September 11th, 2001 resides in the minds of the American people as a date of tragedy and loss. On that day, radicalized Islamic terrorists armed with box-cutters, seized four planes in flight and proceeded with an attempt to decimate their targets with commercial airlines as their tools of immolation. Their purported objective, entailing the terrorization of the American people, was accomplished with 75% of their targets sustaining impacts from the hijacked planes, including the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.
Following the attacks the twin towers collapsed into their own footprints, serving as the first demonstration in recorded history of a multi-story steel frame building collapse attributed to fire and as the inflammatory precedent that would propel the U.S. into over a decade of war.
To this day, a colorful plethora of authors, filmmakers, and media commentators have evinced extreme sedulity in dissection of the official narrative of the 9-11 events emphasizing the continuation of a search for what truly happened according to eye witnesses, physical analyses, firefighters, police officers, and a multitude of other professions and specialties. Among these, of substantial eminence is the group known as The Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth of which founder Richard Gage, an architect himself, expounds upon the discrepancies between the structural integrity of the buildings and the nature of the collapses with corroborations from other architectural designers, video and audio recordings, and physical principles. There is also the organization known generally as 9/11 Truth, as well as multitudes of other grassroots movements affiliated with them who all are interested in a new investigation of what occurred that ill-famed day. Naturally, their questions draw the attention of new proponents and oppositions.
Addressing these opponents, let it be known that the kind of studious attention given to the trade towers and their questionable collapse carries with it, of course, a tinge of the term “conspiracy theory”, which the skeptical are quick to elicit in an attempt to defame, discredit, or even to outright insult those curious of the official narrative. As this derogatory use of the term is digressive in the process of a dialectical inquiry of such a subject, it should be noted that ad hominem attacks have no value in the drawing of conclusions. So, to those who are predisposed to relegate the notion of alternative explanations concerning the 9/11 to the metaphorical pile of lunacy without examination of their antithetical counterparts, this discussion is not for you.
Let it also be stated that the 9/11 Truth movement is not to be confused with an equivocation in purpose, for the unifying consensus among these potpourris of specialties is that the buildings in question simply weren’t brought down in symmetrical collapses by a few hundred gallons of jet fuel. They seek to ameliorate a new investigation – a reconstitution of the evidence evincing what actually occurred before the denizens of the U.S. and even the world.
What can be expected from a new investigation of 9/11 is a finality. If remission of critical resistance comes to a new investigation, the heat of debate will dissipate in light of the absolute evidence. Why then haven’t the people been given their new investigation?
Until that time, we can only expect to hear the profuse litanies of content from either side of the 9/11 spectrum; without a referee. Until that time, those who are deemed “conspiracy theorists” will not be silenced or pacified, and uncertainty in opinion concerning the event will plague the commoner. It is crucial that we come to some sort of consummation regarding the history of these events, for time continues to move forward, and future generations require a firm history upon which they may base their decisions. We must somehow provide.
What follows is a terse recollection of 9/11 research contending with the mainstream and widely publicized consensus of what occurred.
Monitor the Content
As we begin our evaluation of 9/11 it is helpful to consider the use of principles of conduct that may elevate our understanding of the material and its transformations over time. One such principle of philosophical and scholarly conduct that continues to remind us of the imprudence inherent in hasty dismissals of eccentric or novel ideas comes to us from an old concept regarding the ontogeny of truth.
Essentially, truth undergoes a three stage process of distillation before it is accepted by the masses. First it is ridiculed, scoffed at, and ignored; secondly it receives more attention and is vehemently opposed until thirdly, it is finally accepted as being self-evident. It may be observed that this type of ontogeny is emulated in what is known as the 9/11 dialectic, wherein a parity of concession now exists that virtually divides a nation. It is reported that up to half of Americans maintain the idea that the true story of 9/11, particularly the portion relating why the twin towers and World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) fell, has not been divulged.1
Obviously this division among the populace forms dialectic and as with any dialectic, a solution may be derived from synthesizing opposing arguments and providing a synopsis devoid of contradictive material.
NIST’s Investigation of the Twin Towers
The twin towers were marvels of human ingenuity erected from engineering practices of the 1960’s which envisioned not only the great strength of hurricane force winds as potential forces the buildings may need to endure, but even the impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 mph was considered in the original design of the twin towers.2 In conjunction with these plane impact standards, each tower received ample reinforcement of its 47 box columns by a coating of spray-on fire-proofing material and each building contained a sprinkler system that proved useful on the numerous occasions throughout the years when the buildings became victims of fires. But 9/11 would surely prove to be the ultimate test of these buildings’ integrity.
At 8:46 a.m. EST Flight 11 slammed into the north face of WTC1, ejecting fiery debris down to the populated streets. Panic and hysterical disbelief ensued. Then at 9:02 a.m. another plane, Flight 175 impacted the South Tower’s southern face, adding to the cacophony of emergency vehicle sirens below. Incredibly, the strength of these towers were apparently tested beyond limitations when they both came shattering down to fill the New York landscape with a thick, choking dust that enveloped all it touched.
To cope with the consternation thrown from the multitudes that speculated on how these buildings fell, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ventured an investigation hailed as the most authoritative of its kind. The conclusions entailing this investigation are as follows.
Addressing the causal mechanisms of collapse, NIST’s claims can be tersely summarized: damage by aircraft and fire. The first tower to be struck by an aircraft, WTC1 (North Tower), received immense damage spanning between the 93rd and 99th floor where inner core columns were in all probability severed.3 Thousands of gallons of jet-fuel dispersed by the immolation of the plane set fire to the building although only 15% of the total fuel ignited within. After burning for over an hour, at 10:28 a.m. EST the North Tower collapsed. NIST’s hypothesis for this is that the combined effects of the aircraft impact, fire and jet fuel accelerant, dislodgment of fireproofing material from the core columns, and pull-in forces caused by sagging of floors ultimately initiated the collapse.4
Turning to WTC 2 (South Tower) which was also impacted by a Boeing 767 after the North tower, NIST makes essentially the same case that due to sagging of the floors caused by thermal expansion of floor trusses and high temperatures as well as the weakening of structural integrity by the jet impact, collapse was consequential.
NIST’s Investigation of World Trade Center 7
The events of 9/11 were novel in the context that at no other time in history had three high rise structural steel buildings, WTC1, 2, and 7 collapsed into their own footprints. Even NIST has made the assertion that indeed WTC 7 was among the first known instances in which collapses of such modern day goliaths of engineering were attributed to fires- the other two being the twin towers themselves.5 This fact alone surely brings up the question of just how such an event could have occurred.
World Trade Center 7 was not struck by a plane; therefore its fires were not bolstered by a jet-fuel accelerant. As indicated by NIST, WTC7 received damage and fire ignition sources from the collapse of the North Tower by which flames were thrown to ten or so floors.6 At about 5:20 in the afternoon of 9/11, onlookers observed the finale of the day’s events in the form of a third straight-down collapse of a high-rise building. NIST explains that the,” conditions that lead to the collapse of WTC7 arose from fires, perhaps combined with structural damage that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC1.”7 It should be noted that NIST did include sections within its final report of WTC 7 pertaining to the feasibility of a controlled demolition through explosives, but after a few computer-generated scenarios this hypothesis was ultimately discarded for audio evidence of a “demolition-type blast”, which would be expected in such an event, could not be corroborated with video of the building prior to collapse.8
Inconsistencies with NIST’s Final Reports
A reevaluation of 9/11 histories is not meant to insinuate to the reader an inference that all conspiratorial notions counter to NIST’s analysis have validity, rather what is implied is the need for the formation of a new hypothesis that accounts for all anomalous aspects of the global collapse of WTC1, 2, and 7. These anomalous aspects range from temperature values inferred with materials discovered prior to and after collapse, descent patterns and times of the three buildings, and a whole plethora of witness testimony that contradicts what has been disseminated throughout the years by popular media. It is this data that advances against the reports issued by NIST.
Beginning with analyzed materials of the WTC catastrophe that are inconsistent with NIST reports, there is one intriguing piece of data in particular arising from the dust of Ground Zero through the work of Kevin Ryan and his research team, that has afforded leeway to a new hypothesis of collapse.
Kevin Ryan is a former employee of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the institute that tested and certified the fireproofing material as well as the steel utilized in the WTC buildings. After 9/11, Underwriters Laboratories “participated in the NIST WTC investigation, which was a clear conflict of interest.”9
Ryan became vocal about his skepticism towards the official explanations of collapse and was subsequently fired from his position at UL. Undaunted though; Ryan pursued a different explanation of collapse. Upon the issuance of a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to the United States Geological Survey for data not reported in the initial survey of the WTC site by the USGS team, Ryan’s team received information indicating that the WTC dust contained “metallic microspheres” composed of iron and molybdenum.10 At first glance this find may seem to be of little importance, that is, until one realizes that molybdenum is a metal whose physical characteristics include a melting point of 2623 degrees centigrade.
NIST admits that the WTC fires and their accelerants, could not reach the temperatures required to even begin to melt steel.11 The steel of which the towers were comprised has a melting point of 1500°C whereas the hydrocarbon fires accelerated by jet fuel can at best reach temperatures of 1000°C. Bearing in mind that the maximum gas temperatures reported by NIST to have been associated with the fires of the WTC buildings were 1000 degrees Centigrade12 a very large discrepancy in temperature values now exists. The formation of molybdenum and iron microspheres suggests not only very high temperatures in the WTC buildings uncharacteristic of typical office hydrocarbon fires, but a force, that would propel the molten molybdenum and iron into spheres via action of surface tension. It should also be noted that while NIST admitted the hydrocarbon fires were simply not capable of melting steel, there remains evidence of unexplained pools of molten metal which were observed prior to collapse initiation.
Even if these buildings were structurally compromised by fire and damage incurred from the plane impacts, wouldn’t one expect the collapse to exhibit a fall pattern proportional to the damaged sections, toppling in the direction of least resistance? This is of course the logical conclusion; however that is not the phenomenon which was witnessed. As NIST conceded, these buildings came down at nearly free fall speed – a feature associated with controlled demolitions of buildings precipitated by pre-planted explosives.
For visual aid, it is highly recommended that one engages in the comparison between a controlled demolition, of which there are many resources and videos available, and the collapse of the towers 1, 2, and 7. One is sure to see the similarity in descent patterns between the two. Following from this, one might ask what evidence exists which could be corroborated with the claim that explosives were planted in these buildings?
Niels H. Harritt, Dr. Steven Jones and their colleagues provide clues to that question in a paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, of 2009. In it Harritt and Jones present startling findings that are indicative of the Trade Centers’ demolition through high powered explosives.13
The results came after analyzing dust obtained from four sites of the ground zero area that were collected the day of the attacks, thus ruling out contamination of the samples themselves by the subsequent cleanup efforts. The analyses of these samples consisted of meticulous microscopy and differential scanning calorimeter (device which measures energy output of heated substances) assays of the small (0.2 to 3mm) “red chips” of unknown composition found within the dust.
Probing the samples further, Jones and his colleagues fractured some of the red chips to expose a fresh surface subject to the glancing of lab equipment which yielded the analysis that the chips contained elements of aluminum, oxygen, and iron in fine mixtures.14
For those unaware, the above mentioned are the components for thermite; a super-hot incendiary that burns at approximately 2500°C. To gain perspective on this kind of heat bear in mind that molten lava temperatures are approximated at 700-1300°C. In other words thermite holds the potential to burn at twice the temperature of magma and well above that necessary to melt steel. This revelation adds credence to the idea of a controlled demolition of the towers for cutter charges or some other sort of explosive would require a potential to manifest sufficient temperatures that could cut through the massive steel box columns supporting the structure. The paper continues:
“Based on these observations, we conclude 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.”15
Indeed, a sure way to bring a building down into its own footprint is by well-placed cutter charges around core columns to effect the removal of support that induces a collapse, but to substantiate the idea that such a method was employed in the destruction of the buildings in question requires evidence of demolition nuances witnessed by people on the site prior to collapse.
Interestingly enough, there is a wealth of this particular type of testimony in that firefighters, and other emergency personnel were quite vocal of what they were experiencing, citing peculiarities like “molten steel” and “explosions” within the buildings.16 The fact that NIST ignored such witness testimony signifies an inexcusable partiality to their own theoretical frameworks that damages the fidelity between their promulgations and the public.
Commenting on such partiality and willful ignorance of the witnesses by NIST, the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy Fredinando Imposimato, wrote that the institute’s investigation fails to,
“demonstrate at all that the three towers fell down because of the impacts of the planes and the fires. Other factors such as bombs and/or incendiary devices seem to be required to explain the observed facts.”17
Pushing the idea further, it is interesting to note that even Peter Jennings of ABC news commented as the 9/11 attacks were occurring,
“anyone who has ever watched a building demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of the building to bring it down.”18
Aside from anomalous materials and witness testimony, there is yet a tertiary indication of controlled demolition of the WTC site. It has been calculated with video of the catastrophe that all three of the World Trade buildings exhibited near free-fall acceleration during their collapses,19 an aspect of 9/11 that proves cogently anomalous in light of NIST’s fire induced collapse paradigm.
This paradigm cannot satisfactorily explain how it is that thousands upon thousands of tons of resistance were utterly obliterated from underneath the damaged sections of the buildings. Particularly in the instance of WTC 7’s decent into rubble and dust, the use of this explanatory paradigm warrants a revision to the causal mechanism of collapse initiation in accordance with the fact that while the twin towers were struck with airplanes, WTC 7 withstood only falling debris which equaled 1500 times less kinetic energy than that of a 757 Boeing Jetliner impact.20
NIST beckons the public to believe that three high-rise steel framed buildings collapsed precisely in the same manner, despite the well-established observation that their damages were all variant.
In conjunction with the milieu of uncertainty respecting the collapses, seismic disturbances coinciding with the demolition thesis were recorded. The recordings originate with Columbia Universities Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Pallisades, New York. On 9/11 at 9:59:04 EDT, a 2.1 tremor resounded from the South Tower collapse. Following this tremor, another of 2.3 magnitude was recorded at 10:28:31 EDT correlating to the collapse of the North Tower. The question at hand however, is whether or not these tremors were actually the result of explosive disturbances from the basements of the towers and not issued by the detritus of the falling buildings.
Relating to this question, it has been ascertained that the seismic shocks did indeed arise just before the mass of the buildings came smashing down, leaving an anomaly which supports the controlled demolition thesis.21
In the official version of these events, the seismic waves recorded were attributed to the collapses of the towers, however thorough analysis of these waves indicate the explanation as either a feckless attempt to dissuade further inquiry or an honest error in calculation. The magnitude of the waves emitted, the interval between wave inception, propagation, and reception, and the manner in which the buildings fell display incongruities with the idea that these waves were initiated by the impacts of the planes, and the fall of the buildings.
Concerning the collapses one might expect, had the towers slammed into the ground, the bulk of their mass to have created the observed seismic activity. But these buildings didn’t fall according to the parameters necessary, they imploded floor after floor, pulverizing the bulk of the material whose mass might have educed a seismic wave.22
World Trade Center 7
WTC-7 was a 47 story steel frame sky scraper located just North of the Twin Towers. Its floors comprised offices for the CIA, IRS, DoD, U.S. Secret Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as other financial firms.23 At approximately 5:20 New York local time, the building collapsed straight-down into its own footprint. In NIST’s final report on the collapse of WTC7 they admit that the building came down at freefall speed for a period of eight floors.24
Strangely, the awareness of this collapse among the general public is rarified. More people should know about this building. This case of collapse evinces a gaping hole in the explanations of structural failures in the other two buildings for WTC-7 wasn’t even hit by a plane.
The official narrative for WTC 7 collapse involved the weakening of the structural integrity of the buildings due to fire as well as the reception of collateral damage from the North Tower collapse. However, these two elements seem highly unlikely to be conducive to a collapse culmination given that there is no precedent for the collapse of a steel frame building attributed to fire (except the North and South towers) in the history of structural steel architecture. Yet it remains FEMA’s line despite evidence to the contrary.
From FEMA’s own report, in Appendix C, a piece of startling evidence taking the form of a steel beam exhibits punctures and marked thinning brought about by some initiator of extreme heat. Respecting the buildings, what could account for all these anomalies other than a controlled demolition? Office fires don’t burn holes through steel. Secondly, how does a 47 story building, which has a core structure of 47 box columns, collapse straight into its own footprint? This is a rhetorical question; buildings don’t collapse that way due to fire.
Flight 77 and the Pentagon
The Americans have been told to believe that Hani Hanjour, the terrorist who piloted American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, did so with finesse in maneuvers that professional pilots claim would be impossible to execute: A 270 degree turn at an excess of 500 mph in a 757, ending in an impact of the west wing of the Pentagon. The complications with this version of the events are multi-faceted.
- First of all, Hani Hanjour could not even fly a single engine Cessna, let alone a 757 colossus by comparison.25
- Secondly, a 757 has a wingspan of 125 ft., yet the damaged section of the Pentagon exhibits an impact hole diameter smaller than that, approximating 15-20 ft.26
- Third, if maximum infliction of damage was the principal goal of the attack, Hanjour could have fulfilled this objective by simply tilting the aircraft into a nosedive aimed directly at the roof of the Pentagon. Instead, as the official version goes, he impacted the only side of the Pentagon reinforced to withstand a terrorist attack at speeds deemed by seasoned airline pilots as impossible to control.27
- Lastly, the purport that Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon has yet to be corroborated with video evidence attained by CCTV cameras positioned around the perimeter. To date, two videos with only 5-frames depicting a white streak and a fireball, released under pressure of FOIA requests, is the only clear picture we have of what hit the Pentagon; and it doesn’t look like a plane. If the official version is true, then why won’t the FBI release the videotapes confiscated? Where are the engines, fuselage, and landing gears? Is there any historical precedent to suggest this plane can vaporize into nothing? What is being hidden from the public? What is on those tapes?
In terms of dialectics, appeals to the volume of either side are wholly irrelevant unless the data they present stands up to rigorous scrutinization. But to subside the critique of the 9/11 movement as being composed of uneducated zealots of an untenable cause, I sought to compound a terse list of some prominent individuals and their perspectives on 9/11.
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army, (retired)
“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?”28
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps, (retired)
“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.”29
Dr. Steve Pieczenik, former Deputy Assistant to Secretary of State:
“The event of 9/11 was carried out for one purpose. It was carried out to mobilize the American public to go to a war that they didn’t need to go to. . .on the false pretense that we were attacked by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, which was an absolute and unmitigated lie.”30
Richard Gage, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
“There’s evidence to suggest that explosive
demolitions have brought down all three World Trade Center skyscrapers and we have now 1500 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation based on this evidence, including, the third skyscraper that most people know nothing about.”31
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD (retired) concerning the Pentagon:
“When we blew up the World Trade Center – I want to repeat, that it was deliberately blown up. The aircraft definitely hit the sucker. There were definite explosions inside the thing. You talk to Willie Rodriguez, you talk to the police and the fire, my guys – no two ways about it. It’s on the radio communications. Everything else out there. It happened. The Pentagon, same thing. No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.”32
By now, it should be clear that the central notion of alternative 9/11 histories is not some elaborate myth rendered without compunction. Rational people have come forward to detest the official version of events, many of whom have been attacked and vilified for their efforts to uncover the intricacies of the disaster.
The Master Mind in the Grotto
Bin Laden was a U.S. tool for geostrategic resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980’s. The C.I.A. obliquely funded and trained the Mujahadeen and Bin Laden through the auspices of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI). In other words, Bin Laden was an asset to the C.I.A.
Relating to this obscurity of history and central to the Bin Laden boogey man hoax is the oddity of his stay in an American hospital located in Dubai, United Arab Emirates in July 2001.This eleven-day hospitalization, reportedly due to a kidney dialysis treatment, was marked with a liaison between him and agents of the C.I.A.
If this man was so difficult to find, then why would he appear in an American hospital, especially given the fact that he was already one of the FBI’s most wanted? We are lead to believe that though the C.I.A. had precise intelligence on Bin Laden’s whereabouts, he mysteriously disappeared without a trace following the September attacks.33
It should be made known that this man had Marfan syndrome, and as Fox news reported back on December 26th, 2001, Osama bin Laden in all probability had already died from complications incurred from his illness prior to his alleged assassination.34
What is most impalatable pertaining to the May-Day raid reports of 2011, is the documented refusal by implicated agencies to release the photos which purportedly were taken of Bin Laden’s body after his death, and his subsequent burial in the North Arabian Sea. Once again, the simplest way for the three letter agencies to clear the air of dissent and disagreement, is to provide the evidence.
Director of the C.I.A. Leon Panetta promised the American people at least one photo of the alleged mastermind back on May 4th, 2011.35 To date, there has not been a photo release. At first, the photos were prohibited from the public eye on the basis of their “gruesome” content, fearing that they would “inspire” terrorist attacks against the U.S., yet wouldn’t terrorist groups sympathetic to Al Qaeda already be fervently preparing to strike the U.S. after the news of their leader’s death had spread around the world? A single photo surely wouldn’t compare to the violence resulting from the assassination itself.
When the photos weren’t given to the public to quell its skepticism of the Bin Laden death, a non-profit watchdog group known as Judicial Watch, sued after being denied access to them under a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. The case proceedings for Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Defense and C.I.A. no.12-5136, took place in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals where the final ruling permitted the D.o.D and the C.I.A. to retain the photos under classification. In other words, they would remain a secret.36 To many, the classification of Bin Laden’s death photos out of public view is further reason to remain skeptical of the true nature of the 9/11 attacks. For these individuals, the 9/11 story is a well fabricated product of America’s “propaganda machine”.
The technique of this machine to win popular opinion for a war isn’t novel, but is a consistent facet of human history. Even Hitler’s Germany implemented methods of false flag terrorism:
“Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a nation who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist 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 tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” –Herman Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshal
Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency and its implied role in the 9/11 attacks in accordance with its deep history of backing terrorist sects including Bin Laden for the destabilization of other nations, has received far too little attention by the public eye. From the endorsement of Chechen rebel commanders Shamil Basayev (dead as of 2006) and Emir Khattab along with their armies, to its connection with the Indian Parliament attacks of December 2001, the I.S.I. has soiled its guise with terrorism. Why then, would the U.S. formulate an anti-terrorism strategy to be carried out in synergy with the I.S.I.?
On September 13, 2001, a meeting between Lt. General of Pakistani’s I.S.I Mahmoud Ahmad and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was conducted outside the public eye in which cooperative actions related to geo-strategy were designated for Pakistan. In other words, the I.S.I became partner of the U.S. global strategy against terrorism as heralded by Bush himself, a move distastefully contradictory in light of the I.S.I.’s history.37
If it comes to light that the attacks were orchestrated by shadowy elements of foreign and domestic governments other than those delineated in official reports, then the decade past and the wars it is marked with are to be subject of a congressional inquest and a criminal investigation.
Understandably, “absurdity” of the suggestion comes to mind with the skeptic. A common denouncement of the alternative theory, that a highly specialized elite carried out the attacks to bolster backing for a new war, is that which suggests that secrecy of such a monumental event would fail given the number of individuals who would have to be involved. To this I answer as many have, that a half century ago our nation undertook the Manhattan Project, of which thousands upon thousands of citizens, scientists, military personnel, and others were employed. This project afforded its secrecy through the practice of compartmentalization, a technique of information management whereby fragmentation of the system and its information into its constituent elements protects against “leaks”. The idea is to have so many specializations, so many hands operating on different areas, that to understand the whole one would have to connect all “compartments” of information. As made blatant with the unforeseen devastation following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compartmentalization works. For further information concerning the practicality of such a system of compartmentalization in relation to 9/11, I highly recommend Tarpley’s Synthetic Terror.
In relation to all this one should consider the ramifications of the possibility that explosive materials may have been recovered from ground zero.
The time required to wire up such massive buildings would have been considerable, and would have obviated the airline impacts altogether. Why would one need to smack planes into a building when it’s wired to blow from the get go? This question is part of common colloquy between skeptics and pundits for 9/11 Truth wherein skeptics typically resort to ad hominem attacks, stating that the purveyor of such demolition notions is an irrational “conspiracy theorist”.
However the ‘9/11 Truth’ pundit may cite historical examples of what can be accomplished by orchestrating or even letting an attack occur on one’s own soil.
For example, prior to Germany’s invasion of Poland, communist dissidents were dressed up in Polish uniforms and used to fabricate news that the demolition of a radio station in Gleiwitz, Germany was an act of war incited by Poland against Germany. The propaganda machine of Hitler’s Germany used this incident to rally concession for war with Poland and succeeded. It was only after World War 2 when a signed affidavit by Alfred Naujocks was submitted to the Nuremburg Trials that the “Gleiwitz Incident”, as it came to be called, was found to be executed by the Third Reich and not the Polish army.38
On the level with this sort of deception is what is known as Operation Northwoods, a now declassified plan from the Cuban Crisis years.
The plan details how to stage Cuban attacks on the U.S. and foment aggression out of the American public in order to instigate a concession for entering a conflict against Cuba.39 To effect the objective, the plan states:
“A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.”40
These “incidents” included blowing up planes and the taking of American lives as a just requirement to start a war. Is this sort of false-flag terrorism identical in scope to the alleged WTC demolitions?
From 9/11, a global War on Terror was launched out of vengeance for injustices committed on U.S. soil. The result has been hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. If it is ever brought into the mainstream eye of public awareness that these attacks were in the least allowed to commence (or aided as the controlled demolition hypothesis implies), then what might the social revolutions that ensue entail? How could the citizenry vindicate themselves despite the blood on their hands resulting from a decade of war committed under false pretenses?
This notion should convey the vast significance inherent in providing the American public a new 9/11 investigation that steers clear of party propensities and partial representations of evidence.
As mentioned much earlier, NIST’s investigation is the only one to date, that reflects the authority of government. It has never been peer-reviewed,41 it is not impartial, and it certainly does not suffice as an explanation of the WTC collapses. If its conclusions fail to stand, then where does this leave the public but behind a veil of misguidance in decisions of law and war?
The ‘28 Pages’
Certain documents of the 9/11 Commission previously held from public viewing under classification restrictions have now, as of July 15, 2016, been officially declassified. These particular documents (actually totaling 32 in number with various sections of blanked out text), are derived from the activities of the 2002 congressional Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Activities Before and After September 11th, 2001, in a publication titled Report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. For reasons to be explained, these pages have fomented a controversy surrounding the verification of the “Saudi” government’s involvement in the aid of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.
What do the documents allege?
For starters, they reveal a connection between 9/11 hijacker associate Osama Bassnan and Princess ‘Haifa bint Faisal’, along with Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States:
“In a . . . search of Bassnan’s residence the FBI located copies of 31 cashiers checks totaling $74,000…These checks were payable to Bassnan’s wife and were drawn on the Riggs Bank account of Bandar’s wife.”
With further FBI inquiry into the purpose of these funds, the fact arose that they were allegedly for Bassnan’s wife in exchange for “nursing services”. However, the ’28 pages’ assert in deference to a document (whose authorship is redacted), that “there is no evidence that Bassnan’s wife provided nursing services.” So, again, what was the money for?
Consider that Bassnan is characterized by the FBI to be an avid supporter of Usama bin Laden.(ibid.) Also understand that Prince Bandar (aka Bandar ‘Bush’ for his affiliations with the Bush family) is alleged within these declassified pages to have financially aided an associate of the 9/11 hijackers. Couple with these connections the established fact that the Bush family has a history of engaging in magnificently illegal affairs, notable among which is Bush’s CIA affiliation with Adler ‘Barry’ Seal, and you can begin to feel that something more clandestine was afoot with these “nursing funds”. Of course such sentiments are unsubstantiated….so far.
The connections disclosed in these recently released documents implies that a certain sense of vindication should be attributed to Senator Bob Graham’s sentiments of a 9/11 cover-up, who, in September of 2004, accused the White House of classifying certain information which proved the Saudi connection to the alleged 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar. http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=osama_basnan
Resources for Further 9/11 Inquiry
There is a vast wealth of literature, documentary films, and websites available for those interested in delving into historical alternatives of 9/11 events. I cite a few of my favorites here.
0 A New Pearl Harbor by Massimo Mazzucco
0 Loose Change: Final Cut by Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe,
Jason Bermas, and Matthew Brown.
0 JFK to 9/11: Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick. (2014)
0 All works respecting the 9/11 events by author David
0 Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley
0 The 9/11 Toronto Report edited by James Gourley
- Barrett, K. (2013). 9/11 shocker! Half of Americans Suspect US Government’s Lying. Electronic Article. September 9, 2013. veteranstoday.com
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2005).NCSTAR1. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers. p.6
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2008). NCSTAR-1A. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. p.35
- Gourley, J. (2012). 9/11 Toronto Report: International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001. p.45-65
- Jones, S., Et al. (2008). Extremely High
Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction. Journal of 9/11 Studies. 2008. www.journalof911studies.com
- Szamboti A. F., et al. (2008). Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction. Open Civil Engineering Journal. Vol. 2. p.35-40
- National Institute of Standards and Technology.
(2005).NCSTAR1. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers. p.129
- Harritt N.H., Jones S.E., et al. (2009). Active
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009,2, p.7-31
- Watson, P. (2010). Video: 9/11 Firefighters Reveal
Huge Explosions Before Towers Collapsed. October 6, 2010. www.infowars.com
- Gourley, J. (2012). 9/11 Toronto Report: International
Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001.p.361-385
- Peter Jennings. Famous ABC Anchor Makes Candid
Observation, Is Immediately Corrected. Electronic Article. DOA 4/27/16
- Legge,F. (2006). 9/11 – Acceleration Study Proves
Explosive Demolition. Journal of 9/11 Studies.
- Gourley, J. (2012). 9/11 Toronto Report:
International Hearings pm the Events of September 11, 2001. p.193-208
- Tarpley, W.G. (2011). Synthetic Terror. p.230-231
- Rousseau, A. (2012). Were Explosives the Source of
the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York
September 11th, 2001?. The Journal of 9/11 Studies.
- FEMA Report.
- Ventura, J. (2012). 63 Documents the Government
Doesn’t Want You to Read. p.223
- Tarpley, W.G. (2011). Synthetic Terror. p.204
- Ibid. p254
- wwwOpEdnews.com, ‘Twenty-five U.S. Military
Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11’, Jan. 14
- Alex Jones Radio Show. May 7th, 2011.
- Detroit FOX News Channel 2 T.V. Interview, April
- Commissioned and Non-Commissioned U.S.
Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
- Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com. Report: Bin Laden
Already Dead. Dec. 26, 2001.
- Chossudovsky, M. (2005). America’s War on
- NBC News. May 3, 2011. Cia Director: Bin laden Death
Photo to be Released.
36.Reuters. May 21, 2013. Court Rules Bin Laden Death
Photos Can Stay Secret. www.reuters.com
37.Chossudovsky, M. (2005). America’s War on Terror.
- WW2 Today. The Gleiwitz incident: the ‘first man
to die’ in the War. Nov. 14th,2013.
- Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense.
Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba.
March 13, 1962.
- Evidence-Based Literature Sources Opposing The Official
Story of September 11