|
FIRST:
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
Much earlier version
in German The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Recent version
in Russian
Introduction
The Official Story: The Twin Towers
The Official Story: The Pentagon
What Actually Happened
Evidence for Explosives in the Twin Towers
Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?
The Perpetrators
The "War on Terrorism"
Wars for Oil
The Demise of Liberty
The U.S.A: a Terrorist State
The Corruption of the Republic
Questions About the Events of September 11th
The American Drive for World Domination
Related Documents on this Website Relevant Web Pages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This web page (as at 2002-09-11), together with all the local web pages which it links to, may be downloaded as a ZIP file for offline reading or for mirroring on your own website. Details are at Mirroring the "The World Trade Center Demolition" Files.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction
On September 11th, 2001, the 28th anniversary of the CIA-directed military coup d'etat in Chile, terrorists (but not Arab terrorists) took control of four planes and (according to the official story) crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers, causing fires within. Again according to the official story (pre-written and rushed into print in the mainstream media immediately after the events, together with the identity of the alleged culprit) the fires then caused the steel girders to melt and the towers to collapse.
But, as will be shown below, the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts and the fires. The most likely explanation is that explosives were placed besides their structural supports at numerous levels in the towers, explosives which were detonated 56 and 104 minutes after the planes hit, bringing the towers down in controlled implosions, killing several thousand American citizens and others.
The Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, which in weight, size and speed is similar to a Boeing 767 (the kind of jet which hit the South Tower). Had one of the towers collapsed, that would have been amazing. That both of them collapsed, quickly, neatly and symmetrically (without falling over onto the surrounding buildings in Manhattan's financial district), collapsed completely into fragments, ash and huge clouds of dust with no remains of their central massive vertical steel columns left standi solely as a result of the plane impacts and the resulting fires, is, upon examination, unbelievable, despite what the so-called "experts" say.
Due to the astuteness of some Americans, who thought hard about the U.S. government's explanation of the events of September 11th, the official story quickly began to unravel. The big lie has been revealed for what it is (but word of this has not yet reached most people). And the reason for it. If you don't already know, this page will inform you as to what really happened and what's really going on. As in the "War on Drugs", in the "War on Terrorism" just say 'Know'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An early version of this web page (to mid-October 2001) supported the thesis that the terrorist attacks of September 11th were carried out by Arab hijackers but that the operation was actually an inside job (that is, so-called Americans planned and directed it). There were always problems with the "Arab hijackers" theory, but since only those ready to die for their cause would deliberately kill themselves by flying planes into the Twin Towers there seemed no alternative. New evidence, however, emerged, and it now seems that it was entirely an inside job, the only Arabs involved being those set up to take the blame. Hard to believe, perhaps (especially because of the constant repetition in the mainstream media, in the weeks following the event, of the term "suicide attack"). Shocking, yes. But if one looks at the evidence, and thinks about it, this is what emerges.
Until February 2002 the author of this page believed that part of the official story which asserted that the four "hijacked" Boeings all crashed as stated (two into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and one in a field in Pennsylvania). New evidence suggests that in fact only one of these Boeings crashed is the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. (What happened to the other three planes, and their passengers, will be revealed below.) In the light of this new evidence this web page underwent a major revision in early April 2002. Evidence which has come to light since then strongly suggests that, as is common in coups, generals were involved, and the possibility has emerged that the Twin Towers were wired for demolition well in advance of September 11th. Accordingly this web page underwent a major revision in late August 2002.
The implications of this analysis are disturbing, but to ignore them (or the evidence itself) would be an attempt at denial which would constitute a surrender to evil. In this matter anyone with any degree of moral awareness will want to know the truth, however unpalatable or unflattering to national leaders. Continued willful ignorance on the part of the American people may result in slavery for all people everywhere, following death and destruction of a magnitude far greater than that of World War II.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Official Story: The Twin Towers
The official story is:
On the morning of September 11th four Boeing passenger jets were hijacked within an hour by nineteen Arab terrorists armed with boxcutters.
Pilots among these terrorists took control of the Boeings and changed course toward targets in New York City and Washington D.C.
Two of the Boeings were deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers, causing raging fires within which melted the steel supporting structures, thereby causing the buildings to collapse completely.
A third Boeing was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon.
Passengers on the fourth plane overpowered the hijackers and caused the plane to crash in Pennsylvania.
This was an attack on America and it was planned and directed by Usama bin Laden as the leader of Al-Qa'idah, a previously obscure anti-U.S. international terrorist organization composed mainly of Arabs.
This cries out for further explanations, but the official story provides almost nothing more. We are simply expected to believe it without question.
A nation (and world) in shock largely accepted this story, since it did appear to provide some explanation. Even those who considered this explanation hard to believe were inclined to believe it because on September 11th there seemed no other explanation and the President of the United States and all mainstream news sources in the U.S. were telling the world that this is how it was.
But the official story does not withstand critical examination. It is, in fact, full of holes. It's not just full of holes, it's a deliberate lie, designed to fool the American people and the rest of the world.
According to the official story the four jetliners were hijacked by nineteen Arab terrorists. It is certainly possible to find Arabs who are willing to die for their cause (freedom of their people from ongoing American interference and domination and brutal Israeli aggression) although finding nineteen of them for a single mission could be difficult but where do you find such Arabs who also know how to fly Boeing 757s and Boeing 767s? (None of the alleged Arab hijackers had ever worked as professional pilots.) At least four highly trained pilots are needed. Alleged hijacker-pilots Mohammed Atta, Marwanal Al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour had received pilot training (courtesy of the CIA?) but were considered by their flying instructors to be incompetent to fly even light single-engined planes.
Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport. ... Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo ... The Prince George's Journal (Maryland), 2001-09-18, as quoted in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
The official story expects us to believe that these alleged nineteen on-board hijackers (acting with military coordination and precision) overpowered the flight attendants (with nothing more than boxcutters and shouted commands), forced their way into the cabin (were all eight official pilots absorbed in contemplation of the clouds?), overpowered the pilots (apparently none of them, some ex-military, could offer any resistance to hijackers armed only with boxcutters), took command of the planes, having acquired the necessary flying skills from training courses and flight manuals, flew them expertly to their targets (good navigators, those Arabs; and flying with the skill of a trained military pilot in the case of the jet which, allegedly, hit the Pentagon), met absolutely no opposition from the U.S. authorities (including the U.S. Air Force) responsible for safeguarding America's airspace (despite the fact that the Pentagon jet was in the air for nearly an hour after the first impact), hit those targets and killed themselves. Sure. And pigs can fly.... Anyone who would believe this story (after thinking about it) obviously has nothing between their ears.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly the towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts alone, because both towers stood for 45 to 90 minutes after impact. The official explanation, parroted faithfully by the mainstream media, is that the towers collapsed because burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. Let us examine this hypothesis as to its credibility.
Much (perhaps, in the case of the second impact, as much as two-thirds) of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. Furthermore, according to one FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett), most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes.
The Twin Towers were giving off a lot of black sooty smoke, but there was little fire visible. But to melt steel you need the high temperature produced by, e.g., an oxy-acetylene torch. Jet fuel burning in air (especially in an enclosed space within a building, where there is much smoke and little available oxygen) just won't do it. And if the steel columns had melted, would this have produced the implosive collapse observed? If the columns had melted it is unlikely that the resulting structural weakness would be completely symmetrical (as required when a building collapses upon itself in a controlled demolition). Irregularity in an uncontrolled collapse would have produced the kind of collapse in which concrete and steel girders would have rained down over a wide area (causing huge damage to the surrounding buildings in lower Manhattan and many fatalities among their occupants). This did not happen. These considerations (and others, given below, concerning the probable maximum temperature of the fire) show that the claim that thousands of liters of burning jet fuel produced a raging inferno and caused the steel columns to melt is extremely dubious, and does not account for the collapse of the towers.
Examination of the times of the events of September 11th provides further evidence that it was not the fires that caused the Twin Towers to collapse. The North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m. The plane (or some object, not necessarily a large passenger jet) hit the tower directly, in the center, and a huge explosion immediately followed the impact. Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but whoever was controlling the plane did not manage a direct hit; rather the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most being consumed in the fireball (click on the image at left for further photographic evidence).
Since the plane and its fuel initially shared a common trajectory, after impact the metallic components of the plane followed much the same path as the jet fuel. This path was through one corner of the South Tower. The steel beams bearing most of the load were located in the center of the tower, and thus most of the metal from the plane would not have hit the central steel beams, which would thus have remained largely undamaged by the impact.
Thus neither the plane impact nor the fire damaged the South Tower sufficiently to account for its collapse, so the South Tower collapsed from some other cause.
The fire in the South Tower was thus less intense than that in the North Tower. But the South Tower collapsed first, at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. Had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the North Tower, with its more intense fire, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the South Tower, hit after the North Tower, and subjected to a less intense fire, would have collapsed after (not before) the North Tower collapsed.
The Split-Second Error
... Exposing the WTC Bomb Plot ...
Note: This page assumes that an on-board hijacker was piloting the plane, but its argument concerning the cause of the collapse remains valid if the plane was actually being controlled remotely (see below).
A convincing case (with numerous web references supporting his argument) that the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the fires has been given by J. McMichael:
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. ... Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.
... heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. ... Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature [1538C, not 800C as was reported]? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel [the amount of steel in one of the Twin Towers] were heated molten on one plane load of jet fuel? ... Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I. In fact there is no muslims at all in these events.
In a sequel to this article J. McMichael writes:
... the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires [in the U.K., Japan, the U.S. and Australia] was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F). ... I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers. Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part II
In fact all of the so-called experts who claim to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers as a result of the plane impacts and the fires are merely guessing, due mainly to the destruction of the evidence, and are simply offering reasons (insufficient as they are) to believe the official story (as many people want to do). For some examples of these so-called experts' ignorance of what they are talking about, as well as a lack of consensus in their "explanations", see Eric Hufschmid's When nobody knows nothing, Everybody is an expert.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "official report" on the collapse of the Twin Towers was released in mid-2002 by a group conducting its "inquiry" under the direction of FEMA. This report is convincing only to those who wish to believe what it says, but is quite unconvincing to anyone who reads it critically. Chapter 2 of this report, along with reasoned objections, is available at The WTC Report: WTC 1 and WTC 2:
... it is well known that the maximum temperature that can be reached by a non-stoichiometric hydrocarbon burn (that is, hydrocarbons like jet-fuel, burning in air) is 825 degrees Centigrade (1520 degrees Fahrenheit). ... [The] WTC fires were fuel rich (as evidenced by the thick black smoke) and thus did not reach anywhere near this upper limit of 825 degrees. In fact, the WTC fires would have burnt at, or below, temperatures typical in office fires.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The official story has it that the towers collapsed because (a) the only connection between the outer perimeter wall and the central core were flimsy lightweight trusses, (b) the plane impact weakened these trusses and the heat of the fires caused them to buckle until (c) the trusses at the impact floors gave way and (d) the floors above lost their support and fell upon the lower floors causing all floors to pancake.
That this "truss theory" is false has been demonstrated in The World Trade Center Demolition.
Firstly, there must have been strong connections between the perimeter wall and the central core so that the wind load on the towers could be transmitted to the central core. If this wind load were not transmitted then the perimeter wall would move several feet in a strong wind and the central core would not have moved, so the floors would have buckled, which never happened. Thus there must have been strong steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core, not merely trusses. These girders would not have suffered catastrophic failure as a result either of the impact or the fires.
Secondly, the assumption that there were only lightweight trusses connecting the perimeter walls with the central core leads to a calculation of the amount of steel in the towers which is only 2/3rds of the amount known to have gone into their construction, leaving 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for. Thus the assumption is false. Those 32,000 tons are accounted for by steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core.
Thirdly, there is photographic evidence of these, officially non-existent, horizontal beams.
This truss theory is a fabrication which has been spread about to give an appearance of plausibility to the official story as to how the towers collapsed. There have even been a couple of made-for-TV "documentaries", complete with "experts", promoting the truss theory, and suggesting that, because of the trusses, the design of the Twin Towers was fatally flawed, and that the trusses were not properly fire-proofed. The refutation of the truss theory is a refutation of the official "explanation" as to "how the towers fell".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem with the official story is the fact that both the Twin Towers collapsed evenly and smoothly.
If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over ... How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel? ...
When the platters [the floors] fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them. Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I
Whatever damage the fires did would not have been evenly distributed (especially in the case of the South Tower, where the jet struck a corner of the building). If the collapse was due to the fires then it too would be irregular, with parts of the Twin Towers remaining intact and connected while other parts fell. But both towers collapsed completely symmetrically, with the floors pancaking upon themselves, exactly as we have seen in other cases of controlled demolition of tall buildings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to note that the
contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene to cart away the rubble that remains is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! The Blockbuster
Could there be more of a connection between these two building collapses than the identity of the contractor who supervised the removal of the debris?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Official Story: The Pentagon
According to the official story, as reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), the Boeing 757, AA Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory (so as to maximize the damage to the building) so low that it clipped the power lines across the street (but somehow managed to squeeze between two poles which were separated by less than the wingspan of a Boeing 757).
We were told (and, of course, expected to believe) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)
In contrast to the attention given to the collapse of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon received little attention until in February 2002 a French website appeared which reproduced images obtained from U.S. Army websites:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
These images cast doubt upon the official story that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 jetliner. For example, here is a picture of the Pentagon crash site (shortly after the impact, since the fire is still burning). Can you see any remains of the approximately 100 tons of metal (including engines, wings and tail section) which makes up a Boeing 757?
Spot the Boeing 757 in this picture
And here's a nice one (at right). What happened to the wings of the Boeing? Presumably the wings, with their engines attached, would have sheared off when they hit the sections of the building (to the left and right of the hole in the side of the building) which are obviously still standing, with many wing and tail fragments ending up on the lawn in front of the Pentagon. See any remnants of wings in the picture above (or in any of the other pictures on the French website)? How about an engine or two?
No? Curious ... Could it be that in fact no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?
Note that the French website does not say that no aircraft hit the Pentagon. It could be taken to suggest that the damage was caused by a truck bomb, or that no aircraft struck the Pentagon, but a careful inspection will reveal that the website suggests only that the damage was not caused by a Boeing 757. What, then, caused the damage?
The picture below on the left is the impact site before the outer wall "collapsed" (click on it for the full picture). The picture on the right is a close-up of the impact site.
See the huge hole produced when the Boeing 757 (allegedly) smashed through and disappeared inside the building (leaving nothing of itself for investigators to find)? ... No? ... Could it be that it was actually a missile which struck the Pentagon? A missile which penetrated the outer wall leaving only a small hole which disappeared when the wall (conveniently) "collapsed" a couple of hours later (I guess they figured they couldn't just leave it as it was since hardly anyone would believe that a Boeing 757 jet could slip through a hole just 2 or 3 meters wide).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And another question: AA Flight 77 had between 56 and 64 passengers and crew members aboard. If it was flown into the Pentagon then what happened to the bodies? And the passengers' luggage? No trace of either has ever turned up. In every aircraft crash there are always corpses (however badly burned). Were any remains of passengers on AA Flight 77 ever returned to their relatives for burial? No? Could that be because the passengers on AA Flight 77 did not die in the attack on the Pentagon? Did they, perhaps, die somewhere else, such as Pennsylvania?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more detailed examination of the question of what hit the Pentagon is available at American Airlines Flight 77.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the story which appeared in Newsweek, etc., about plucky passengers on UA Flight 93 jumping the hijackers ("OK, let's roll!")  this was almost entirely fictitious, fabricated by some psy-war operative with training as a two-bit Hollywood scriptwriter and disseminated with the help of some willing media whore.
The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"
Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.
But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess has people, not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air ...
She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."
But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things. Tall Tales of the Wag Movie
It is possible, however, that the part about the passengers calling on their cell phones has some truth (they were told to call so as to provide support for the soon-to-be-released official story; see below in Section 5) but not the part which has one of the passengers, Mark Bingham, calling his mother, saying "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham." Note also that in none of the alleged phone calls is there any mention of hijackers of Middle Eastern origin; no-one said "Arabs have hijacked the plane". Why not? Because there were no Arab hijackers.
In fact there is no evidence, except anecdotal, that any of the doomed passengers made any cellphone call. For the view that the alleged call by Barbara Olson (who was on Flight AA 77) to her husband (Ted Olson, the US Solicitor General) was a fabrication, as were the other stories, see Joe Viall's Mother of All Lies About 9/11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. What Actually Happened
In October 2001 two articles appeared on the web which provided the first clues to what really happened. One was Carol Valentine's "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS". This article drew attention to the possibility of remote control of a large jet aircraft. That this technology exists is public knowledge. It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet with the wingspan of a Boeing 737. (For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.) Since it is possible to control a Boeing 757 or 767 by means of remote control, might not the jets which hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (assuming that more than one did) have been remotely controlled? In which case there would be no need to maintain the improbable hypothesis that the four jets were simultaneously hijacked by nineteen on-board Arab terrorists.
The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing aircraft was Joe Vialls' "Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft".
In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. [This technology] ... allowed specialist ground controllers to ... take absolute control of [a hijacked plane's] computerized flight control system by remote means. From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. ... [This was] the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001.  Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
But there's a problem with this theory: Although the technology for the remote control of a Boeing jetliner certainly exists, and could be installed (if it is not already standard) on four Boeings, getting all four remotely controllable planes to take off within an hour of each other would not be easy, and would require more people with insider knowledge than is advisable (the more people involved the more chance there is of a mistake, or of information being leaked). Not only would United Airlines and American Airlines personnel be needed to coordinate the plane assignments but also four different teams of remote controllers would be necessary, one for each remotely hijacked plane.
Considering the stakes involved in an operation which was intended to kill thousands of U.S. citizens, there could be no room for error. What was needed was a fool-proof plan, and the remote hijacking of four planes is a scenario with too many possibilities for something to go wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual plan which was implemented is amazingly simple when it is finally understood, and it was carried out almost (but not completely) without a hitch. It was revealed to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes).
To put it briefly, a plot was hatched, not by Arabs, but by so-called Americans (agents of the civilian "state security and intelligence" agencies and bureaus such as the CIA, top-ranking officers within the U.S. Air Force and high-level officials within the U.S. Administration), perhaps with Israeli involvement:
to take control of four civilian airliners
to carry out attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon causing huge loss of life
to make it appear that these airliners were used to carry out the attacks
to eliminate the passengers on the airliners who would not be involved in the operation except as reluctant witnesses
to blame these attacks on "Arab terrorists" and to use this as a pretext to launch military campaigns against "enemies of America" in the Middle East and in Asia, the real aim being to get control of their oil and mineral resources.
This plot, of course, was not hatched in a day. In September 2002 a congressional report
cited no less than 12 examples of intelligence information on the possible use of airliners as weapons. They stretch from 1994 to August 2001, when word came of a plot by Osama bin Laden to fly a plane into the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. America had 12 warnings of aircraft attack
Sometime during the late 90s the U.S. state security agencies realized that certain foreign terrorists were thinking of hijacking planes and crashing them into significant buildings (naturally the Twin Towers would come first to mind). They might even have recruited these would-be terrorists. In any case, they helped them along (covertly, of course), providing money (transmitted via Pakistani ISI operatives), U.S. visas, introductions to U.S. flying schools and useful tips. The plan was not for these would-be terrorists to do the job (since their predecessors had demonstrated their limitations by botching the 1993 attack on the WTC) but rather to be "useful idiots" who could plausibly be blamed (just as Timothy McVeigh was the "useful idiot" blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing). The actual operation was far more elaborate than the would-be hijackers were capable of carrying out, and required equipment which they did not have and prior access to the Twin Towers which was not possible for them.
What happened on September 11th was very likely something close to this (there are variations, as noted below):
Three planes had been made ready by U.S. military personnel (possibly from NORAD), capable of being controlled remotely, with no-one on board:
A military jet either loaded with high explosives or carrying missiles or both.
An F-16 jet fighter armed with a missile.
A Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet (call this "Pseudo Flight 175").
In the alternative theory the F-16 is replaced by an AGM-86C cruise missile capable of being fired from a B-52 and of flying to its target under GPS-guidance, and able upon impact to generate heat of over 2,000C.
Early on the morning of September 11th Mohammad Atta and some other Arabs board American Airlines and United Airlines planes under instructions from their CIA or FBI handlers. Atta and others, some recorded by airport security cameras, will later be declared to be "the hijackers".
The four civilian jet airliners take off:
AA Flight 11, a Boeing 767, leaves Logan Airport, Boston, at 7:59 a.m. headed for Los Angeles, with between 76 and 81 passengers (about 39% of capacity) and 11 crew members aboard. (This is the jet which, according to the official story, hit the North Tower.)
AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, takes off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, with between 50 and 58 passengers (about 27% of capacity) and six crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon.)
UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767, departs from Logan Airport, Boston, at 8:13 a.m. for Los Angeles with between 47 and 56 passengers (about 26% of capacity) and nine crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the South Tower.)
UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757, scheduled to leave Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco, is late and does not depart until 8:41 a.m., taking off with between 26 and 38 passengers (about 16% of capacity) and seven crew members on board. (This is the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania.)
Pseudo Flight 175 takes off from its military base, flying under remote control, and flies so as to intercept the flight path of UA Flight 175. Radar operators tracking UA Flight 175 see the two blips merge.
A half-hour or so after taking off the pilots of the four civilian airliners are informed by radio that the U.S. is under attack by terrorists and that they are to shut down their transponders and land their planes at a military base in some north-eastern U.S. state (directions to the base are given).
The pilots obey this order and change course accordingly.
Pseudo Flight 175 changes course toward New York. To radar operators it appears as if UA Flight 175 is now flying toward Manhattan.
The passengers on UA Flight 93 are led to believe that the plane has been hijacked, and are instructed to use their cell phones to tell this to their relatives (thus planting fake evidence which will later be used to support the official story).
The military jet takes off under remote control and (perhaps after intercepting the flight path of AA Flight 11 to confuse the radar operators) approaches the North Tower at 8:45 a.m., fires missiles into it then crashes into it, detonating explosives already planted in the building. (George W. Bush watches the impact on closed circuit television at a school in Florida.)
Pseudo Flight 175 approaches Manhattan under remote control and crashes into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. Its controllers, not used to remotely controlling the 100 tons of a Boeing 767, almost miss the tower, but manage to hit it at an angle, toward one corner. Most of the jet fuel passes through the corner of the tower and explodes in a huge fireball outside the building. (The approach of the Boeing 767 and the impact and fireball are recorded by many cameras.)
George W. Bush announces to the nation that he has made some phone calls and then goes into hiding for eight hours. He fails to order defensive action by ordering U.S. Air Force jets from bases near Washington to scramble to intercept the other two (allegedly hijacked) planes still in the air. No other Air Force officer orders jets to intercept the planes. Interceptors are finally scrambled an hour after the first of the commercial jets has gone off course and 45 minutes after the impact at the North Tower.
The F-16 jet fighter (see 1. above), under remote control, flies at high speed toward Washington D.C. (perhaps after crossing the flight path of AA Flight 77), descends to near ground level, makes a horizontal approach to the Pentagon, fires a missile which produces a huge explosion at the outer wall of the Pentagon, then itself crashes into the building (at 9:38 a.m.), its engine penetrating several rings of the Pentagon.
In the alternative theory it is an AGM-86C cruise missile which strikes the Pentagon.
It crossed several of the building rings of the Pentagon, creating in each wall it pierced a progressively bigger hole. ... When traversing the first ring of the Pentagon, the object set off a fire, as gigantic as it was sudden. Who was Behind the September 11th Attacks?
Meanwhile (by sometime between 9:15 a.m. and 9:45 a.m.) all four AA and UA jets have landed at the military base to which they were directed. The 199 (later listed) passengers and crew from AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 are herded onto UA Flight 93, where they join the 33 (later listed) passengers and crew, for a total of 232 people. Explosives are loaded on board.
The South Tower collapses (at 9:59 a.m.) in a controlled demolition, 56 minutes after impact.
Sometime around 10:00 or 10:15 a.m. UA Flight 93 takes off from the military base (either under remote control or under the control of a military pilot unaware of his fate) and flies toward Washington in a fake "terrorist attack".
The North Tower collapses (at 10:29 a.m.) also in a controlled demolition, 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.
Either explosives on board UA Flight 93 are detonated, or the jet is blown apart by a missile fired by a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet, over Pennsylvania (at 10:37 a.m., almost two hours after it took off from Newark Airport).
Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area [this was the F-16] and burning debris falling from the sky. Reuters, Sept. 13, as quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes, perhaps or perhaps not including those 34 (later unlisted) passengers (including Mohammad Atta) who are part of the operation, are in this way eliminated.
The outer wall of the impact site at the Pentagon is caused to collapse (so that the small size of the hole in the wall caused by the impacting object would no longer be visible).
Around midday the media whores begin to disseminate the story that this "terrorist attack" was masterminded by Usama bin Laden.
Around 5 p.m.the building known as WTC 7 collapses in a controlled demolition.
Misled by the mainstream media a shocked and outraged American public demands revenge against the perpetrators, whom they assume to be Arab Muslim fundamentalists.
George W. Bush announces his "War on Terrorism" and the Pentagon swings into action to implement its previously-prepared plans to bomb Afghanistan (into submission to U.S. oil interests).
Of course, some of the details of this account may turn out to be wrong, but overall it appears to be the most likely explanation of the events of September 11th and (in contrast to the official story) is consistent with all the evidence and is contradicted by none. Only a full and impartial investigation of what happened on September 11th will reveal the truth, but the Bush administration (fearing the consequences when the American people find out what actually happened and who was behind it) has done everything it can to prevent such an inquiry from taking place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIA has always maintained as a matter of historical record that it has never murdered an American citizen on American soil. If, as a result of Eric Olson's persistence in trying to uncover what really happened to his father [Dr Frank Olson, a U.S. Army scientist], and the investigating skills of public prosecutor Saracco, this turns out to be a lie, it could well be the beginning of the end of the Agency.
THE OLSON FILE: A secret that could destroy the CIA
Similarly if the CIA can be shown to have been involved in the murder of the 200 or so passengers (most of them American citizens) on the four Boeing jets, who died when UA Flight 93 exploded in the sky over Pennsylvania, then the Agency will be finished (and none too soon either).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the side the plotters purchased put options for companies whose stocks were sure to be adversely affected by these events, such as the parent companies of the airlines whose planes are believed to have been hijacked. Their intention was to make a killing, so to speak, by purchasing the right to sell stocks in these companies at a price which they knew would be considerably higher than the price they could buy them at on the open market (after the September 11th attack had driven the prices down).
September 6-7, 2001 - 4,744 put options (a speculation that the stock will go down) are purchased on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up). This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options. Many of the UAL puts are purchased through Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current Executive Director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks
Despite an SEC investigation, the identity of those who purchased these put options has so far not been revealed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Evidence for Explosives in the Twin Towers
Millions of people around the world watched the WTC events unfold live on CNN on September 11th, 2001, in near-disbelief. They saw huge clouds of smoke billowing over Manhattan and saw the towers collapse ... in a curious way. They did not fall over; they imploded, in the way that most people have seen when a building is destroyed in a controlled demolition: the building does not collapse in a chaotic way, hurling debris over a wide area; rather it collapses upon itself. This was how the WTC towers collapsed.
That the towers were demolished in a controlled manner was noted immediately by some astute observers:
From: "David Rostcheck"
To: USAttacked@topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: WTC bombing
Ok, is it just me, or did anyone else recognize that it wasn't the airplane impacts that blew up the World Trade Center? To me, this is the most frightening part of this morning. ...
If you watch the time sequence, you'll see that it happens like this:
- A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up. The expected things then happen:
- The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong. Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. ...
- The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster. It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still looks quite solid.
- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.
- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*. It is still smouldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame. ...
- The fire in the second building goes out.
- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. ... The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.
In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition because that's what it is.
- The first tower collapses in a similar demolition wave.
There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But look at the footage those buildings were *demolished*. To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. ...
davidr (Full text of this message is here.)
This message was posted to the internet on September 11th, within hours of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Right from the beginning, some people were not deceived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initially the explosives theory suffered from the problem that the mainstream media did not report that anyone heard explosions just prior to the WTC collapse. But in the last year reports have surfaced, and there is now even video evidence available to anyone which shows that explosions actually did occur within the Twin Towers prior to their collapse.
Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.
... One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns.
One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, also reported hearing an explosion. "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on," she told People. "We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell ... at that time we all thought it was a fire ... We got down as far as the 74th floor ... then there was another explosion." Eyewitness Reports Persist Of Bombs At WTC Collapse
A Danish website offers a 4-hour video containing visual evidence of what happened on September 11th which has been suppressed or ignored by the mainstream media:
Video Clips of the falling Towers were often edited in a manner that prevented the TV viewers in getting the "Full picture" of the entire tower collapse. ... During my 1000 hours of video investigation I have found only very few of such "Full picture long distance shots" which showed the entire tower (from top to bottom). Most of the video-clips we saw on Sept. 11 (and in the weeks that followed) would be edited versions ... [which] did not give any evidence of the numerous "clouds" from EXPLODING Bombs "popping out of the windows" of the WTC facade far below the crash level of the collapsing tower. ... Someone in the "editing rooms" did not want to give us the "Full Picture"!
But some crucial BOMB video evidence did in fact get out! In my video I will show you 5 significant "DUST CLOUDS" from Demolition Bombs exploding INSIDE the WTC Towers. These "Bomb Clouds" were located circa 20 and 40 levels BELOW the "Crash level" of the falling Towers. ... [T]hey give full evidence of a Distinct Demolition Bomb being exploded FAR BELOW the "Crash-Point-level". Bombs Inside the World Trade Center
And it was not only the Twin Towers which were demolished deliberately but also the building known as WTC Seven.
Not detailed in the monopoly press, some fire-fighters who survived Black Tuesday, contend there were explosions in the buildings, in a portion of the twin World Trade Center towers, separate and apart from the impact of the planes hitting the buildings. ... Were within-the-buildings explosives remotely triggered off to collapse the towers like done with old buildings? And there are good reasons to believe that within-the-building explosives caused the mysterious collapse, late on the evening of Black Tuesday, of World Trade Center Building 7. Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Twin Towers collapsed in a very strange manner, leaving almost nothing but metal fragments from the outer shell and huge quantities of fine ash and dust, without the central steel columns from the lower sixty floors either standing or fallen. This is very strange. Look at all that dust (click on the image for an enlargement and for two further pictures of the clouds of dust). It is as if some high-energy disintegration beam had been focused on the tower, pulverizing every concrete slab into minute particles of ash and dust.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But although some kind of "black" technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
The seismograph which recorded this data was operated by Columbia University Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. A report was published by the American Geophysical Union in the November 20 issue of Eos, but the authors misinterpreted the data. They assumed, and thus reported, that the two largest signals were caused by the collapses of the Twin Towers. But:
During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage but not causing significant ground shaking. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research, as quoted in Earth Institute News
Christopher Bollyn:
Seismic Evidence Points
to Underground Explosions
Causing WTC Collapse
So if most of the energy of the falling debris was dissipated and was not the cause of the major spikes in the seismic record then what was? Perhaps massive explosions in the lowest (level -7) basements of the Twin Towers, besides the supporting steel columns where they met the Manhattan bedrock? Perhaps even small nuclear explosions?
This, together with numerous small explosives detonated at every ten or so levels of the supporting steel columns, would explain one observation which the official story does not explain: Why were the lower parts of the massive supporting steel columns not left standing after the collapse? If the official story is true, that the damage was caused by the impacts and fires, which occurred only in the upper floors, and that the floors then pancaked, one would expect the massive steel columns in the central core, for, say, the lowest 20 or 30 floors, to have remained standing, which they did not. But this is understandable if the bases of the steel columns were destroyed by explosions at the level of the bedrock. With those bases obliterated, and the supporting steel columns shattered by explosions at various levels in the Twin Towers, the upper floors lost all support and collapsed to ground level in about ten seconds.
Further evidence for explosives is provided by video evidence of the way in which the South Tower collapsed: The top thirty or so floors keeled over at the beginning of the collapse. If the floors had pancaked in the way that the official story has it then these top floors should have fallen straight down. But if explosives somewhere in the region of the impact level had blasted the steel supporting columns in the core then it is understandable that the top floors tilted over (probably in the direction of the damaged corner where the plane hit).
The explosive devices could have been encased in heat-resistant material so that any of them which were exposed to fire would not detonate. If timing was critical then they could be detonated by remote control (a radio or microwave signal) at the right time. Even if the fires disabled the bombs on the levels where the planes hit, they would not disable the bombs on the floors below the fires. No wires, CPUs or timing devices are needed, just some way for each explosive device to respond to the unique signal causing it to explode. Even a timing sequence may not have been needed simultaneous detonation of each device in the above-ground levels may have been sufficient to produce the intended result.
The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers collapsed in 10 - 15 seconds, close to free fall. Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only a second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is strong evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a week after the collapse of the Twin Towers there were areas beneath the surface which remained intensely hot.
AVIRIS data collected on September 16, 2001, revealed a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800oF in these hot spots (some over 1300oF). U. S. Geological Survey Report
What was the source of this heat? Could it have been residual heat from underground nuclear explosions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A VERY SERIOUS WEBSITE:
done by engineers:
http://911research.wtc7.net/
Poor american people:
...and you continue to believe that you're in security with your President ?
|
