making inferences about the materials’ molecular composition based on the distributions of elements in different structures. The paper first examines the gray and red layers, and then zooms in on the components of the red layers.
XEDS spectra of red and gray layers shows a remarkable similarity across the different samples.
|Fig. 7: “XEDS spectra obtained from the gray layers from each of the four WTC dust samples …”||Fig. 6: “XEDS spectra obtained from the red layers from each of the four WTC dust samples …”|
Whereas the gray layers contain mostly iron and oxygen, the red layers have abundant aluminum as well, and the three elements are in the ratio approximating that of Fe2O3 + Al thermite. Thus, the red layers could be active thermitic material, depending on their molecular composition. If active, the material will have much of its aluminum in a metallic state, unbound to oxygen or silicon.
The authors show that the aluminum is indeed mostly in a pure metallic form, and that much of the oxygen is bound to the iron. They ultimately show this conclusively through elemental analysis of the components of the red layers: the thin hexagonal plates, faceted grains, and embedding matrix revealed by microscopic inspection.
Performing accurate elemental analysis of the red layer components would require some ingenuity. Because the XEDS machine steers an electron beam over a sample’s surface to gather information about its elemental composition, it can be used to generate maps of the abundance of different elements over the surface of the sample. However, the particles in the red layer are slightly smaller than what can be resolved by XEDS.
|Fig. 10, showing the BSE image and accompanying XEDS maps for Fe, Al, O, Si, and C of a portion of an untreated red layer.|
Nonetheless, considering the XEDS maps in conjunction with the much higher-resolution SEM images of the corresponding portions of the sample makes clear that the faceted grains are abundant in iron and oxygen and the thin plates are abundant in aluminum. Also, although the distribution of particles in the matrix is precisely homogeneous overall, there are local clumps of grains and of plates, and when the electron beam is focused on these clumps the XEDS detector registers higher concentrations of the constituents of iron oxide and of elemental aluminum, respectively.
To obtain more precise measurements of the elemental compositions of the red layer components using XEDS, those components somehow had to be separated, so that the electron beam could be focused entirely on one component at a time. Perhaps the porous matrix could be dissolved, allowing the particles to be separated by centrifuging. Or better — as the investigators discovered serendipitously in an earlier experiment to see if the chips dissolved in the paint-dissolving solvent methyl ethyl keytone (MEK) — the matrix could be expanded by a factor of five while leaving the layer intact, allowing in-situ examination. When the chips were soaked in MEK with periodic agitation for 55 hours, the red layers swelled up but remained intact and attached to their respective gray layers, and the thin plates tended to migrate and aggregate. Because of these structural changes produced by the MEK soaking, it was possible to make much more accurate XEDS measurements of the elemental compositions of the red layers’ components.
|Fig. 15, showing the BSE image and accompanying XEDS maps of Fe, Al, O, Si, and C for a red-layer sample soaked in MEK.|
XEDS maps of a soaked red layers show correlations much more clearly than the untreated material. In particular, oxygen is highly correlated, individually, to iron, silicon, and carbon. Aluminum is inversely correlated to the other elements.
Even more striking are the XEDS spectra found by zooming in on areas having high concentrations of particular elements. The three graphs below show the results of focusing the electron beam on areas with: first, high silicon; second, high aluminum; and third, high iron. The area of high silicon is composed almost entirely of silicon and oxygen, the area of high aluminum has aluminum far out of proportion with the other elements, and the area of high iron is rich in oxygen, where the oxygen and iron atoms are in the same 3-to-2 ratio as in the thermite oxidizer Fe2O3.
The authors draw the obvious conclusions from their elemental analysis of components of the red layers: the aluminum-rich particles are mostly elemental aluminum, with the relatively small quantities of oxygen being accounted for by an oxide layer on the particles’ surfaces; the iron-rich particles are primarily oxygen and iron, probably in the form of the oxidizer Fe2O3 which matches the observed 3:2 ratio of oxygen to iron atoms; and the matrix is composed almost entirely of silicon, oxygen, and carbon, where most of the carbon was washed away by the MEK. The matrix also may contain hydrogen, which is not detected by XEDS analysis.
Given the data in Active Thermitic Material Discovered I summarize the composition of the chips as follows:
- gray layer: a hard homogeneous ceramic
composition: iron and oxygen
- red layer: an engineered nano-composite substance, comprising:
- matrix: a nano-structured semi-transparent porous material
composition: silicon, oxygen, and carbon
- particles: homogeneously embedded in the matrix and consisting of:
- thin predominantly hexagonal plates
dimensions: ~40nm thickness, ~1000nm diameter
composition: mostly aluminum, with small amounts of carbon and oxygen
- rhombic faceted grains
dimensions: ~100nm diameter
composition: mostly iron and oxygen, probably as Fe2O3, with small amounts of silicon, sulfur, and carbon
- thin predominantly hexagonal plates
- matrix: a nano-structured semi-transparent porous material
The structural and chemical analysis of the chips shows that, in every relevant aspect, they fit the description of an engineered thermitic nanocomposite. This prompts the obvious question: do the chips have the thermal characteristics of an explosive aluminothermic material?
Although it might be difficult or impossible to measure the explosive power of the chips, given their minute size, it is possible to measure their exothermic behavior and thereby calculate their energy density using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), a device that gradually increases the temperature of a sample and records the amount of heat it absorbs or emits as a function of temperature.
|Fig. 19 compares the DSC traces of a chip from each of the four samples.|
A DSC trace is an approximate graph of energy density with respect to temperature, the height of the trace indicating the rate at which the sample’s material absorbs or emits thermal energy. DSC traces of energetic materials such as incendiaries and explosives have a characteristic shape that remains near zero up to a certain temperature range — the ignition temperature — and thereafter spikes sharply upward. The energy density of the material can be estimated by calculating the area under the curve.
Chips from each of the four samples, when subjected to thermal analysis using the DSC, clearly show the exothermic behavior of an energetic material. As seen in Fig. 19, the heights of the graphs vary significantly from one chip to the next. The authors attribute this variation to the fact that the chips had different ratios of active red material to inert gray material.
Based on the DSC analysis, the authors estimate the energy density of the four chips at 1.5, 3, 6, and 7.5 kJ/g, respectively. This compares with a maximum yield from conventional thermite of slightly less than 4 kJ/g. In a final section of the paper underscoring the need for further research into the red-gray chips, the authors suggest a possible explanation for the exceptional energy content of the red-layer material: perhaps elements in the porous matrix, such as oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, contribute to the reaction.
|Fig. 29, labeled “DSC trace of sample 1 (blue line) compared with DSC of xerogel Fe2O3/UFG Al nanocomposite (from Tillotson et al. ). Both DSC traces show completion of reaction at temperatures below 560ºC”.|
A comparison of DSC traces of the red-gray chips to a published DSC trace from an xerogel/nano-thermite energetic nanocomposite shows the chips to be more energetic and to have a lower ignition temperature.
Because DSC processing causes the chips to ignite, the investigators studied the residues and found, not surprisingly, minute iron-rich spheroids, as well as silicon-rich spheroids. When subjected to XEDS analysis, the iron-rich spheroids showed iron far in excess of oxygen, as expected in an aluminothermic residue.
The paper contains the following micrographs and corresponding XEDS spectra of spheroids from three different sources: residue from the ignition of commercial thermite, residue from the ignition of the red-gray chips, and World Trade Center dust.
I hope that my review of Active Thermitic Material Discovered, being summary and somewhat interpretive, will serve as encouragement to read the paper itself, which, as scientific papers go, is remarkably accessible. The paper’s conclusions — a clear and cogent summary of the results — are reproduced here in their entirety:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:
- It is composed of intimately mixed aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, barium, lead and copper. [4,6]
- The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
- On treatment with methyl-ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components was observed. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
- Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in plate-like structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.
- From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
- As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430ºC, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron-oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900ºC) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
- After igniting several red/gray chips in a differential scanning calorimeter run to 700ºC, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high-temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
- The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and of many of the micro-spheres found in the WTC dust. 
- The presence of an organic substance in the red material is expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of this organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.
The implications of the discovery of unspent aluminothermic explosives and matching residues in World Trade Center dust are staggering. There is no conceivable reason for there to have been tons of high explosives in the Towers except to demolish them, and demolition is blatantly incompatible with the official 9/11 narrative that the skyscrapers collapsed as a result of the jetliner impacts and fires.
The discovery of active thermitic materials adds to a vast body of evidence that the total destruction of the Towers were controlled demolitions, and to the subset of that evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic materials to implement those demolitions.
That discovery also undermines the oft-heard claim that no explosives residues were found, a claim that was never compelling, given the apparent lack of evidence that any official agency looked for evidence of explosive residues of any kind. Worse, the public record shows that NIST not only failed to look for such evidence, it repeatedly evaded requests by scientists and researchers to examine numerous facts indicating explosives and incendiaries .
I expect that collapse theory defenders will dismiss the discovery of active thermitic material in the same way that they dismissed the thermite residues: by claiming that the samples were contaminated and/or that there are other explanations for the origin of these artifacts than pyrotechnics in the WTC Towers. “Debunkers” have proposed that the iron-rich spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers’ concrete, ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather than elemental iron. How will they explain away the bi-layered chips, whose red layers have iron oxide and elemental aluminum in the ratio of Fe2O3 thermite as nano-sized particles of uniform shape?
As the work of explaining away the direct evidence of explosives becomes more daunting, we will probably see even more reliance on the mainstay of arguments against controlled demolition: those alleging that insurmountable obstacles would face such a project. Three of the most salient such workability arguments are:
- That the surreptitious preparation of the Twin Towers was too prone to exposure.
- That setting up the demolitions to start from the Towers’ crash zones was technically unfeasible.
- That thermite is unsuitable as a tool of controlled demolition.
These arguments have taken on the appearance of straw men with their continued repetition — including by NIST itself — after being publicly shown to be based on false assumptions. The 9-11Research FAQ on Demolition addressed the first two starting in 2004, and Steven Jones and others addressed the third starting in 2006 by pointing out the existence of explosive variants of thermite.
With the publication of Active Thermitic Material Discovered it becomes even easier to imagine plausible scenarios that answer workability arguments. The characteristics of super-thermites and the features of the thermitic fragments described in the paper, combined with a survey of methods for the programmable wireless detonation of energetic materials available in 2001, provides straightforward answers to the most frequently-heard questions about the implementation of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers — answers that thoroughly undermine assertions that controlled demolitions using aluminothermics was not feasible.
Following are the three arguments listed above re-phrased as questions. I start with the last argument, which is addressed in detail in the discussion section of Active Thermitic Material Discovered.
As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building’s take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward.
Perhaps the plane crashes did trigger some of the charges. If so, their blasts were lost in the jet-crash fireballs, and their damage was insufficient to budge the Towers’ tops. Thermite incendiaries in the core ignited by the crash would not be visible over the fires, unless dislodged to the building’s exterior, as apparently happened in the South Tower. However, this probably wasn’t an issue because, in contrast to conventional explosives, thermite has a very high ignition temperature — above 900ºC. Thus, thermitic incendiaries used around the crash zones could have been designed to survive the fires. As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics.
The simple answer is by disguising the equipment as normal building components, so that not even the workers installing the components are aware of the concealed pyrotechnics. Three aspects of the Hypothetical Blasting Scenario that facilitate this are: the stability and specificity of ignition conditions achievable with aluminothermic pyrotechnics, minimization of the required access to steelwork, and the use of a completely wireless ignition control system.
|An electron microscope equipped with an EDAX GENESIS 2000 X-Ray Microanalysis System.|
|EDS spectrum of a yellow paint sample, from ModernMicroscopy.com. EDS spectra allow the easy identification of the most abundant elements in a sample, while requiring some analysis to estimate relative quantities.|
BSE: Backscattered Electron imaging
A method of SEM imaging based on the detection of scattering of the electron beam.
DSC: Differential Scanning Calorimetry
A technique that determines the difference in the amount of heat required to increase the temperature of an experimental sample and reference. A differential scanning calorimeter outputs a DSC trace which shows the relationship of heat flux to temperature, and thereby exothermic or endothermic behavior of the sample. 
SEM: Scanning Electron Microscopy
A type of electron microscopy in which a beam of high-energy electrons scans the surface to a sample to image its structure or composition.
XEDS: X-ray Energy-Dispersive Spectroscopy
A technique for determining the elemental composition of a sample using an instrument that analyzes the spectrum of emitted X-rays from a sample as a beam of high energy electrons is directed onto its surface. 
A single workstation may provide integrated BSE and XEDS capabilities using SEM equipment fitted with specialized BSE and XEDS detectors, where software controls the electron beam, sample positioning, and detector parameters.
- 1. Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives, llnl.gov, [cached]
- 2. Daniel Tappmeyer studies how nanoparticles can be used for quick ― but controlled ― energy release, undergradresearch.missouri.edu, [cached]
- 3. Analysis of Trace Residues of Explosive Materials by Time-of-Flight LC/MS, www.chem.agilent.com, 3/16/2005 [cached]
- 4. Advanced Energetic Materials: New Energetic Materials, National Academic Press, [cached]
- 5. The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites, 7/2/2008
- 6. Reactive Projectiles Comprised of Metastable Intermolecular Composites, lanl.gov, [cached]
- 7. Energy dense explosives, USPTO.gov, [cached]
- 8. Inorganic metal oxide/organic polymer nanocomposites and method thereof, USPTO.gov, [cached]
- 9. Nano-scale energetic materials fabrication, characterization and molecular modeling, European Materials Research Society, [cached]
- 10. Formation of Nanostructured Energetic Materials via Modified Sol-Gel Synthesis, mrs.org, [cached]
- 11. Metastable intermolecular composite, en.wikipedia.org, [cached]
- 12. On-Chip Initiation and Burn Rate Measurements of Thermite Energetic Reactions, mrs.org, [cached]
- 13. Unique Porous Copper Structure Enables New Generation Of Military …, sciencedaily.com,
- 14. Integrated thin film explosive micro-detonator, www.dodtechmatch.com/,
- 15. Military eyes MEMS weapons detonators that could be fabbed on IC lines, pennwellblogs.com,
- 16. MEMS microdetonator/initiator apparatus for a MEMS fuze, USPTO.gov,
- 17. In-plane MEMS thermal actuator and associated fabrication methods, USPTO.gov,
- 18. Method and system for making integrated solid-state fire-sets and detonators, USPTO.gov,
- 19. Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property, RJ LeeGroup, Inc., 12/2003 [cached]
- 20. Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, pubs.usgs.gov, [cached]
- 21. Revisiting 9/11/2001 — Applying the Scientific Method, JournalOf911Studies.com,
- 22. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, JournalOf911Studies.com,
- 23. Differential Scanning Calorimeters, tainstruments.com, [cached]
- 24. Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDAX), AmazingRust.com,
September 22, 2010
The truth about 9/11
If it will take some thirty years for the American government documents about 9/11 to be made public, why then the extreme right wing media viciously attacks those who doubt the official version of the events?
To paraphrase President Roosevelt – when he was referring to Pearl Harbor – September 11 is a day that will go down in infamy in U.S. History, no matter which side of the debate one happens to be on.
However, those who don’t believe the official explanation of the 9/11 events, often referred to as “9/11 conspiracy theorists,” better be prepared for more attacks on their credibility by the extreme right wing media.
These attacks go a long way toward explaining why the term “conspiracy theorist” has such a negative connotation. After all, the word conspiracy means a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act, something which is as old as civilization itself.
Canadian professor Dr. Anthony Hall, professor of the Globalization Studies program at the University of Lethbridge continues to face attacks for raising doubts about the official version of events.
In the August 25, 2010 edition of the Edmonton Conservative Examiner, Patrick Ross questions Dr. Hall’s credibility, without providing any evidence to support his claims.
“Dr. Anthony J. Hall is more than simply an academic who dabbles in the 9/11 “truth” movement on the side,” Mr. Ross said. “He’s a dedicated foot soldier of that particular movement, and one who’s unceasingly dedicated to covering over the movement’s tenuous relationship with anything resembling a fact.”
Mr. Ross does, however, cite Hall’s reference to an alleged Israeli spy ring, wherein they posed as art students and tracked Islamic terrorists, including 9/11 hijackers. After acknowledging that this “alleged Israeli spy ring was in the U.S. prior to 9/11, Mr. Ross seeks to show the fallacy in Dr. Hall’s argument.
“The investigation of those individuals (Israeli spy ring) was terminated not as part of an Israeli conspiracy to allow the 9/11 attacks to happen, but rather because their alleged agents had been deported from the U.S,” Mr. Ross said.
Meanwhile, Dr. Hall isn’t budging from his skepticism of the official report.
“If I’m inaccurate on the issues of Israeli spies inside the United States prior to 9/11, then so are the reports I have been reading about it in many mainstream media venues including those of Die Zeit, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, Counterpunch, Intelligence.online, BBC, Fox News, the Sunday Herald in Scotland and the Sunday Telegraph in Great Britain to mention only a few… Are the sources I have read to be scorched from the record in a book-burning campaign of information cleansing?” Dr. Hall said.
It’s telling that of his many sources, Dr. Hall makes no mention of mainstream North American media outlets – with the possible exception of Fox News.
During the 2008 Canadian election campaign, Dr. Hall said Prime Minister Harper’s team employed a “McCarthyesque push to characterize as un-Canadian each and every citizen who calls attention to the simple fact that the Bush-led War on Terror rests on nothing but an unproven conspiracy theory.”
Now it appears that both sides of the debate are accusing the other of promoting conspiracy theories. Could it be possible that there is some truth in these accusations?
Although Dr. Hall is a tenured professor at Lethbridge University, Mr. Ross has no problem describing him as delusional, because he questions the official version of 9/11.
“Moreover, the extent of Hall’s delusions about the 9/11 truth movement is a rigorous grassroots public movement, as opposed to what it really is: an infantesimal and irrelevant fringe of conspiracy theorists who can rarely gather more than a few dozen people in any one place at any one time,” Mr. Ross said.
Meanwhile, in his book American Raj: liberation or domination, Eric Margolis said that 56% of all Americans, according to a September 2006 poll, believed that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks or had allowed them to happen.
Moreover, scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise—including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots—have spoken out about discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.
One of them, Dr. Ernest Partridge, a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy, who has taught philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin, while describing himself as a skeptic of 9/11 conspiracy theories, nonetheless said: “Too many phenomena are unexplained. The evidence must be revisited and validated, and the anomalies explained. And this must be done fearlessly and independently of any political biases or agendas.”
Dr. Partridge list a few of the many anomalies he feels must be explained, including numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at the time the towers were hit, reports of explosions before the planes hit, tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers that were destroyed and a flood of “put options” on American Airlines and United Airlines stock. It would be interesting to know who bought these put options and why.
In the meantime we must wait 30 years for the public release of American and other official documents pertaining to 9/11.
Meanwhile, one can’t help but wonder why there is such fierce opposition from the right of the political spectrum to any suggestion that the official version of events are not true.
Graeme MacQueen, a professor who taught in the Department of Religious Studies and the Centre for Peace at McMaster for many years, feels the Canadian government has good reason to attack those who express doubts about the official version of 9/11.
“Our government, especially, will be angry if we are bold enough to ask questions. This is not surprising: the stakes are high for the government of Canada. If the myth of 9/11 is meddled with, who knows what questions we may end up asking about our own killing and dying in Afghanistan, our compliance with unlawful detention, our rising military budget, restriction of civil rights and failure to protect our own citizens abroad?”
Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?
Using the McChrystal Moment
to Raise a Forbidden Question
ByProf. David Ray Griffin
June 25, 2010, Examiner
THERE are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam.” This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years
Although there are many similarities between these two wars, there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have surely been stopped long ago. People have often asked: Did we learn any of the “lessons of Vietnam”? The US government learned one: If you’re going to fight unpopular wars, don’t have a draft – hire mercenaries!
There are many other questions that have been, and should be, asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11 attacks justify the war in Afghanistan?
This question has thus far been considered off-limits, not to be raised in polite company, and certainly not in the mainstream media. It has been permissible, to be sure, to ask whether the war during the past several years has been justified by those attacks so many years ago. But one has not been allowed to ask whether the original invasion was justified by the 9/11 attacks.
However, what can be designated the “McChrystal Moment” – the probably brief period during which the media are again focused on the war in Afghanistan in the wake of the Rolling Stone story about General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, which led to his resignation – provides the best opportunity for some time to raise fundamental questions about this war. Various commentators have already been asking some pretty basic questions: about the effectiveness and affordability of the present “counterinsurgency strategy” and even whether American fighting forces should remain in Afghanistan at all. But I am interested in an even more fundamental question: Whether this war was ever really justified by the publicly given reason: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
This question has two parts: First, did these attacks provide a legal justification for the invasion of Afghanistan? Second, if not, did they at least provide a moral justification?
I. Did 9/11 Provide Legal Justification for the War in Afghanistan?
Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, international law with regard to war has been defined by the UN Charter. Measured by this standard, the US-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.
Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law, wrote in November 2001:
“[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal.”2
In 2008, Cohn repeated this argument in an article entitled “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War.” The point of the title was that, although it was by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal, the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that many Americans did not realize it, was equally illegal.3 Her argument was based on the following facts:
First, according to international law as codified in the UN Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal.
Second, there are two exceptions: One is that, if your nation has been subjected to an armed attack by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. This condition was not fulfilled by the 9/11 attacks, however, because they were not carried out by another nation: Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Indeed, the 19 men charged with the crime were not Afghans.
The other exception occurs when one nation has certain knowledge that an armed attack by another nation is imminent – too imminent to bring the matter to the Security Council. The need for self-defense must be, in the generally accepted phrase, “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Although the US government claimed that its military operations in Afghanistan were justified by the need to prevent a second attack, this need, even if real, was clearly not urgent, as shown by the fact that the Pentagon did not launch its invasion until almost a month later.
US political leaders have claimed, to be sure, that the UN did authorize the US attack on Afghanistan. This claim, originally made by the Bush-Cheney administration, was repeated by President Obama in his West Point speech of December 1, 2009, in which he said: “The United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks,” so US troops went to Afghanistan “[u]nder the banner of . . . international legitimacy.”4
However, the language of “all necessary steps” is from UN Security Council Resolution 1368, in which the Council, taking note of its own “responsibilities under the Charter,” expressed its own readiness “to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.”5
Of course, the UN Security Council might have determined that one of these necessary steps was to authorize an attack on Afghanistan by the United States. But it did not. Resolution 1373, the only other Security Council resolution about this issue, laid out various responses, but these included matters such as freezing assets, criminalizing the support of terrorists, exchanging police information about terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.6
The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary is false.
This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.
II. Did 9/11 Provide Moral Justification for the War in Afghanistan?
The American public has for the most part probably been unaware of the illegality of this war, because this is not something our political leaders or our corporate media have been anxious to point out.8 So most people simply do not know.
If they were informed, however, many Americans would be inclined to argue that, even if technically illegal, the US military effort in Afghanistan has been morally justified, or at least it was in the beginning, by the attacks of 9/11. For a summary statement of this argument, we can turn again to the West Point speech of President Obama, who has taken over the Bush-Cheney account of 9/11. Answering the question of “why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place,” Obama said:
“We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. . . . As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda – a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam. . . . [A]fter the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden – we sent our troops into Afghanistan.”9
This standard account can be summarized in terms of three points:
1. The attacks were carried out by 19 Muslim members of al-Qaeda.
2. The attacks had been authorized by the founder of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, who was in Afghanistan.
3. The US invasion of Afghanistan was necessary because the Taliban, which was in control of Afghanistan, refused to turn bin Laden over to US authorities.
On the basis of these three points, our political leaders have claimed that the United States had the moral right, arising from the universal right of self-defense, to attempt to capture or kill bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network to prevent them from launching another attack on our country.
The only problem with this argument is that all three points are false. I will show this by looking at these points in reverse order.
1. Did the United States Attack Afghanistan because the Taliban Refused to Turn Over Bin Laden?
The claim that the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden has been repeatedly made by political leaders and our mainstream media.10 Reports from the time, however, show the truth to be very different.
A. Who Refused Whom?
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, CNN reported:
“The Taliban . . . refus[ed] to hand over bin Laden without proof or evidence that he was involved in last week’s attacks on the United States. . . . The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan . . . said Friday that deporting him without proof would amount to an ‘insult to Islam.’”
CNN also made clear that the Taliban’s demand for proof was not made without reason, saying:
“Bin Laden himself has already denied he had anything to do with the attacks, and Taliban officials repeatedly said he could not have been involved in the attacks.”
Bush, however, “said the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion.”11
With this refusal to provide any evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility, the Bush administration made it impossible for the Taliban to turn him over. As Afghan experts quoted by the Washington Post pointed out, the Taliban, in order to turn over a fellow Muslim to an “infidel” Western nation, needed a “face-saving formula.” Milton Bearden, who had been the CIA station chief in Afghanistan in the 1980s, put it this way: While the United States was demanding, “Give up bin Laden,” the Taliban were saying, “Do something to help us give him up.”12 But the Bush administration refused.
After the bombing began in October, moreover, the Taliban tried again, offering to turn bin Laden over to a third country if the United States would stop the bombing and provide evidence of his guilt. But Bush replied: “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” An article in London’s Guardian, which reported this development, was entitled: “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over.”13 So it was the Bush administration, not the Taliban, that was responsible for the fact that bin Laden was not turned over.
In August of 2009, President Obama, who had criticized the US invasion of Iraq as a war of choice, said of the US involvement in Afghanistan: “This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity.”14 But the evidence shows, as we have seen, that it, like the one in Iraq, is a war of choice.
B. What Was the Motive for the Invasion?
This conclusion is reinforced by reports indicating that the United States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months before the 9/11 attacks. At least part of the background to this decision was the United States’ long-time support for UNOCAL’s proposed pipeline, which would transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan and Pakistan.15 This project had been stymied through the 1990s because of the civil war that had been going on in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.
In the mid-1990s, the US government had supported the Taliban with the hope that its military strength would enable it to unify the country and provide a stable government, which could protect the pipeline. By the late 1990s, however, the Clinton administration had given up on the Taliban.16
When the Bush administration came to power, it decided to give the Taliban one last chance. During a four-day meeting in Berlin in July 2001, representatives of the Bush administration insisted that the Taliban must create a government of “national unity” by sharing power with factions friendly to the United States. The US representatives reportedly said: “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”17
After the Taliban refused this offer, US officials told a former Pakistani foreign secretary that “military action against Afghanistan would go ahead . . . before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”18 And, indeed, given the fact that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred when they did, the US military was able to mobilize to begin its attack on Afghanistan by October 7.
It appears, therefore, that the United States invaded Afghanistan for reasons far different from the official rationale, according to which we were there to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
2. Has Good Evidence of Bin Laden’s Responsibility Been Provided?
I turn now to the second point: the claim that Osama bin Laden had authorized the attacks. Even if it refused to give the Taliban evidence for this claim, the Bush administration surely – most Americans probably assume – had such evidence and provided it to those who needed it. Again, however, reports from the time indicate otherwise.
A. The Bush Administration
Two weeks after 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he expected “in the near future . . . to put out . . . a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking [bin Laden] to this attack.”19 But at a joint press conference with President Bush the next morning, Powell withdrew this pledge, saying that “most of [the evidence] is classified.”20 Seymour Hersh, citing officials from both the CIA and the Department of Justice, said the real reason why Powell withdrew the pledge was a “lack of solid information.”21
B. The British Government
The following week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair issued a document to show that “Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001.” Blair’s report, however, began by saying: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.”22 So, the case was good enough to go to war, but not good enough to take to court. The next day, the BBC emphasized this weakness, saying: “There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.”23
C. The FBI
What about our own FBI? Its “Most Wanted Terrorist” webpage on “Usama bin Laden” does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted.24 When asked why not, the FBI’s chief of investigative publicity replied: “because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”25
D. The 9/11 Commission
What about the 9/11 Commission? Its entire report is based on the assumption that bin Laden was behind the attacks. However, the report’s evidence to support this premise has been disowned by the Commission’s own co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton.
This evidence consisted of testimony that had reportedly been elicited by the CIA from al-Qaeda operatives. The most important of these operatives was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – generally known simply as “KSM” – who has been called the “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks. If you read the 9/11 Commission’s account of how bin Laden planned the attacks, and then check the notes, you will find that almost every note says that the information came from KSM.26
In 2006, Kean and Hamilton wrote a book giving “the inside story of the 9/11 Commission,” in which they called this information untrustworthy. They had no success, they reported, in “obtaining access to star witnesses in custody . . . , most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”27 Besides not being allowed by the CIA to interview KSM, they were not permitted to observe his interrogation through one-way glass. They were not even allowed to talk to the interrogators.28 Therefore, Kean and Hamilton complained:
“We . . . had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information. How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . was telling us the truth?”29
They could not.
Accordingly, neither the Bush administration, the British government, the FBI, nor the 9/11 Commission ever provided good evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for the attacks.
E. Did Bin Laden Confess?
Some people argue, to be sure, that such evidence soon became unnecessary because bin Laden admitted his responsibility in a videotape that was discovered by the US military in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in November 2001. But besides the fact that bin Laden had previously denied his involvement many times,30 bin Laden experts have called this later video a fake,31 and for good reasons. Many of the physical features of the man in this video are different from those of Osama bin Laden (as seen in undoubtedly authentic videos), and he said many things that bin Laden himself would not have said.32
The FBI, in any case, evidently does not believe that this video provides hard evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11, or it would have revised its “Most Wanted Terrorist” page on him after this video surfaced.
So, to review the first two points: The Taliban said it would turn over bin Laden if our government would give it good evidence of his responsibility for 9/11, but our government refused. And good evidence of this responsibility has never been given to the public.
I turn now to the third claim: that, even if there is no proof that Osama bin Laden authorized the attacks, we have abundant evidence that the attacks were carried out by Muslims belonging to his al-Qaeda organization. I will divide the discussion of this third claim into two sections: Section 3a looks at the main support for this claim: evidence that Muslim hijackers were on the airliners. Section 3b looks at the strongest evidence against this claim: the collapse of World Trade Center 7.
3a. Evidence Al-Qaeda Muslims Were on the Airliners
It is still widely thought to have been established beyond question that the attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda. The truth, however, is that the evidence entirely falls apart upon examination, and this fact suggests that 9/11 was instead a false-flag attack – an attack that people within our own government orchestrated while planting evidence to implicate Muslims.
A. Devout Muslims?
Let us begin with the 9/11 Commission’s claim that the men who (allegedly) took over the planes were devout Muslims, ready to sacrifice their lives for their cause.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Atta and other hijackers had made “at least six trips” to Las Vegas, where they had “engaged in some decidedly un-Islamic sampling of prohibited pleasures.” The Chronicle then quoted the head of the Islamic Foundation of Nevada as saying: “True Muslims don’t drink, don’t gamble, don’t go to strip clubs.”33
The contradiction is especially strong with regard to Mohamed Atta. On the one hand, according to the 9/11 Commission, he was very religious, even “fanatically so.”34 This characterization was supported by Professor Dittmar Machule, who was Atta’s thesis supervisor at a technical university in Hamburg in the 1990s. Professor Machule says he knew his student only as Mohamed Al-Emir – although his full name was the same as his father’s: Mohamed Al-Emir Atta. In any case, Machule says that this young man was “very religious,” prayed regularly, and never touched alcohol.35
According to the American press, on the other hand, Mohamed Atta drank heavily and, one night after downing five glasses of Vodka, shouted an Arabic word that, Newsweek said, “roughly translates as ‘F–k God.’”36 Investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker, who wrote a book about Atta, stated that Atta regularly went to strip clubs, hired prostitutes, drank heavily, and took cocaine. Atta even lived with a stripper for several months and then, after she kicked him out, she reported, he came back and disemboweled her cat and dismembered its kittens.37
Could this be the same individual as Professor Machule’s student Mohamed Al-Emir, who would not even shake hands with a woman upon being introduced, and who never touched alcohol? “I would put my hand in the fire,” said the professor, “that this Mohamed El-Amir I know will never taste or touch alcohol.” Could the Atta described by Hopsicker and the American press be the young man whom this professor described as not a “bodyguard type” but “more a girl looking type”?38 Could the man who disemboweled a cat and dismembered its kittens be the young man known to his father as a “gentle and tender boy,” who was nicknamed “nightingale”?39
We are clearly talking about two different men. This is confirmed by the differences in their appearance. The American Atta was often described as having a hard, cruel face, and the standard FBI photo of him bears this out. The face of the Hamburg student was quite different, as photos available on the Internet show.40 Also, his professor described him as “very small,” being “one meter sixty-two” in height41 – which means slightly under 5’4” – whereas the American Atta has been described as 5’8” and even 5’10” tall.42
One final reason to believe that these different descriptions apply to different men: The father of Mohamed al-Emir Atta reported that on September 12, before either of them had learned of the attacks, his son called him and they “spoke for two minutes about this and that.”43
There are also problems in relation to many of the other alleged hijackers. For example, the BBC reported that Waleed al-Shehri, who supposedly died along with Atta on American Flight 11, spoke to journalists and American authorities in Casablanca the following week.44 Moreover, there were clearly two men going by the name Ziad Jarrah – the name of the alleged hijacker pilot of United Flight 93.45
Accordingly, besides the fact the men labeled “the hijackers” were not devout Muslims, they may not have even been Muslims of any type.
And if that were not bad enough for the official story, there is no good evidence that these men were even on the planes – all the evidence for this claim falls apart upon examination. I will illustrate this point with a few examples.46
B. Passports at the Crash Sites
One of the purported proofs that the 19 men identified as the hijackers were on the planes was the reported discovery of some of their passports at crash sites. But the reports of these discoveries are not believable.
For example, the FBI claimed that, while searching the streets after the destruction of the World Trade Center, they discovered the passport of Satam al-Suqami, one of the hijackers on American Flight 11, which had crashed into the North Tower.47 But for this to be true, the passport would have had to survive the collapse of the North Tower, which evidently pulverized almost everything in the building into fine particles of dust – except the steel and al-Suqami’s passport.
But this claim was too absurd to pass the giggle test: “[T]he idea that [this] passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged,” remarked a British commentator, “would [test] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI’s crackdown on terrorism.”48 By 2004, the claim had been modified to say that “a passer-by picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed.”49 So, rather than needing to survive the collapse of the North Tower, the passport merely needed to escape from al-Suqami’s pocket or luggage, then from the plane’s cabin, and then from the North Tower without being destroyed or even singed by the giant fireball.
This version was no less ridiculous than the first one, and the other stories about passports at crash sites are equally absurd.
C. Reported Phone Calls from the Airliners
It is widely believed, of course, that we know that there were hijackers on the airliners, thanks to numerous phone calls from passengers and crew members, in which they reported the hijackings. But we have good reasons to believe that these calls never occurred.
Reported Calls from Cell Phones: About 15 of the reported calls from the airliners were said to have been made on cell phones, with about 10 of those being from United Flight 93 – the one that reportedly crashed in Pennsylvania. Three or four of those calls were received by Deena Burnett, who knew that her husband, Tom Burnett, had used his cell phone, she told the FBI, because she recognized his cell phone number on her Caller ID.
However, given the cell phone technology available in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were not possible. They were generally not possible much above 1,000 feet, and were certainly impossible above 35,000 or even 40,000 feet, which was the altitude of the planes when most of the cell phone calls were supposedly made. Articles describing the impossibility of the calls were published in 2003 and 2004 by two well-known Canadians: A. K. Dewdney, formerly a columnist for Scientific American, and economist Michel Chossudovsky.50
Perhaps in response, the FBI changed the story. In 2006, it presented a report on the phone calls from the planes for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. In its report on United Flight 93, it said that cell phones were used for only two of the calls, both of which were made the plane, shortly before it crashed, had descended to a low altitude.51 These two calls were, in fact, the only two cell phone calls made from any of the airliners, the FBI report said.52 The FBI thereby avoided claiming that any high-altitude cell phone calls had been made.
But if the FBI’s new account is true, how do we explain that so many people reported receiving cell phone calls? Most of these people said that they had been told by the caller that he or she was using a cell phone, so we might suppose that their reports were based on bad hearing or faulty memory. But what about Deena Burnett, whose statement that she recognized her husband’s cell phone number on her Caller ID was made to the FBI that very day?53 If Tom Burnett used a seat-back phone, as the FBI’s 2006 report says, why did his cell phone number show up on his wife’s Caller ID? The FBI has not answered this question.
The only possible explanation seems to be that these calls were faked. Perhaps someone used voice morphing technology, which already existed at that time,54 in combination with a device for providing a fake Caller ID, which can be ordered on the Internet. Or perhaps someone used Tom’s cell phone to place fake calls from the ground. In either case, Tom Burnett did not actually call his wife from aboard United Flight 93. And if calls to Deena Burnett were faked, we must assume that all of the calls were – because if there had really been surprise hijackings, no one would have been prepared to make fake phone calls to her.
The Reported Calls from Barbara Olson: This conclusion is reinforced by the FBI’s report on phone calls from American Flight 77 – the one that supposedly struck the Pentagon. Ted Olson, the US Solicitor General, reported that his wife, Barbara Olson (a well-known commentator on CNN), had called him twice from this flight, with the first call lasting “about one (1) minute,”55 and the second call lasting “two or three or four minutes.”56 In these calls, he said, she reported that the plane had been taken over by hijackers armed with knives and box-cutters.
But how could she have made these calls? The plane was far too high for a cell phone to work. And American Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, and the 757s made for American Airlines – the 9/11 Truth Movement learned in 2005 – did not have onboard phones.57 Whether or not for this reason, the FBI’s report to the Moussaoui trial did not endorse Ted Olson’s story. Its report on telephone calls from American Flight 77 did mention Barbara Olson, but it attributed only one call to her, not two, and it said that this call was “unconnected,” so that it lasted “0 seconds.”58
This FBI report allows only two possibilities: Either Ted Olson engaged in deception, or he, like Deena Burnett, was duped by faked calls. In either case, the story about Barbara Olson’s calls, with their reports of hijackers taking over Flight 77, was based on deception.
The alleged phone calls, therefore, do not provide trustworthy evidence that there were hijackers on the planes.
D. Autopsy Reports and Flight Manifests
The public has widely assumed, due to misleading claims,59 that the names of the alleged hijackers were on the flight manifests for the four flights, and also that the autopsy report from the Pentagon contained the names of the hijackers said to have been on American Flight 77. However, the passenger manifests for the four airliners did not contain the names of any of the alleged hijackers and, moreover, they contained no Arab names whatsoever.60 Also, as a psychiatrist who was able to obtain a copy of the Pentagon autopsy report through a FOIA request discovered, it contained none of the names of the hijackers for American Flight 77 and, in fact, no Arab names whatsoever.61
E. Failure to Squawk the Hijack Code
Finally, the public has been led to believe that all the evidence about what happened on board the four airliners supported the claim that they were taken over by hijackers. This claim, however, was contradicted by something that did not happen. If pilots have any reason to believe that a hijacking may be in process, they are trained to enter the standard hijack code (7500) into their transponders to alert controllers on the ground. This is called “squawking” the hijack code. None of the eight pilots did this on 9/11, even though there would have been plenty of time: This act takes only two or three seconds and it would have taken longer than this for hijackers to break into the pilots’ cabins: According to official account of United Flight 93, for example, it took over 30 seconds for the hijackers to break into the cockpit.62
F. False-Flag Attack
It appears, therefore, that 9/11 was the most elaborate example yet of a false-flag attack, which occurs when countries, wanting to attack other countries, orchestrate attacks on their own people while planting evidence to implicate those other countries. Hitler did this when he was ready to attack Poland, which started the European part of World War II; Japan did it when it was ready to attack Manchuria, which started the Asian part of that war. In 1962, the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed false-flag attacks killing American citizens to provide a pretext for invading Cuba.63 This proposal was not put into effect because it was vetoed by President Kennedy. But in 2001, the White House was occupied by an administration that wanted to attack Afghanistan, Iraq, and several other predominantly Muslim countries,64 and so, it appears, evidence was planted to implicate Muslims.
3b. How the Collapse of WTC 7 Disproves the Al-Qaeda Theory
I turn now to the strongest evidence that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by insiders rather than foreign terrorists: the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center, which is the subject of my most recent book, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False.65
A. Mysterious Collapse
I speak of the “mysterious collapse” because the collapse of this building was, from the very beginning, seen as more mysterious than that of the Twin Towers. Given the fact that those two buildings were hit by planes, which started big fires, most people evidently thought – if wrongly – that the fact that these buildings came down was not problematic. But Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and yet it came down at 5:21 that afternoon.
This would mean, assuming that neither incendiaries nor explosives were used to demolish this building, that it had been brought down by fire alone, and this would have been an unprecedented occurrence. New York Times writer James Glanz wrote, “experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.” Glanz then quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [Building 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down?”66
Moreover, although Glanz spoke of an “uncontrolled fire,” there were significant fires on only six of this building’s 47 floors, and these fires were visible at most for three to four hours, and yet fires have burned in other steel-frame skyscrapers for 17 and 18 hours, turning them into towering infernos without causing collapse.67 So why did Building 7 come down? FEMA, which in 2002 put out the first official report on this building, admitted that its “best hypothesis” had “only a low probability of occurrence.”68
B. Reasons to Suspect Explosives
By its “best hypothesis,” FEMA meant the best hypothesis it could suggest consistent with the fact that it, as a government agency, could not posit the use of incendiaries and explosives. Why might anyone think that incendiaries and explosives brought this building down?
Precedent: One reason is simply that, prior to 9/11, every collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building was brought about by explosives, often in conjunction with incendiaries, in the procedure known as “controlled demolition.” Collapse has never been produced by fires, earthquakes, or any other cause other than controlled demolition.
Vertical Collapse: Another reason to posit controlled demolition is that this building came straight down, collapsing into its own footprint. For this to happen, all of this building’s 82 steel columns had to fail simultaneously. This is what happens in the type of controlled demolition known as “implosion.” It is not something that can be caused by fires.
Simply seeing a video of the building coming down makes it obvious to anyone with knowledge of these things that explosives were used to bring it down. On 9/11 itself, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said:
“[I]t’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen . . . on television . . . , where a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.”69
In 2006, a filmmaker asked Danny Jowenko, the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands, to comment on a video of the collapse of Building 7 without telling him what it was. (Jowenko had never heard that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.) After viewing the video, Jowenko said: “They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition.” When asked if he was certain, he replied: “Absolutely, it’s been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.”70
An organization called “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth,” which was formed in 2007, now has over 1,200 members. Many of them, as one can see by reading their statements, joined after they saw a video of Building 7’s collapse.71
In light of all of these considerations, a truly scientific investigation, which sought the truth about Building 7, would have begun with the hypothesis that it had been deliberately demolished.
C. NIST’s Report as Political, Not Scientific
However, this hypothesis did not provide the starting point for NIST – the National Institute of Standards and Technology – which took over from FEMA the responsibility for writing the official report on the destruction of the World Trade Center. Rather, NIST said:
“The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC 7 under an ordinary building contents fire.”72
So, although every other steel-frame building that has collapsed did so because explosives (perhaps along with incendiaries) were used to destroy its support columns, NIST said, in effect: “We think fire brought down WTC 7.” To understand why NIST started with this hypothesis, it helps to know that it is an agency of the Commerce Department, which means that all the years it was working on its World Trade Center reports, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration.
Also, a scientist who had worked for NIST reported that by 2001 it had been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” so that scientists working there had “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”73
One manifestation of NIST’s political nature may be the fact that it delayed its report on Building 7 year after year, releasing it only late in 2008, when the Bush-Cheney administration was preparing to leave office.
Be that as it may, NIST did in August of 2008 finally put out a report in the form of a draft for public comment. Announcing this draft report at a press conference, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, said:
“Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery. WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives.”74
Sunder added that “science is really behind what we have said.”75
However, far from being supported by good science, NIST’s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud. Two of the major types of scientific fraud, as defined by the National Science Foundation, are fabrication, which is “making up results,” and falsification, which means either “changing or omitting data.”76 I will begin with falsification.
D. NIST’S Falsification of Testimonial Evidence Pointing to Explosives
Claiming that it “found no evidence of a . . . controlled demolition event,”77 NIST simply omitted or distorted all such evidence, some of which was testimonial.
Two city officials, Barry Jennings of the Housing Authority and Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel, reported that they became trapped by a massive explosion in Building 7 shortly after they arrived there at 9:00 AM. NIST, however, claimed that what they called an explosion was really just the impact of debris from the collapse of the North Tower, which did not occur until 10:28. But Jennings explicitly said that they were trapped before either of the Twin Towers came down, which means that the explosion that he and Hess reported occurred before 9:59, when the South Tower came down. NIST rather obviously, therefore, distorted these men’s testimonial evidence.
Other people reported that explosions went off in the late afternoon, when the building started to come down. Reporter Peter Demarco of the New York Daily News said:
“[T]here was a rumble. The building’s top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.”78
NIST dealt with such testimonies by simply ignoring them.
E. NIST’s Omission of Physical Evidence for Explosives
NIST also ignored a lot of physical evidence that Building 7 was brought down by explosives.
Swiss-Cheese Steel: For example, three professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute discovered a piece of steel from Building 7 that had melted so severely that it had holes in it, making it look like Swiss cheese.79 The New York Times, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”80 The three professors, in a report included as an appendix to the 2002 FEMA report, said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed.”81
When NIST’s report on Building 7 appeared, however, it did not mention this mysterious piece of steel. It even claimed that no recovered steel from this building had been identified.82 And this was just the beginning of NIST’s omission of physical evidence.
Particles of Metal in the Dust: The nearby Deutsche Bank building was heavily contaminated by dust produced when the World Trade Center was destroyed. But the bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that the dust in the bank was ordinary building dust, not dust that resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group, a scientific research organization, to do a study, which showed that the dust in this building was WTC dust, with a unique chemical signature. Part of this signature was “[s]pherical iron . . . particles,”83 and this meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.”84
Iron does not melt until it reaches 2,800°F (1,538°C), which is about 1,000 degrees F (540 degrees C) higher than the fires could have been. The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization”85 – meaning 3,180°F (1,749°C).86
Another study was carried out by scientists at the US Geological Survey. Besides also finding iron particles, these scientists found that molybdenum had been melted87 – even though its melting point is extremely high: 4,753°F (2,623°C).88
These two studies proved, therefore, that something had produced temperatures many times higher than the fires could have produced. NIST, however, made no mention of these studies. But even this was not the end of the physical evidence omitted by NIST.
Nanothermite Residue: A report by several scientists, including University of Copenhagen chemist Niels Harrit, showed that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite. Whereas ordinary thermite is an incendiary, nanothermite is a high explosive. This report by Harrit and his colleagues did not appear until 2009,89 several months after the publication of NIST’s final report in November 2008. But NIST should have, as a matter of routine, tested the WTC dust for signs of incendiaries, such as ordinary thermite, and explosives, such as nanothermite.
When asked whether it did, however, NIST said that it did not. When a reporter asked Michael Newman, a NIST spokesman, why not, Newman replied: “[B]ecause there was no evidence of that.” “But,” asked the reporter, “how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?” Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”90
F. NIST’s Fabrication of Evidence to Support Its Own Theory
Besides omitting and distorting evidence to deny the demolition theory of Building 7’s collapse, NIST also fabricated evidence – simply made it up – to support its own theory.
No Girder Shear Studs: NIST’s explanation as to how fire caused Building 7 to collapse starts with thermal expansion, meaning that the fire heated up the steel, thereby causing it to expand. An expanding steel beam on the 13th floor, NIST claimed, caused a steel girder attached to a column to break loose. Having lost its support, this column failed, starting a chain reaction in which the other 81 columns failed, causing a progressive collapse.91 Ignoring the question of whether this is even remotely plausible, let us simply ask: Why did that girder fail? Because, NIST claimed, it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote: In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders.92 Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs.93 This was a fabrication, as we can see by looking at NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published in 2004. That report, written before NIST had developed its girder-failure theory, stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by means of shear studs.94
A Raging Fire on Floor 12 at 5:00 PM: Another case of fabrication is a graphic in NIST’s report showing that at 5:00 PM, there were very big fires covering much of the north face of Floor 12.95 This claim is essential to NIST’s explanation as to why the building collapsed 21 minutes later. However, if you look back at NIST’s 2004 report, you will find this statement:
“Around 4:45 PM, a photograph showed fires on Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.”96
Other photographs even show that the 12th floor fire had virtually burned out by 4:00. And yet NIST, in its final report, claims that fires were still raging on this floor at 5:00 PM.
G. NIST’s Affirmation of a Miracle
In addition to omitting, falsifying, and fabricating evidence, NIST affirms a miracle. You have perhaps seen the cartoon in which a physics professor has written a proof on a chalkboard. Most of the steps consist of mathematical equations, but one of them simply says: “Then a miracle happens.” This is humorous because one thing you absolutely cannot do in science is to appeal to a miracle, even implicitly. And yet that is what NIST does. I will explain:
NIST’S Denial of Free Fall: Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement had long been pointing out that Building 7 came down at the same rate as a free-falling object, at least virtually so.
In NIST’s Draft for Public Comment, put out in August 2008, it denied this, saying that the time it took for the upper floors – the only floors that are visible on the videos – to come down “was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles.”97
As this statement implies, any assertion that the building did come down in free fall would not be consistent with physical principles – meaning the laws of physics. Explaining why not, Shyam Sunder said:
“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”98
In saying this, Sunder was presupposing NIST’s rejection of controlled demolition – which could have produced a free-fall collapse by causing all 82 columns to fail simultaneously – in favor of NIST’s fire theory, which necessitated a theory of progressive collapse.
Chandler’s Challenge: In response, high-school physics teacher David Chandler challenged Sunder’s denial of free fall, pointing out that Sunder’s “40 percent longer” claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”99 Chandler then placed a video on the Internet showing that, by measuring this publicly visible quantity, anyone knowing elementary physics could see that “for about two and a half seconds. . . , the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”100
NIST Admits Free Fall: Amazingly, in NIST’s final report, which came out in November, it admitted free fall. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, NIST described the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds].”101 (“Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.)
So, after presenting over 600 pages of descriptions, graphs, testimonies, photographs, charts, analyses, explanations, and mathematical formulae, NIST says, in effect: “Then a miracle happens.”
Why this would be a miracle was explained by Chandler, who said: “Free fall can only be achieved if there is zero resistance to the motion.”102 In other words, the upper portion of Building 7 could have come down in free fall only if something had suddenly removed all the steel and concrete in the lower part of the building, which would have otherwise provided resistance. If everything had not been removed and the upper floors had come down in free fall anyway, even for only a second or two, a miracle – meaning a violation of the laws of physics – would have happened.
That was what Sunder himself had explained the previous August, saying that a free-falling object would be one “that has no structural components below it” to offer resistance.
But then in November, while still defending the fire theory of collapse, NIST admitted that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened. For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”103
Knowing that it had thereby affirmed a miracle, NIST no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics. In its August draft, in which it had said that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said three times that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.”104 In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by admitting free fall while continuing to deny that explosives were used, is not consistent with the principles of physics.
Conclusion about WTC 7: The science of World Trade Center 7 is, therefore, settled. This fact is reflected in the agreement by many hundreds of professionals with various forms of expertise – architects, engineers, firefighters, physicists, and chemists – that this building was deliberately demolished.
This truth has also recently been recognized by a symposium in one of our leading social science journals, which treats 9/11 as an example of what its authors call State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs).105 Criticizing the majority of the academic world for its “blithe dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics” that is violated by the official theory of the World Trade Center collapses, these authors also criticize the academy for its failure to protest when “Professor Steven Jones found himself forced out of tenured position for merely reminding the world that physical laws, about which there is no dissent whatsoever, contradict the official theory.”106
And now the world can see, if it will only look, that even NIST, in its final report, did not dissent: By admitting that Building 7 came down in free fall for over two seconds, while simultaneously removing its previous claim that its report was consistent with physical principles, NIST implicitly admitted that the laws of physics rule out its non-demolition theory of this building’s collapse. NIST thereby implicitly admitted that explosives were used.
H. Implications for the Al-Qaeda Theory of 9/11
And with that implicit admission, NIST undermined the al-Qaeda theory of 9/11. Why?
For one thing, the straight-down nature of the collapse of WTC 7 means that it was subjected to the type of controlled demolition known as “implosion,” which is, in the words of a controlled demolition website, “by far the trickiest type of explosive project,” which “only a handful of blasting companies in the world . . . possess enough experience . . . to perform.”107 Al-Qaeda terrorists would not have had this kind of expertise.
Second, the only reason to go to the trouble of bringing a building straight down is to avoid damaging nearby buildings. Had WTC 7 and the Twin Towers – which also came straight down, after initial explosions at the top that ejected sections of steel outward several hundred feet108 – instead toppled over sideways, they would have caused massive destruction in Lower Manhattan, destroying dozens of other buildings and killing tens of thousands of people. Does anyone believe that, even if al-Qaeda operatives had had the expertise to make the buildings come straight down, they would have had the courtesy?
A third problem is that foreign terrorists could not have obtained access to the buildings for all the hours it would have taken to plant explosives. Only insiders could have done this.109
The science of the collapse of World Trade Center 7, accordingly, disproves the claim – which from the outset has been used to justify the war in Afghanistan – that America was attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda Muslims. It suggests, instead, that 9/11 was a false-flag operation to provide a pretext to attack Muslim nations.
In any case, the official rationale for our presence in Afghanistan is a lie. We are there for other reasons. Critics have offered various suggestions as to the most important of those reasons.110 Whatever be the answer to that question, however, we have not been there to apprehend the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Besides never being legally justified, therefore, the war in Afghanistan has never been morally justified.
This war, moreover, is an abomination. In addition to the thousands of US and other NATO troops who have been killed or impaired for life, physically and/or mentally, the US-led invasion/occupation of Afghanistan has resulted in a huge number of Afghan casualties, with estimates running from several hundred thousand to several million.111 But whatever the true number, the fact is that the United States has produced a great amount of death and misery – sometimes even bombing funerals and wedding parties – in this country that had already suffered terribly and that, even if the official story were true, had not attacked America. The fact that the official story is a lie makes our war crimes even worse.112
But there is a way out. As I have shown in this paper and even more completely elsewhere,113 the falsity of the official account of WTC 7 has now been demonstrated, leaving no room for reasonable doubt. In his inaugural address, President Obama said, “We will restore science to its rightful place,”114 thereby pledging that in his administration, unlike that of his predecessor, science would again be allowed to play a determinative role in shaping public policy. By changing his administration’s policy with regard to Afghanistan in light of the science of WTC 7, the president would not only fulfill one of his most important promises. He would also prevent the war in Afghanistan from becoming known as “Obama’s Vietnam.”115
David Ray Griffin is the author of 36 books on various topics, including philosophy, theology, philosophy of science, and 9/11. His 2008 book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, was named a “Pick of the Week” by Publishers Weekly. In September 2009, The New Statesman ranked him #41 among “The 50 People Who Matter Today.” His most recent book is The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False (2009). His next book will be Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (September 2010). He wishes to thank Tod Fletcher, Jim Hoffman, and Elizabeth Woodworth for help with this essay.
1 For a few of the many times this issue has been raised, see Jeffrey T. Kuhner, “Obama’s Vietnam?” Washington Times, January 25, 2009 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/25/obamas-vietnam); Juan Cole, “Obama’s Vietnam?” Salon.com, January 26, 2009 (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/01/26/obama/print.html); John Barry and Evan Thomas, “Afghanistan: Obama’s Vietnam,” Newsweek, January 31, 2009 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/182650).
2 Marjorie Cohn, “Bombing of Afghanistan Is Illegal and Must Be Stopped,” Jurist, November 6, 2001 (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew36.htm).
3 Marjorie Cohn, “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War,” AlterNet, August 1, 2008 (http://www.alternet.org/world/93473/afghanistan:_the_other_illegal_war).
4 President Barack Obama, “The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, ” Remarks at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, December 1, 2009 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34231058).
5 “Security Council Condemns, ‘In Strongest Terms,’ Terrorist Attacks on United States,” September 12, 2001 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm).
6 Brian J. Foley “Legal Analysis: U.S. Campaign Against Afghanistan Not Self-Defense Under International Law,” Lawyers Against the War (http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/foley3.html).
7 “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” US Constitution, Article VI, par. 2.
8 See Richard Falk and Howard Friel, The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy (London: Verso, 2007).
9 Obama, “The Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan .”
10 For example, Robert H. Reid, writing for the Associated Press (“August Deadliest Month for US in Afghanistan,” Associated Press, August 29, 2009 [http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latest-news/august-deadliest-month-for-us-in-afghanistan]), said the war “was launched by the Bush administration after the Taliban government refused to hand over Osama bin Laden for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States.”
11 “White House Warns Taliban: ‘We Will Defeat You,’” CNN, September 21, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/21/ret.afghan.taliban).
12 David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens, “Diplomats Met with Taliban on Bin Laden,” Washington Post, October 29, 2001 (http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm).
13 “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand Bin Laden Over,” Guardian, October 14, 2001 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5).
14 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Obama Defends Strategy in Afghanistan,” New York Times, August 18, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/us/politics/18vets.html?_r=1&th&emc=th).
15 See the two chapters entitled “The New Great Game” in Ahmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), and Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (New York: Penguin, 2004).
16 Rashid, Taliban, 75-79, 163, 175.
17 Quoted in Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2002), 43.
18 George Arney, “U.S. ‘Planned Attack on Taleban,’” BBC News, September 18, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm).
19 “Meet the Press,” NBC, September 23, 2001 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/nbctext092301.html).
20 “Remarks by the President, Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order,” White House, September 24, 2001 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/president_026.asp).
21 Seymour M. Hersh, “What Went Wrong: The C.I.A. and the Failure of American Intelligence,” New Yorker, October 1, 2001 (http://web.archive.org/web/20020603150854/http://www.cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Hersch_OCT_01.htm).
22 Office of the Prime Minister, “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States,” BBC News, October 4, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm).
23 “The Investigation and the Evidence,” BBC News, October 5, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm).
24 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Most Wanted Terrorists: Usama bin Laden” (http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm).
25 Ed Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20061107114035/http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html). For more on this episode, see David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink], 2008), Chap. 18.
26 See The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition (New York: W. W. Norton, 2004), Chap. 5, notes 16, 41, and 92.
27 Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006), 118.
28 Ibid., 122-24.
29 Ibid., 119.
30 David Ray Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009), 27-29.
31 Professor Bruce Lawrence interviewed by Kevin Barrett, February 16, 2007 (http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce).
32 Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? 16, 29-33.
33 Kevin Fagan, “Agents of Terror Leave Their Mark on Sin City,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 4, 2001 (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL).
34 The 9/11 Commission Report, 160.
35 “Professor Dittmar Machule,” Interviewed by Liz Jackson, A Mission to Die For, Four Corners, October 18, 2001 (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/interviews/machule.htm).
36 Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball, “Bush: ‘We’re at War,” Newsweek, September 24, 2001 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/76065).
37 Daniel Hopsicker, Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9-11 Cover-Up in Florida (Eugene, OR: MadCow Press, 2004). See also Hopsicker, “The Secret World of Mohamed Atta: An Interview With Atta’s American Girlfriend,” InformationLiberation, August 20, 2006 (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14738). Many of the details are summarized in my 9/11 Contradictions, Chap. 15, “Were Mohamed Atta and the Other Hijackers Devout Muslims?” As I explain in that chapter, there were efforts to try to discredit Keller’s account by intimidating her into recanting and by claiming that she lived with a different man having the same first name, but these attempts failed.
38 “Professor Dittmar Machule.”
39 Kate Connolly, “Father Insists Alleged Leader Is Still Alive,” Guardian, September 2, 2002 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa).
40 “Photographs Taken of Mohamed Atta during His University Years,” A Mission to Die For, Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resources/photos/university.htm). Also, the differences between the (bearded) Atta in his passport photo, which is in the FBI’s evidence for the Moussaoui trial, and the Atta of the standard FBI photo, seem greater than can be accounted for by the fact that only the former Atta is bearded. The two photos can be compared at 911Review (http://911review.org/JohnDoe2/Atta.html).
41 “Professor Dittmar Machule.”
42 Thomas Tobin, “Florida: Terror’s Launching Pad,” St. Petersburg Times, September 1, 2002 (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/Florida__terror_s_lau.shtml); Elaine Allen-Emrich, “Hurt for Terrorists Reaches North Port,” Charlotte Sun-Herald, September 14, 2001 (available at http://www.madcowprod.com/keller.htm).
43 Connolly, “Father Insists Alleged Leader Is Still Alive.”
44 David Bamford, “Hijack ‘Suspect’ Alive in Morocco,” BBC, September 22, 2001 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1558669.stm). Although some news organizations, including the BBC itself, later tried to debunk this story, they failed, as I reported in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 151-53.
45 See Jay Kolar, “What We Now Know about the Alleged 9-11 Hijackers,” in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11 (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2008), 3-44, at 22-26; and Paul Thompson, “The Two Ziad Jarrahs,” History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayjarrah).
46 For types of evidence not discussed here, see Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, Chap. 8, “9/11 Commission Falsehoods about Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Pakistanis, and Saudis.”
47 “Ashcroft Says More Attacks May Be Planned,” CNN, September 18, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html); “Terrorist Hunt,” ABC News, September 12, 2001 (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/abc_hunt.html).
48 Anne Karpf, “Uncle Sam’s Lucky Finds,” Guardian, March 19, 2002 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html). Like some others, this article mistakenly said the passport belonged to Mohamed Atta.
49 Statement by Susan Ginsburg, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, at the 9/11 Commission Hearing, January 26, 2004 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing7/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-01-26.htm). The Commission’s account reflected a CBS report that the passport had been found “minutes after” the attack, which had been stated by the Associated Press, January 27, 2003.
50 A. K. Dewdney, “The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93,” Physics 911, June 9, 2003 (http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm); Michel Chossudovsky, “More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls,” Global Research, August 10, 2004 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html). For discussion of this issue, see Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 112-14.
51 Greg Gordon, “Prosecutors Play Flight 93 Cockpit Recording,” McClatchy Newspapers, KnoxNews.com, April 12, 2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20080129210016/http://www.knoxsingles.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=MOUSSAOUI-04-12-06&cat=WW).
52 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be viewed more easily in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights” (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
53 “Interview with Deena Lynne Burnett (re: phone call from hijacked flight),” 9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11, 2001, Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008 (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).
54 William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing,” Washington Post, February 1, 1999 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm). For discussion, see Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 114-18.
55 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” 9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11, 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008, (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).
56 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).
57 See David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo, “Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls? An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones,” Pilots for 9/11 Truth, June 26, 2007 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html).
58 See the graphic in Jim Hoffman’s “Detailed Account of Telephone Calls from September 11th Flights,” Flight 77 (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html).
59 For claims about hijackers’ names on the flight manifests, see Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror (New York: Free Press, 2004), 13; George Tenet, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 167-69; and my discussion in Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 174-75. On claims about hijacker names on the Pentagon autopsy report, see Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts: An In-Depth Investigation by Popular Mechanics, ed. David Dunbar and Brad Reagan (New York: Hearst Books, 2006), 63, and my discussion of its claim in David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2007], 267-69.
60 See Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 163, 174-75.
61 Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D. “Still No Arabs on Flight 77,” Rense.com, June 23, 2003 (http://www.rense.com/general38/77.htm).
62 See The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 275-79.
63 See David Ray Griffin, Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), Chap. 1, “9/11 and Prior False Flag Operations.”
64 General Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire (New York: Public Affairs, 2003), 120, 130; “Gen. Wesley Clark Weights Presidential Bid: ‘I Think about It Everyday,’” Democracy Now! March 2, 2007 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234); Joe Conason, “Seven Countries in Five Years,” Salon.com, October 12, 2007 (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/10/12/wesley_clark); Gareth Porter, “Yes, the Pentagon Did Want to Hit Iran,” Asia Times, May 7, 2008 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JE07Ak01.html).
65 David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009).
66 James Glanz, “Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel,” New York Times, November 29, 2001 (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html).
67 See FEMA, “High-Rise Office Building Fire, One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania” ( http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf), and “Fire Practically Destroys Venezuela’s Tallest Building,” Venezuela News, Views, and Analysis, October 18, 2004 (http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/741).
68 See FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf), Chap. 5, Sect. 6.2, “Probable Collapse Sequence,” at p. 31.
69 Rather’s statement is available on YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o).
70 See “Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 Controlled Demolition,” YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc), or, for more of the interview, “Jowenko WTC 7 Demolition Interviews,” in three parts ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&feature=related).
71 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org).
72 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, November 2008, Vol. 1 (wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201.pdf), 330.
73 “NIST Whistleblower,” October 1, 2007 (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/10/former-nist-employee-blows-whistle.html).
74 Shyam Sunder, “Opening Statement,” NIST Press Briefing, August 21, 2008 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html).
75 Quoted in “Report: Fire, Not Bombs, Leveled WTC 7 Building,” USA Today, August 21, 2008 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-21-wtc-nist_N.htm).
76 New Research Misconduct Policies, section headed “What is Research Misconduct?” National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General ( http://www.nsf.gov/oig/session.pdf). This document is undated, but internal evidence suggests that it was published in 2001.
77 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1: 324.
78 Quoted in Chris Bull and Sam Erman, eds., At Ground Zero: Young Reporters Who Were There Tell Their Stories (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 2002), 97.
79 Joan Killough-Miller, “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring 2002 (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html).
80 James Glanz and Eric Lipton, “A Search for Clues in Towers’ Collapse,” New York Times, February 2, 2002 (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/02/nyregion/search-for-clues-towers-collapse-engineers-volunteer-examine-steel-debris-taken.html).
81 Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and Richard D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, May 2002, Appendix C ( http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf), C-13.
82 “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation,” NIST, August 21, 2008, updated April 21, 2009). NIST has removed both versions of this document from its website, but Jim Hoffman’s website has preserved both the original (2008) version (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_082108.html) and the updated (2009) version (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/nist/wtc_qa_042109.html).
83 RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature,” Expert Report, May 2004 (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf), 11.
84 RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Study: Composition and Morphology,” December 2003 (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf), 17. This earlier (2003) version of the RJ Lee report contained much more information about melted iron than the 2004 version. For discussion, see Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse, 40-42.
85 RJ Lee Group, “WTC Dust Signature Study” (2003), 21.
86 WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web (http://www.webelements.com/lead/physics.html).
87 Steven E. Jones et al., “Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction,” Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008 ( http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf), 4-5.
88 WebElements: The Periodic Table on the Web (http://www.webelements.com/molybdenum/physics.html).
89 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Observed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2: 7-31 (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm).
90 Jennifer Abel, “Theories of 9/11,” Hartford Advocate, January 29, 2008 (http://www.ae911truth.org/press/23).
91 See The Mysterious Collapse, 150-55.
92 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1: 346.
93 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, November 2008, Vol. 2 ( http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf), 462.
94 For documentation and discussion of NIST’s claim about the lack of girder shear studs, see Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse, 212-15.
95 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2: 384, Figure 9-11.
96 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST, June 2004 ( http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf), L-26. This contradiction is pointed out in a video, “NIST Report on WTC7 Debunked and Exposed!” YouTube, December 28, 2008 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY), at 0:45 to 1:57.
97 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment, Vol. 2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf), 595.
98 “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” (video), NIST, August 26, 2008, at 1:03. NIST has removed this video and the accompanying transcript from the Internet. However, Nate Flach has made the video available at Vimeo ( http://vimeo.com/11941571), and the transcript, entitled “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on WTC 7 for Public Comment,” is available at David Chandler’s website ( http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf).
99 Ibid., at 1:01:45.
100 David Chandler, “WTC7 in Freefall – No Longer Controversial,” September 4, 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I), at 2:45.
101 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2: 607
102 Chandler, “WTC7 in Freefall – No Longer Controversial,” at 3:27.
103 “Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation.”
104 NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment, Vol. 2: 595-96, 596, 610.
105 Symposium on State Crimes Against Democracy, American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010): 783-939 (http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6).
106 Matthew T. Witt, “Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship,” American Behavioral Scientist 53 (February 2010): 921-39 (http://abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6), at 935.
107 “The Myth of Implosion” (http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk2.html).
108 See Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 30-31.
109 As to how domestic terrorists could have gotten access, an answer becomes possible if we are aware that Larry Silverstein, who owned Building 7 and had recently taken out a lease on the rest of the World Trade Center, stood to make several billion dollars if it was destroyed in a terrorist attack, and that a brother and cousin of George W. Bush were principals of a company that handled security for the World Trade Center (Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, 111).Global Research
110 Some have seen drug profits as central. Others have focused on access to oil, natural gas, and minerals. For example, economist Michel Chossudovsky, referring to the allegedly recent discovery of huge reserves of minerals and natural gas in Afghanistan, wrote: “The issue of ‘previously unknown deposits’ sustains a falsehood. It excludes Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth as a justifiable casus belli. It says that the Pentagon only recently became aware that Afghanistan was among the World’s most wealthy mineral economies . . . [whereas in reality] all this information was known in minute detail” (Michel Chossudovsky, “’The War is Worth Waging’: Afghanistan’s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas: The War on Afghanistan is a Profit Driven ‘Resource War,’” Global Research, June 17, 2010 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19769).
111 Dr. Gideon Polya, author of Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950, has estimated that there over four million Afghanis have died since the 2001 than would have died without the invasion; see “January 2010 – 4.5 Million Dead in Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide,” January 2, 2010, Afghan Holocaust, Afghan Genocide (http://afghangenocide.blogspot.com).
112 On US-NATO war crimes in Afghanistan, see Marc W. Herold, “Media Distortion: Killing Innocent Afghan Civilians to ‘Save our Troops’: Eight Years of Horror Perpetrated against the People of Afghanistan,” Global Research, October 15, 2009 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15665).
113 See The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7, and, more recently, “Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight,” 911Truth.org, May 27, 2010 (http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20100527162010811).
114 “Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address,” New York Times, January 20, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html).
115 I wish to thank Tod Fletcher and Elizabeth Woodworth for considerable help with this essay.
Prof. David Ray Griffin, Claremont School of Theology; June 25,2010)
Must Watch 9-11 Truth Videos
Barrie Zwicker–2–13–08 TV Interview
Barrie Zwicker on the 911 Solution
Video and Media Scripting
Demonizing 9-11 Truth by Congressional Hearings
Bush Insider Says 9-11 Was an Inside Job
9-11 What You Are Not Being Told Videos
50 TOP REASONS WHY 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
Over 3,000 people died that September day with a further 4,000 American soldiers and 1,000 contractors in Iraq. Well over a million innocent Iraqi men, woman and children now rot in their graves. Hundreds of thousands are so disfigured, injured or full of poisons death will be a relief. Along with the deaths, we now have over 25,000 American soldiers horribly wounded, some for life.
The conclusion is inescapable anymore: 9/11 was in fact, an INSIDE JOB perpetrated on the American people and the world. Multiple motives are behind it: The excuse to finish off Saddam Hussein once and for all. To steal the region’s oil by running oil pipelines through Afghanistan and from Iraq to Israel. To institute the New World Order on the America populace by removing our Constitutional Freedoms to unroll the North American Union and eventually, once the Stalinistic infrastructure is in place, an openly “Zionist/Noahide” regime. Most likely a combination of all these things to various degrees. Did I mention also an opportunity to destroy a culture and offer more burned sacrifices to our gods?But just think about that day for a minute: Let’s say you were in one of those towers that bright, beautiful morning. After an explosion, out of the clear blue sky, you’re suddenly confronted by choosing death from burning alive or hurling yourself off a building 85 stories up. But if you were trapped someplace deep within in the building ~ then your only fate was to be blasted into smithereens in a explosive avalanche of cement and steel. Don’t the people who died this way deserve real justice instead of all the BS propaganda?
The people who did this, could care less about you or me. For them, we are nothing but ”Goyim” or cattle ~ utter nobodies ~ slave laborers or cannon fodder at best. If they could arrange it for you and your children to go fight their wars for them and die for them, so much the better. Since they know that they cannot continue to fool you forever with the terrorist mantra, they must think ahead and destroy any possible way for you to organize and bring them to justice. For this, they may have a lot of resources and money but, in the end, do not have right on their side.
Sooner or later, the people will indeed prevail, especially now that all the secrets are flooding out. The Internet has given us the chance to break free from the controlled media and compare notes, so to speak. And that’s why time is running short, whether you believe it all or not, because they cannot allow this kind of talk to go on for much longer. It’s the only conclusion, possible.
One of the biggest resources they have is owning the traitorous media, who have been quite careful and disingenious about this subject. Sure, they’ve covered the “incompetence angle” since this is relatively safe subject to cover (and yet no one has ever been fired or demoted over 9/11 so we know that’s a lie). If you look at the subjects they ignore or ridicule, you’ll see that the only possible explanation that fits everything across the board, is that it was a purposeful ”false-flag” attack on America to stir up our patriotism and committed by the very people who claim to have our best interests in mind. What a sad and sorry laugh.
As such, the American media is totally complicit in the whole affair. Editors and reporters all know this but realize that to cover any of it in-depth means serious career trouble, let alone getting it on the air. The Congress and Senate must also know all this, but are too afraid of speaking out for what it could mean to this country and them. And what it means is so frightful and startling that they cannot talk about it openly. This is so far beyond Nixon’s “dirty tricks” as to be a sickening to a person’s stomach.
We are being lied to. No question about it. There are people in Washington, New York and Tel Aviv right now, who are evil criminals and murderers, or accomplices to such men. The people behind all of this need to be ~ have to be ~ frog-marched, while wearing orange jump suits into court for the entire World to witness. Even if it’s the dam Pope himself!
The Globalists behind all of this and what they did that day, constitute a shadow government ~ made-up of a combined group of radical Zionists and elite Gentile traitors who have been the real power in the Western world. No group could have perpetrated such a plot, nor have covered it up unless such was the case.
This goes far beyond any “Big Oil” fatcats or “Military/Industrial” complex slimeballs (and yes, they are a big part). The only totally inclusive answer possible to the whole thing, is pretty much what the Neonazi and Skinheads have been saying all these years: The US is, in fact, under some degree of “Zionist Occupied Government” (ZOG) as we speak! There can be no question after 9/11.
Just look at who’s in charge of our Homeland Security (Chertoff) and our new Attorney General (Mukasey) ~ who made it in by the final efforts of the Jew Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (a corrupt politician). Chertoff and Mukesey have many connections to 9/11. And look into the new Big Brother, anti-Free speech legislation coming up (S-1959) sponsored by the AIPAC-affiliated Jewess Jane Harman (D-CA) of Congress.
All this is just the tip of the iceberg. My whole dam blog has even more for you to read about! See “You Can’t Handle The Truth!” or the series on how they’re doing it to us: “You Need To Seriously Consider…”
Look at the people behind the Federal Reserve Banks and all the New World Order groups such as the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Look at the connections to Great Britain, the Bank of England and the history of the Crown. What do you see? Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Kissinger. Sure, there’s a few others in the mix to varying degrees. These are the “Transnational Elites,” not only responsible for 9/11 (the radical Zionist part), but these are the exact same people behind turning this country into a Third-World mess with immigration, destruction of our financial system and the outright assassination of the middle class and decent wages for all.
And of course, we have our good buddies George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Traitorous minions to the above (called “Shabbos Goys”). And these rich Jews are not the same types of Jews you chum around with, either. These are the hard-core, mega-wealthy Zionists, who’s only concern is for the State of Israel and certainly not for you, pal!
You think, for one minute, it could really be some secret “Big-Oil Nazi Neocons” and all still be ignored and ridiculed by the predominately Jew-owned media ~ the very same media that runs celebratory news stories and photo spreads about expanding globalist business in Third-world nations? If you do ~ then you just have to be the Goyim-sucker they think is out there.
People just don’t want to confront any of this. It scares them witless because of what it might mean to their little lives. That’s the big problem and that’s why such evil people can now get away with literally murder. People are only concerned about themselves and selfish to the point of utter idiocy. They cannot, will not, extrapolate out that such uncontested evil will one day catch-up to them, or their children, personally and in a big dam way!
Christians are not wired to sink to the bottom dwelling level of those who are taught to hate, steal and kill. We are taught to forgive, turn the other cheek, give another chance. They take full advantage of our communal naivete and use it against us.
The following list of facts about 9/11 will convince any of you of the hard, brutal truths of that day. There can be no denying it any longer. Research any of it. Together, these facts make up a searing indictment that can no longer be ignored by the public.
1) NORAD had a Hijacking Exercise scheduled for the exact day and probably the exact same hour. This was called operation Vigilant Warrior and covered up by the 9/11 commission until 2006. Also, the evidence strongly suggests that the NORAD/FAA controller tapes were tampered with to hide this fact.
NORAD appears to have stood down during the critical time period when it was obvious that attacks from the air were occurring. What are the chances of all this being a mere coincidence? This unbelievable congruence must be understood for what it was: A smokescreen purposefully used by the real plotters!
Interestingly, in London, on the day of the bombing, the very same sort of trial run was taking place there!
2) Such plots have been considered before. The Pentagon had a convoluted plan to blow up an Airliner near Cuba and blame it on Fidel Castro as an excuse to invade in 1962. Called “Operation Northwoods” it came close to Kennedy signing off on it but Robert Kennedy advised him against it.
3) In 1999, a report called “The Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) was signed off by numerous Pro-Israeli Neocons who are still in power today. In it, they described a ”Pearl Harbor type attack” as needed to galvanize the American public to go to war.
4) The CIA has a history of False Flag terrorist attacks such as Operation Gladio in Europe during the Cold War and in Chili (Kissinger was behind this). The Israeli MOSSAD does as well with the Lavon Affair in the ’50’s, and numerous other crimes since, like the fake Al-Qaeda cell created in the West Bank. Operation Gladio Insider on 9/11
5) A Pakistani Intelligence General, Mahmoud Aboud, was proving to have wired the Hijacker Mahammed Atta $100,000 and this is not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission. He was also sitting in the offices of the giant Military/Industrial complex company the Carlye Group, along with George H. W. Bush, Sr. (Dubya’s dad), on the morning of 9/11.
6) The US Defense Intelligence agency had a computer team called ”Able Danger” who correctly pinpointed 2 sets of hijackers and their movements before 9/11 through “data mining” techniques. The info they discovered was purposefully suppressed (even hard drives erased), closed down by higher-ups and ignored by Zeilokow and the 9/11 Commision. It’s clear that a secret “wall” exists within our government and real efforts have been made before and after 9/11 to hide something extremely big.
7) The same Air Traffic controller, Pete Zalewski, just happened to handle BOTH Flight 11 and 175 and not only that, he was the very same controller for the unexplained ocean crash of the Egyptair flight 990 in 1999, loaded with top Egyptian military brass! On 9/11, he’s heard on the tapes questioning Flight 11 with the words ”…Yes, that’s maybe “real” traffic ~ nobody knows.” Is this in reference to a hijack exercise? And the supposed takeover of 175 does not occur until the moment it crosses over Flight 11’s path, already under control.
All 8 takeovers (4 cockpits, two pilots each) were mostly silent, even though a “push to talk” button exists on the steering yoke, when pressed allows the ground controllers to hear what’s going on in the cockpit. Flight 11 is flown most of the way under the apparent control of the pilot, ex-soldier John Ogonowski, who is holding down the button so ground control can hear some kind of “threatening voices.” Besides that, only Flight 93 had any sounds of a physical struggle in the cockpit.
9) Flight 11 also has an Israeli Captain on board ~ Daniel Lewin, belonging to an elite Israeli Military Unit, the Sayerat Mathal, sitting in the same area as the supposed hijackers. The Israel government proclaims he was a civilian business man and mathmetician, but it’s later confirmed that he was indeed a member of the Israeli elite group. He is reported to have been shot, then stabbed during the hijacking by a possibly confused airline stewardess, who may not even have the same passenger. It is said that his area of expertise was Hijacking and Aircraft takeovers.
10) Four of the pilots were military reservists and their friends and family cannot conceive of them not vigorously fighting back and alerting the ground controllers. One of those pilot reservists, Captain Burlingame (Flight 77) was a top Navy pilot, trained in anti-terrorism tactics. His family feels he would not have given up the cockpit without a hard fight. Later, the FBI tries to tell them that his body showed marks of such a struggle, even though his entire plane is supposed to have been virtually blown to atoms around him in the Pentagon crash!
11) It’s evident that these “silent cockpit takeovers” were a cross-over between a scheduled, secret exercise and a real hijacking. Some of the pilots may have even thought they were in a exercise, at first.
12) A passport of one of the terrorists, Satam al-Suqami (not Atta as many believe) just happened to be found by a supposed “passerby” and handed over to a NY Detective. This was found on Vesey street after Flight 11 crashes into the North tower, but before Flight 175 crashes into the South tower. This passport would have had to gone backwards through the blast to end-up conveniently in the street.
13) Many professional pilots express utter disbelief that these hijackers could have pulled off these extreme aerial maneuvers, especially considering their almost complete lack of flying skills. The pilot of Flight 175 pulled an incredible last second bank that enabled the plane to hit the south tower. Hani Hanjour, the supposed hijacker pilot of Flight 77, was said to have been such a bad pilot that the instructors were fearful of going up with him. Flight 77, is said to have flown at 500+ miles an hour at nearly ground level for a 1/2 of a mile, after coming in from a remarkable spiral that led it to hit the one side of the Pentagon opposite Rumsfeld’s office (see #32).
14) The hijacker’s photos on passports often look noticeably different from security cameras such as at ATM’s. Some of the named hijackers are still alive (7) and appear to be victims of identity theft. We really do not know who many of these people are even to this day. Ziad Jarrah appears to have been two, maybe three separate individuals entirely.
15) Atta’s baggage was re-routed to another airport and all kinds of incriminating material, such as an airline pilot uniform, Pepper spray and papers identifying all 19 hijackers were found in it. Why would he take such a risk being discovered? And he was at the airport early enough not to get his baggage lost. Many think it was all too easy and smells of planted evidence.
16) Only one “security camera” shot of any hijackers was made that day: It was a non-standard shot, with no time/date stamp, released 3 years later from Washington/Dulles airport. That famous one of Atta was only of him in the Portland, Maine terminal (why did he even go there?) the morning of 9/11 before flying on to Boston’s Logan airport.
No photo of him or any other hijacker boarding a flight has ever been released. Also, former Israeli military and intelligence people owned a Netherlands-based company named ICTS, whose subsidiary Huntleigh USA was the airport security company at all these airports. They have since been granted immunity from wrongful-death lawsuits, stemming from 9/11, by the US Congress itself!
17) The CIA purposefully failed to pass on their vital information to the FBI that could have foiled the attacks. The FBI itself had the same things happen: Special Agent Coleen Rowley was castigated for attempting to contact the CIA herself and Agent’s search warrant requests to check Zacharias Moussaoui’s laptop computer were blocked for ridiculous reasons by FBI Headquarters.
18] Hijacker and supposed ringleader Mohamed Atta, briefly had an American girlfriend (reported in Europe but ignored by the press in the US), drank alcohol and snorted coke. The 9/11 Commission conveniently left all this out and allowed America to go on believing he was a strict Muslim fanatic who “hated American Freedom” too much. He also visited Las Vegas with Ziad Jarrah, twice.
19) The twin towers collapsed at near free-fall speed, completely negating the laws of conservation of motion. Pick up a pencil and drop it from head height. Think about all the supporting material supposedly untouched below the collapsing building ~ would that not have slowed the collapse to some degree past free-fall speed? No, it appears that the building’s supports were cut out from under it, just like it was disintegrated in a computer-controlled, downwards explosion!
20) The total collapse of WTC 7 did not even rate a sentence in the 9/11 Commission report. They completely ignored this one of a kind event, a building that was never hit by a plane and later is explained away as due to fire and some amount of damage from debris from WTC 1. It came virtually straight down and has been described by demo experts as a blatant controlled demolition. The building’s owner, Larry Silverstein in an interview, infamously utters the phrase “we pulled it.” It appears that some delay occurred in the demo of WTC 7 and was meant to “collapse” along with the other two towers.
21) Larry Silverstein, the fabulously wealthy Jew real estate mogul, had only taken ownership of the World Trade center only a few weeks before. His partner in the scheme was the former Israeli commando, Frank Lowry. Silverstein only put up 15 million of his own money, with the rest provided by GMAC commercial credit, part of General Motors, just recently fallen under control of a Jew named Eric Feldstein, son of the long-time Zionist fundraiser and buddy of Silverstein, Donald Feldstein.
WTC was a real estate “White Elephant” with serious expenses (up to a billion), to redo the asbestos insulation up to city code. And the insurance papers, with the ink barely dry on 9/11, covered the unlikely occurrence of two Terrorist attacks in one day. Silverstein’s two daughters were scheduled to be at the Windows of the World restaurant that very morning, but were delayed for unexplained reasons.
22) Stock “Put Options” (bets on the stock losing value) trading for Airlines and Insurance did increase remarkably in the days before the attack. The 9/11 Commission will only say that the people behind it could not have known in advance. Clerks involved in the trading (Blue sheets), say the trades came from a Financial services company based in Hamburg, Germany (COREA?) owned by CIA insider “Buzzy” Krongard. Over-all, there was 15 billion in Wall street short selling (betting the market would fall). This was obvious insider trading of the insiders to 9/11 ~ who could not resist lining their own pockets!
23) San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown is warned not to fly 8 hours before the attack. Who called his security people is unclear. A group of top Pentagon officials canceled travel plans for the morning of 9/11 just the day before. At least two employees of the messaging firm ODIGO recieved email text messages warning them two hours in advance.
The firm Zim American Israeli Shipping, 49% owned by the Israeli government, breaks a 16th floor WTC lease costing them $50,000 and is almost completely moved out one week before 9/11. The last 10 employees, making final moving arrangements on 9/11, escape. Silverstein Properties, the new consortium owners of the WTC lease, cancelled a 9/11 meeting at the WTC just the night before since a single member could not attend. Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial jets altogether that summer.
24) The collapse of WTC 7 (5:20 pm) was reported by the BBC 20 minutes before the actual collapse. Although it was said to have been done by mistake in the heat of the moment in the newsroom, other news outlets like CNN did that exact same thing.
25) There just happened to be on hand for the news reporters, seemingly experts who put out the government’s later story, even to reporters on the street. One unidentified man pointed out that the fires and structural damage was the cause of the collapse in perfect engineering lingo. Osama Bin Laden was even mentioned on TV before the tower’s final collapses. See my video section for the video “The 9/11 Solution.”
26) There were many credible reports of explosions through-out WTC 1 & 2 before and during the collapse, from numerous Firefighters, Police and civilians, inside and outside the buildings. A Wall Street Journal reporter, witnessing it from a nearby building, is said to have seen a string of flashes going downwards inside the building ~ exactly the way such a demolition would have been done.
27) No large pieces of aircraft debris manages to survive the Pentagon crash site. No wings, tail structure or the massive engines that could not be “evaporated” in a explosion of any sort. The wings and tail would have had to do some bizarre contortions to fit into the crash entrance. Unknown people were out picking up everything within minutes of the scene being stabilized.
That very afternoon, a line of people shoulder-to-shoulder, is formed to pick up any piece of debris on the lawn. Very soon after, the whole lawn is bulldozed over. No maintenance records correlating aircraft parts history of Flight 77 or any of the other planes, is released, even though such things have been made public domain for any other aircraft accident.
28) Many people think it was a unmanned aircraft or missile that hit the Pentagon. Some credible witnesses say it was a 737. No photos ever come out, only odd images that show an explosion, some kind of strange puff of smoke and not much else. They say it’s because the jet was moving too fast and just happened to get missed. Even with all of the strangeness, it appears almost certain that a jet of some kind flew into or quite possibly over the Pentagon.
29) The crash into the Pentagon is just plain weird. After plowing through three walls and concrete pillars, the nose, one of the wheel assemblies or whatever it was, punches a perfectly round 15′ (approximate) hole in the last wall of C ring. Government dupes resort to describing the plane as turning into some kind of fiery ”liquid.”
How does Burlingame’s body (#10) survive a crash that was described this way or any body parts of the others? The Pentagon is like the Twilight Zone for 9/11. But then again, so is Flight 93. It’s very much like 2 different operations went on, one in NY and one in DC, with the Washington attacks as some kind of minor self-inflicted wounds to lend credibility, like a killer stabbing himself superficially to make himself look innocent.
30) The Black Box flight data for Flight 77, that crashed into the Pentagon, is only released in 2006, after a FOI request. Although it strangely stops one second before impact, independent analysis shows the plane would have overflown the Pentagon instead of crashing into it.
The cockpit voice recording box is claimed to have been too damaged to get anything. These boxes are designed to withstand crashes into mountainsides and have never failed before. No Black boxes are recovered intact at the WTC, either. This too, has never happened on dry land.
NTSB Black Box data also completely contradicts the 9/11 Commission’s path of the Flight 77 when it struck and downed 6 lightpoles before hitting the Pentagon. No explanation has been forthcoming on how that could possibly have occurred. Those lightpoles point to a giant lie on someone’s part.
31) Over 80 security camera video around the Pentagon were confiscated and not released by the FBI. What’s the point in that? Surely, they can be no good reason ~ short of total lies to the American public ~ not to have released them.
32) The side of the Pentagon struck, just happened to have held offices for accounting. Just the very day before, Rumsfeld announced a 2.3 trillion dollar (maybe more) ”accounting error” which was suddenly forgotten about with the attacks the next day (by the media, too!).
Plus, any explanation for the details for this accounting “error” are explained away as being lost in the attack. How convenient. Do they really think we are so stupid?
Not only do they think we are that stupid, at this point they don’t really care WHAT we think! In their hubris they believe themselves to be omnipotent.
33) If you can believe it, the Pentagon comptroller (in charge of the moolah), one Dov Zakheim, is an ordained Rabbi, dual-citizen of Israel, signer of the infamous PNAC report (see #3) and has a Russian relative actually married into the Karl Marx family. Before coming to the Pentagon, He was the president of the foreign sales wing of Systems Planning Corporation ~ that manufactured remote control equipment for large, passenger-size jets (Flight Termination Systems).
This equipment was fully capable of take-offs, landings and everything in between and was tested by NASA in the late 90’s on a 757, just like the ones flown on 9/11. He also was traced to leasing 767 aircraft for the Pentagon. Not surprisingly, he now has a cushy job with a Defense contractor, even after “losing” trillions of the tax payer’s money!
34) A shadowy former Israeli, named Shalom Yoran, said to have Mossad ties, owned a large American Aircraft company named ATASCO which specialized in custom configurations of passenger jets. And then there’s the Ptech company, fronted by Saudi and Lebanese businessmen, but traced to Israeli seed money and managed by a Jew named Michael Goff.
Their software was capable of accessing and potentially manipulating Military/Civilian command and control systems through back-doors (the Israelis are the source to much of the software installed) and Ptech was operating in a Mitre Corporation building near the Boston/Logan airport on 9/11. An investigation of their role that day was purposefully stopped by the Zionist Michael Chertoff.
35) Three Israelis are spotted within 15 minutes of the first crash, standing on a van across the Hudson River in New Jersey. They are described as celebrating, high-fiving each other and lighting cigarette lighters like at a rock concert. All this before anyone else knows that this is more than a simple accident. Later, along with two others, they are arrested by Bergin, NJ Police.
Found with them are $4,700 rolled up in a sock, with incriminating maps and documents. The FBI takes them into custody, classifies everything and a few weeks later, Michael Chertoff “our” Homeland Security Director, quietly allows them to go back to Israel. Back in Israel, they go on a TV show and state they were sent to “document the event.”
36) Jet fuel fires only generate temperatures around 800° (F) and the burning fuel from the crashes only lasted a few seconds. Open-air hydrocarbon fires from office materials can only generate temperatures of around 1000° maximum but is usually much less. All of this fails to account for the structural steel weakening enough to cause the tower’s collapse. Nor does it explain the bedeviling evidence of red-hot molten metal in the debris field, weeks and even months after the collapse! More on my blog about the metals
37) The steel from the towers was carefully guarded, one truck driver is even fired for some stupid unauthorized stop. It’s quickly sold by a Jew operation and bundled off to Asian scrap metal plants. Only the barest amount is ever investigated. Some of the WTC 7 metal does get examined by the independent Worcestor Institute and is found to have evidence of wielding-like temperatures, wholly impossible with open-air office fires or kerosene fuels. All of this metal evidence (all 3 buildings, now) points to an extremely high-temperature explosive used, capable of the instantaneous cutting of steel (which exists).
READ THIS: 9 scientists, in a peer-reviewed paper, have now proven conclusively ~ backed-up with irrefutable chemical analysis ~ that nano-thermite explosive residue was found in the dust of the WTC. This could NOT be anything else. READ MORE HERE!
38) The inner, supporting structure of the towers consisted of 47 interlocking box columns, heavy-duty steel beams sheathed in cement and up to 2″ thick, bolted and welded together. The 9/11 Commission completely fails to describe it adequately. It’s highly unbelievable that a jet made up of mostly aluminum alloy metals could have created the damage said, even with the rupturing fuel tanks. Flight 175 just grazed the main core. The building’s chief engineer, John Skilling, had designed the whole thing to survive multiple impacts of 707’s at 600 mph, which are pretty much the same size aircraft as 757’s.
39) According to emeritus math professor and longtime Scientific American contributor, A. K. Dewdney, cell phone calls could not have been made over 8,000 feet. And yet this is what many friends and relatives report receiving from their doomed loved ones aboard the hijacked planes.
The government then quietly drops all references to cell phone calls in 2006. And it refuses to discuss the one cell phone call that was possible: Ed Felt’s call from the toilet of Flight 93, as it was low enough to make it possible moments before impact. He calls Emergency 911 and reports an explosion and white smoke, while wind noises are heard in the background. The emergency person who received this call has since been muzzled by the FBI.
40) Most of the calls occur from Flight 93. Only two calls go out from Flight 77, a few more on Flights 11 and 175. The calls on Flight 93 seem strangely calm ~ unlike what you might expect or saw in that movie “Flight 93.” The conversations seem odd and stilted. The government had the technology at the time to digitally recreate someones voice from the brief samples.
Most people who received calls reported them broken off, perhaps understandable with cell calls, but not so with Airfones. Plus, the poorer nature of cell phone calls could serve to mask voices. It appears that an organized effort was made to fake calls ~ but failed to consider the limitations of cell phones in flight!
41) Assistant Attorney General Ted Olson, insider Bush appointee, supposedly receives a cell call from his wife, Barbara, who describes Arabs with box cutters and asks “what she should tell the pilots to do” as if they are in the back with the rest of the passengers. Flight 77’s American Airlines 757 is confirmed not to have seat-back phones or Airfones, as per AA spokesmen Tim Wagner to researcher David Griffin, although flight crew have other means of communication.
Ted Olson pulls himself together enough that afternoon, to call CNN’s Atlanta Bureau to report on the method of hijacking. He later changes his story about his wife’s method of calls to him as Airfone calls, collect through Department of Justice switchboard. Later, Olson helps Congresswoman Jane Harman get out of hot-water over an investigation by the FBI over improper influence-peddling with AIPAC to get her the Chairmanship of the House Select Intelligence committee.
42) Flight 77 had a curious mixture of high-level Defense department and contractor scientists (11 out of 50) involved in Star Wars technology. One scientist, Bill Caswell, was noted for his high-level Physics research. None were traveling together as part of a conference of any sort.
43) The last 3 minutes of Flight 93’s cockpit recording has no sounds of struggle for the plane, no voices yelling “Allah o Akbar” or passengers fighting for their lives. Unlike the movie version in “Flight 93″ the only sounds to be heard are strange wind noises. The confused relatives of the victims are allowed to hear the tape only once and are forbidden to bring any writing materials to take notes. The government also refuses to release the tape to the public.
44) Two Pennsylvania seismologists record the seismic crash data of Flight 93. Only problem is that it’s 3 minutes later than the government’s time-line (10:06 versus 10:03). Their report and data is scrutinized by one of the top seismologist’s in the nation who pronounces it valid. One of the scientists later recounts under government pressure, but his partner refuses and bravely stands by the report.
45) Pennsylvania locals near the site of Flight 93’s crash say there was another location that was sealed off by the FBI, 6 miles away. Some residents report the sound of a missile. Many witnesses insist on seeing a small white Jet flying low over the crash site. A VF-Corporation jet was asked to look into it by controllers, but they report staying well above 5,000 feet.
46) One F-15 Pilot, when landing back at base, says that his higher-ups told him that they downed a passenger jet that day. It does appear that Flight 93 was indeed shot down and that the US government cannot come clean or has made the decision to use the story of the valiant passengers as further propaganda.
47) It appears that the plot was to have the hijackers believe the planes would be flown remotely back to the airports as part of an exercise or even part of a real hijacking. Atta is heard telling the passengers “we have some planes and we are returning to the airport, now.” They may not have even known they were going to die until the last few moments when they saw the towers looming up in front of them. And then it was “Allah o Akbar” ~ this time for real!
48) Much of the evidence that disputes the government “theory” was callously ignored by the 9/11 Commission, managed by the Bush Insider Zionist Jew, Philip Zelikow ~ a member of the so-called ”Vulcans” group of Neocons led by Condi Rice. Henry Kissinger (wow) was first named to this position by Bush, but the families of the victims raised hell about it, justifiably.
Little did they know about Zelikow because so few understand the hold Zionism has on the US Government. One reporter has said that the Democrats and Republicans purposefully teamed-up in advance to decide exactly what the evidence could be covered and what to ignore. Sadly, this appears to have occurred.
49) In October, two Israelis are found with explosives and pistols in the Mexican Congress building. One is identified as belonging to Israeli military. Also, the US is hit by a series of Anthrax letters mailed to Newscasters and Congressmen. The letters are crudely marked with Islamic rhetoric ~ an obvious ploy to instill further paranoia. A Jewish woman scientist had secretly tried to pin it on Dr. Stephen Hatfield but no evidence is found to implicate him, even though it ruins his professional career.
50) The Zionist-owned, corporate media in this country (such as Popular Mechanics magazine) continues the cover-up work of the 9/11 Commission, cherry-picking just what 9/11 topics that can be obtusely examined or openly ridiculed. For instance, the History Channel recently did a blatant white-wash, pretty much covering only the same things that the hobbyist magazine Popular Mechanics did and ignoring real details like the above.
Experts can readily be brought forward, who will talk about things clearly “red herrings,” such as the impossibility of wiring-up the buildings for all those explosives and staying unobserved, or tell you that ”thousands of co-conspirators would be required,” when real technology and infrastructure exists which renders such points completely moot.
So, do you think all of this could possibly be coincidence? What else do you need, anymore? If you’re waiting for the friendly-faced Charlie Gibson of ABC’s “World News Tonight” or other media Zionist shills to tell you, then forget it.
Also, it’s apparent that purposeful efforts are being made, quietly, to inject conspiracy ideas that have no basis in reality nor have any proof to back their claims. This is what’s called “disinfo” and it serves two purposes. First, it confuses and detracts from any real research and second, it offers up a ridiculous face to the whole business, for those looking into it and may cause them to “throw the baby out with the wash-water.”
This whole subject has to be examined closely by independent researchers and investigators who are allowed to publish their findings. Jews, absolutely must not be allowed to take ANY part, since so many of them have shown a willingness to use subterfuge in the support of Israel or Jewry in general. This is because it’s readily apparent that the Mossad was part and parcel to this evil deed and these so-called “Neocons” are Jewish, what the Israeli press fondly describes as ”warm-Jews,” but what I call outright traitors.
~ Phillip Marlowe
150 Smoking Guns about 9/11
Go here for a giant listing of outright Jewish perfidy against this country: You Can’t Handle The Truth!
Read more from David Ray Griffin’s book: Debunking 9/11 Debunking and compare it to the “government theory” book Popular Mechanics: Debunking 9/11 Myths (make note: presidential candidate and Rothschild insider, John McCain, writes the Forward in this book).
Who is this Man? and how did he know everything about the crashes right away and why was he right at the camera at that time?
911 Coincidences by Nufffrespect ~ Nufff pokes so many holes in the official story.
Or, if you just want a quick, interesting and easy read, try 9/11 Revealed by Ian Henshall, Carrol & Graf Publishing. This book will really make you think twice about it all. Even so, some proven facts about 9/11 have been left out of even this, probably because of just who the finger points to. You can read more about these here on my blog: The Dancing Israelis and Zionist Master Mind?
Also: 9/11 Revealed
Other articles you might find interesting:
A frustrated Rothschild spouts off on 9/11
Reply to Matthew Rothschild’s Article
9/11: Looking for truth in credentials: the peculiar WTC “Experts”
Posted by Noor al Haqiqa at 11:32 PM
Global Research Editor’s Note
We bring to the attention of our readers this provocative review of the strategic and corporate interests behind 9/11 including Wall Street, the Texas oil companies and the defense contractors.
The statements in this article are corroborated by numerous studies, books, news articles and research reports published since September 2001.
In the course of almost ten years, Global Research has conducted a detailed review and analysis of the 9/11 attacks, focussing on their broad implications as well as their historical significance. See our 9/11 and the War on Terrorism Dossier
Michel Chossudovsky, July 24, 2011
Forget so-called conspiracy theories. Instead look at reality. Dare ask yourself who actually seems to have benefited from the 9-11 calamity. In light of the debt ceiling debates and the continuous corrupt politics as usual of Washington D.C., it is time for the American people, and individual states of this federation, to look at a troubling set of facts. It seems there were “several” beneficiaries of 9-11 that don’t exactly fit the story line we were constantly fed by the propaganda machine and mainstream media as to how to connect the dots (which we were rhetorically asked to do).
Here is a list of peoples that benefited. Most of this list is factual. Some are more opinion but with strong support in reality-based argument:
1) The New York Port Authority was having difficulty renting out space in the Twin Towers. More importantly there was a huge asbestos liability. Surprisingly these Towers were sold to a new owner Larry Silverstein just three months prior—who managed to get an insurance contract for a big payout if any of the Tower buildings got hit by an airplane. This is a fact.
2) Our first international move was to bomb Afghanistan under the assumption that people there were involved. So the heroin industry of Afghanistan came back to life in a big way—that is international and local drug cartels rediscovered a gold mine of money supply. Bin Laden and the Taliban, because of their religious fanaticism, pretty much closed down the trade to a trickle. But after the bombing shake-up, people connected with the heroin trade in Central Asia reaped billion dollars rewards—including money-laundering groups of financiers—such as banksters, etc. (And this is pretty much all the U.S. military/ intelligence has really accomplished—despite all the rhetoric and high-sounding goals about exporting democracy.) This is fact and not fiction.
3) Investors of profitable corporations connected to the military industrial complex made a killing (pun intended). Obviously war has been profitable for some industries for eons as we are told by most war historians profits are an inevitable consequence of war for merchants of death yet they say profit is “not” the driving force behind war. Think again. For our American culture, since at least the Vietnam War, it seems to have become the driving force. (What else does America still manufacture?) Prior to 9/11 there was little in the way of war material inventories being depleted. But soon after 9/11 this all changed. In fact some corporate stocks immediately went up in value—as did some military contracts. Note as well that after the cold war both the Pentagon and the Intelligence apparatus should have cut their budgets in half. (But then no one would have been promoted and the Pentagon would have lost some of its clout.) That did not happen. Rather the budgets doubled in size. How is that for financial austerity? This is fact and not fiction.
4) Some powerful industry leaders and think tank politicos believed it was necessary for certain “companies” to “control” various strategic resources such as oil and gas. And not surprisingly the very countries in which we declared a war against terrorists are surprisingly the same countries that contain such resources—especially in the Middle East.
Gas and oil reserves are coveted by every industrial civilization and every military as a necessity. For example, there was a plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ship out from the Indian ocean—requiring stable societies that don’t sabotage pipelines. Nevertheless despite things not going as planned oil companies for whatever reason reaped huge profits. Fact and not fiction.
5) Advocates, such as Paul Bremer, for extreme laissez faire economic policies, attempted to rewrite an Iraqi constitution to promote a free market system of neo-liberal economic principles to make it especially easy for foreign nations to own Iraq’s resources. And if you do your research you will come to learn that the U.S. did not have any gripes with Saddam Hussein until he kicked oil companies out of Iraq because they wanted to take the lion’s share of the profits. He nationalized oil. This is fact and not fiction.
6) Israel benefited by having one of their neighboring enemies, namely Saddam Hussein and his standing army, weakened and preoccupied. It is not a coincidence that advocates and newspaper pundits most defensive about our invasion happen to be strong advocates of Israel’s right-wing will. Evidence clearly shows that some Israeli supporters were part of the culture of deception to take us to war with Iraq—as they are now working to take us to war with Iran with a similar pattern of phony intelligence. Equally it is a fact that whatever Middle East group harbors hostility toward Israel is now considered terrorist in nature to Americans. It is a fact that the Israeli lobby pushed hard for war with Iraq.
7) Right-wing politicos, especially Christian and Judaic, who like to promote prejudice against anything Muslim and Arab benefited. Since 9-11 there has been a constant propaganda war against Muslims throughout Western countries. (This is not to argue that Americans should not be wary of foreign motives.) But the fact is that those who do not wish Muslims to have influence in this culture have clearly wages a major propaganda campaign for Westerners to fear and distrust a huge segment of the world’s population—as a “cultural clash” or clash of civilizations like the medieval era of The Crusades. This is to say that Israel’s enemies have become our enemies as “neocon” propaganda campaign harps on “Islamo-fascism,” “Islamo-extremism,” and “Islamo-fanaticism”. Meanwhile this event is used to further persuade Americans Israel is America’s “natural” ally and partner against the forces of evil. (Yet rightwing Israelis too are not willing to separate Church and State and so they discriminate against those not Jewish. Therefore they too do not share our democratic values of equality for “all” people—like many of the theocratic countries in the Middle East.) This is opinion but it still reflects reality.
8) Politically motivated people with the desire to use “fear,” namely terrorism, as an excuse to curtail and destroy civil liberties and freedoms normally honored in democratic countries. We have become more a fascist state with Homeland Security surveillance. This curtailment is similar to those who continue to try to censor free speech—and make it more difficult to have the right to “associate” via technologies such as the Internet. Such mentality has allowed spying on citizens by “privatized” corporations not accountable to the tax paying public who pay organizations to secretly spy and keep records on its own citizenry. Obama and his team have done nothing to make real, substantive changes, and in fact have reinforced this tyranny. The curtailment of our freedoms is fact and not fiction.
9) Some international political operatives willing to take American bribe money in exchange to playing and saying our tune have benefited, such as some political factions in the Middle East who equally play they game with our tax dollars—including journalists who will write and say whatever Uncle Sam wants as long as there is a brick of one hundred dollar bills as “disappeared” just like military contracts that did not get performed—but were still played. This could also include those creating phony websites to spew messages or take credit for events done by others.
10) People with a desire to destroy the political strength and good will of the American people and government. Our country is no longer looked upon as a “positive” force for democracy. Further our economy has been severely damaged by corrupt forces willing to sacrifice real national security to greedy and self-interested ends. We are seen as the rogue state by too many. It doesn’t seem to bother some profiting that America goes broke invading foreign countries—irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks—and what could be a long term disaster—if not a World War 3. (It almost seems like a deliberate foil to destroy military preparedness and to weaken our security.) Furthermore, those who believe in a two class system benefited because the wealth investor class, including most of the Congress and Senate, are “not” sending their kids to die—rather they rely on a volunteer military of lower and middle class kids that can’t find jobs or have few prospects to go to school.
11) Along with this financial bust is a drive to destroy liberal notions of any kind of welfare for the less fortunate—save welfare for corrupt corporations. While it is true that there is no free lunch (unless you live in the beltway) there is also way too much scorn for people who are not super-rich as deserving some kind of humanity.
Perhaps Obama should let the country default. Perhaps individual states “should” give serious consideration to secede from the Union. It has become one massive failure anyway. This litany is as contentious as the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence written over two hundred years ago. And there is good reason to modify our current banking system and the Federal Reserve.
The U.S. Congress, like most pseudo-liberal chicken lefties, who have not had the guts to look seriously at what likely happened on 9/11, or why, have succumbed to the cowardliness of voting to not close the U.S. gulag. They are more afraid of their own lost of stature than they are of honoring the rights of law and justice. Meanwhile the legal system—id est lawyers—have been far too compliant.
This is to say that the U.S. is being strangulated by corporate America and its finance sector. This is a form of slavery to be manipulated into doing things under false assumptions. Why the ultra rich became even more so, they “own” Congress with their bribery of lobby money and especially the Republican party—despite all the Tea Party advocates.
You may not like these realities. Few do. So go ahead and continue to shun all “theories” about 9-11 as mere skewed imagination. Because while it is true that 99.99% of the Government is innocent that doesn’t mean a relatively small, but high-ranking cabal, could not have been involved—especially given all the security transgressed and air force stand down that ensued.
Still it is easy to point fingers at identifiable groups of people as over-generalizations. Nevertheless many people looked the other way to not notice the dots the machine was drawing was itself tainted—which had its own wisdom of reticence. But where are we to go as a culture if we continue to play blind?
You can believe in fantasy as most people choose—because in the short term it feels easier. But it may turn out to be worse in the longer term with both parties being irremediably corrupt. More importantly to the sell out of our human rights to corporations with laws like Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.
Good Luck to all people who think they know something because they have been conditioned to believe what they currently do. Yet ask yourself how many Muslims actually benefited? Then ask that irrespective of who did it, does it not seem that our culture has some issues to contend with and some bureaucracy to address besides the liberal agenda? If lawyers don’t start making more noise we could have some serious problems.
Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura : 9/11 The Pentagon Season 2 Finale
|Brzezinskisaid in his famous book
|“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, (p.40)|
Last edited by joeturn; 30 May 2011 at 18:13 PM.
This is what hit the pentagon
V good video
Scott Horton Interviews Jason Leopold
Investigative reporter Jason Leopold discusses his article “Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet, Other CIA Officials of Cover-Up” about Richard Clarke essentially blaming the CIA for failing to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack by withholding the identities and whereabouts of two eventual hijackers; likely CIA efforts to recruit the hijackers and gain a desperately-wanted foothold inside al-Qaeda; the televised interview of Clarke by filmmakers John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski on Colorado Public Television; and information on Richard Blee, the barely-known replacement of Michael Scheuer at the CIA’s Alec Station (bin Laden unit).
MP3 here. (19:32)
Jason Leopold is an investigative reporter and the Deputy Managing Editor of Truthout. His in-depth coverage includes the US Attorney firing scandal, the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilsion and the Bush administration’s torture program. He is a two-time winner of the Project Censored award for his investigative work on Halliburton and Enron, and in March 2008, was awarded the Thomas Jefferson award by The Military Religious Freedom Foundation for a series of stories on the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US military.
Leopold also received the Dow Jones Newswires Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his reporting on Enron and the California energy crisis. He has worked as an editor and reporter at the Los Angeles Times and was Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir.