|
The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing
aircraft was Joe Vialls's "Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World
Trade Center Attack Aircraft".
In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced [Research] 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
Remote control technology is also used with the Predator system (shown at right).
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, their
hijacking by remote control could not be rehearsed in advance, and there
was always the possibility that the pilots might find some way to
regain manual control. 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. But this does not mean that remote-controlled
planes were not involved, only that the hijacking by remote control of
four commercial jetliners is not the most likely explanation of what
happened.
As regards the Pentagon, although it has been obvious since the French
website appeared in February 2002 that whatever hit the Pentagon was not
a Boeing 757, no adequate explanation of that attack was provided until
two-and-a-half years after it occurred. The evidence was
contradictory. Many witnesses claim to have seen a large plane (which,
under the influence of the official story) they later claimed was an
American Airlines passenger jet. And lamp poles were knocked over by
whatever it was that flew at nearly ground level. But, as the photographic evidence shows, whatever hit the Pentagon was definitely not a Boeing 757.
In March 2004 Leonard Spencer published an article, The Attack on The Pentagon,
which finally provided an explanation consistent with witness accounts,
air traffic controller reports and photographic evidence.
Only those who planned and carried out the attacks of 9/11 know for sure
what actually happened. But as in any forensic investigation one has
to frame theories as to what actually happened and then test those
theories against the available evidence (in this case principally the
photographic evidence, but also evidence from other sources).
One theory is that given in the official story. In Section 2 and in Section 3
this theory was shown to be completely inconsistent with the available
evidence. So we must look for an alternative theory. It should be
clearly understood that theorizing about what happened on 9/11 is
entirely reasonable, and theories considered cannot be dismissed as
"conspiracy theories", since the formulation of theories is what any
investigator does when trying to solve a crime. Unfortunately the Bush
administration has done everything it can possibly do to prevent any
theory from being considered except its own ridiculous story.
A theory consistent with the evidence was revealed in March 2002 to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes).
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 (Mossad) 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 (it may have been years
in preparation). 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.
The only people who know for sure
what actually happened on September 11th are those who planned it and
carried it out (though probably the lower-level participants have long
ago been terminated to ensure that they would never reveal what they
knew). But we can say for sure that what happened was not what the Bush
administration said happened. So we need to construct some explanatory
hypothesis which takes into account what is known, that is, which
explains what happened without being inconsistent with anything we know.
What follows is such a hypothesis. It may not be true, but it is a
lot more plausible than the official story. If anyone has a better
hypothesis (say, simpler, more plausible) which is also consistent with
what is known then they are free to present it.
- Three planes had been made ready by U.S. military personnel, capable of being controlled remotely, with no-one on board:
- A military jet either loaded with high explosives or carrying missiles or both (call this "Pseudo Flight 11").
- A Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet (call this "Pseudo Flight 175").
- A small plane (or perhaps some kind of missile) around which was constructed a shell so that from a distance it appeared to be a Boeing 757, this being designed so that the shell could be destroyed completely by means of explosives (call this "Pseudo Flight 77").
In addition two or three cruise missiles are needed, such as the 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 2,000°C).
- Early on the morning of September 11th, according to
the official story, four American Airlines and United Airlines jet
airliners take off:
- UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757, departs from Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco, taking off with between 26 and 38 passengers (about 16% of capacity) and seven crew members on board. (This is the jet which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania at about 10 a.m.)
- UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767, departs from Logan Airport, Boston, at 7:58 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 at 9:03 a.m.)
- AA Flight 11, a Boeing 767, leaves Logan Airport, Boston at about 7:45 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 allegedly hit the North Tower at 8:45 a.m.)
- AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, leaves Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. at about 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, taking off with between 50 and 58 passengers (about 27% of capacity) and six crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon at about 9:35 a.m.)
- Pseudo Flights 11 and 175 take off from some military base, flying under remote control (there is no-one onboard at the controls), and fly so as to intercept the flight paths of AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175.
- A half-hour or so after taking off the pilots of the four civilian airliners are informed by some means of a real or potential terrorist attack and that they are to shut down their transponders and land their planes at one military base or another in some north-eastern U.S. state (directions to the base are given). The pilots obey this order and change course accordingly.
- Shortly after the real Flights 11 and 175 cease transmitting their transponder signals the pseudo Flights 11 and 175 begin to transmit the same signals. They fly toward New York and, if they are visible on the air traffic controllers' screens, they appear to be AA 11 and UA 175, now flying toward Manhattan.
- Pseudo Flight 11, under remote control, 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 a private transmission to the TV in his limousine while travelling to a school in Florida.)
- Pseudo Flight 175 approaches Manhattan, also 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 toward one corner. Just before the plane hits the building an incendiary missile is fired to create a temperature within the building high enough to ensure ignition of the jet fuel which is about to be released by the impact. 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 the awesome fireball are recorded by many cameras for repeated viewing all around the world.)
- After being advised of the second impact George W. Bush continues listening to children read a story about a pet goat for another quarter of an hour, then finally announces to the nation that he has made some phone calls but 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 (despite this being standard practice whenever a commercial airliner strays from its flight path). 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.
- By sometime around 9:15 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.
- Pseudo Flight 77, under remote control, flies at high speed toward Washington D.C., performs a spiral descent at high speed to near ground level, and (at about 9:30 a.m.) looking to observers like a Boeing 757, makes a horizontal approach to the Pentagon, knocking over several lamp posts on the way. Just before impact it is completely destroyed by onboard explosives, producing the minor amount of debris later observed on the Pentagon lawn.
Timed
to coincide with this event, two or three high-speed cruise missiles
arrive from slightly different directions (travelling so fast as to be
mostly unnoticed by witnesses, whose attention is focused on Pseudo
Flight 77) and penetrate the outer wall of the Pentagon, producing three
exit holes in the 'C' ring of the building. One of the missiles fails
to explode, causing less damage than intended. (The unexploded missile
will later be carried away covered by a tarpaulin.)
- Sometime around 9:45 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 South Tower collapses (at 9:59 a.m.) in a controlled demolition, 56 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 10:06 a.m., almost an hour and a half
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 North Tower collapses (at 10:29 a.m.) also in a controlled demolition, 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.
- 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 produced by the missiles 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 White House and 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
incorrect, but it is a plausible 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. [Note added 2006-01-24: A more recent hypothesis is given at A Possible 9/11 Scenario.]
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.
In March 2003 Leonard Spencer examined the Valentine-Plissken
hypothesis, basically confirming it, but suggesting a significant
modification with respect to Flight 93, and tentatively identifying the
airport at which the airliners were instructed to land as Yeager Airport
near Charleston, W. Virginia.:
In August 2003 the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis was refined further by Prof. A. K. Dewdney in his Operation Pearl,
where he provides a more detailed theory as to what happened on
September 11th and a timeline of events consistent with the evidence
("X" in flight numbers refers to planes substituted for the original
planes):
| Time | Event |
| 7:59 am | AA11 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport |
| 8:14 am | UA175 takes off from Boston's Logan Airport |
| 8:16 am | First deviation of AA11 north of Albany, NY |
| 8:20 am | AA77 takes off from Washington's Dulles Airport |
| 8:20 am | AA11 transponder turned off |
| 8:30 am | First swap: Flight AA11-X takes over, transponder off |
| 8:35 am | Beginning of NY ATC transcript |
| 8:40 am | UA175 transponder is turned off |
| 8:42 am | UA93 takes off from Newark, NJ |
| First deviation of UA175 over northern NJ | |
| 8:46 am | Second swap: Flight AA77X takes over, same t-code |
| 8:46 am | AA11-X strikes north tower of WTC |
| Nationwide alert begins | |
| 8:53 am | Third swap: Flight UA175X takes over, transponder off |
| AA11 lands at Harrisburg | |
| 8:54 am | End of NY ATC transcript |
| 8:55 am | AA77X transponder is turned off |
| 9:02 am | UA175X strikes south tower of WTC |
| UA175 lands at Harrisburg | |
| Fourth swap: Flight UA93X replaces UA93 | |
| 9:07 am | UA93 lands at Harrisburg |
| 9:09 am | AA77 lands at Harrisburg |
| 9:37 am | AA77X overflies the Pentagon, aircraft or explosion at Wedge 1 |
| 9:45 am | UA93 takes off from Harrisburg |
| 10:06 am | UA93 crashes near Shanksville, PA |
It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van ... Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. ... [It] was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down. There's no way I imagined this plane — it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. — Susan Mcelwain, quoted in What did happen to Flight 93?
For a detailed analysis (posted 2005-01-08) of witness reports connected with the crash of UA 93 see:
Some people have said that this account of the events of September 11th
2001 is "too convoluted to understand". Actually it's quite simple:
- Four commercial passenger jets (American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 and United Airlines Flights 93 and 175) take off and shortly after the pilots are ordered to land at a designated airport with a military presence.
- Two previously-prepared planes (one a Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet and loaded with extra jet fuel) take off and are flown by remote control to intercept the flight paths of AA 11 and UA 175 so as to deceive the air traffic controllers.
- These (substituted) jets then fly toward Manhattan; the first crashes into the North Tower and (eighteen minutes later) the second crashes into the South Tower.
- A mock 757, destroyed just before impact, and two or three cruise missiles, hit the Pentagon.
- The people on three of the Boeings are transferred to the fourth (UA 93).
- This plane takes off and is shot down by a U.S. Air Force jet over Pennsylvania, eliminating the innocent witnesses to the diversion of the passenger planes.
- Under cover of darkness later that evening the other three Boeings are flown by remote control out over the Atlantic, are scuttled and end up in pieces at the bottom of the ocean.
Prof. Dewdney concludes his Operation Pearl article thus:
Under the Operation Pearl scenario, the most likely perpetrator would be Mossad, Israel's spy agency. An arm's-length relationship with the Bush administration, with neocon elements acting as go-betweens, would enable Rumsfeld, Bush and other members of the US administration to disclaim any "specific" knowledge of a forthcoming attack.
So it appears that the Bush clique (including neocons Richard Perle and
Paul Wolfowitz) collaborated with the Israeli government to stage the
September 11th attacks, with Mossad providing the hands-on direction of
the operation. But it is unlikely that Operation Pearl could be carried
out entirely by Mossad agents — Americans within the U.S. Air Force and
the state security and intelligence agencies had to be involved.
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).
Those Fabricated Cellphone Calls
As for the tale which appeared in Newsweek, etc., about plucky passengers on UA Flight 93 jumping the hijackers ("OK, let's roll!") — this was 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
If cellphones work from a plane flying at 30,000 feet and at a speed of
hundreds of miles an hour then the Newsweek story about the passengers
making calls might contain some truth (they were told to call so as to
provide support for the soon-to-be-released official story) — but not
that part of the story which has one of the passengers, Mark Bingham,
calling his mother, saying "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham."
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 Vialls's Mother of All Lies About 9/11.
And in fact research by Prof. A. K. Dewdney and
others (try this yourself) has shown that it is practically impossible
that multiple calls from a plane flying at the normal cruising height
and speed of a commercial airliner could be made.
As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible." — 'Project Achilles' — Final (Third) Report and Summary of Findings
So there were no cellphone calls from UA Flight 93 or any of the other planes. The story was a hoax.
From 9/11 and CellPhone Calls (continued in Part 2):
Jane Pauley did a televised interview with the Glick family, whom Jeremy Glick phoned from Flight 93. ... Glick's family are the only relatives [who] actually say on national television — repeatedly — that they had spoken directly to a passenger. So we need only one voice mimicry setup. Glick worked for Vividence, which is an internet marketing research firm. ... Vividence tracks web users' individual surfing habits for marketing predictions. ... You can imagine intelligence services being interested in such technology. Maybe Vividence wasn't all a front, but had in place, coincidentally, a person who was connected to the intelligence community. This person would have been Glick's superior in the organization. I am taking a flying leap here. Glick was a pawn from the git go. 9-11 had been scripted, including hero passengers attacking the hijackers. Flight 93 was never meant to hit anything but the ground. The plot needed a believable attacker. Glick, a collegiate judo champion, a big tough guy, was believable. His pretty wife would be a sympathetic widow. At Vividence his job required him to travel, so when the time came, he could be booked onto a flight, and take it, no questions asked. With months or weeks of lead time, voice mimicry of one person is easy. There would be opportunities to learn biographical details for the fakeout. There would be ample opportunity to test Glick's captured voice on his business contacts to see if it played.
From Michel Chossudovsky's More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls:
The 9/11 Commission's Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes. In the absence of surviving passengers, this "corroborating evidence", was based on passengers' cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones. ...
Focusing on the personal drama of the passengers, the Commission has built much of its narrative around the phone conversations. The Arabs are portrayed with their knives and box cutters, scheming in the name of Allah, to bring down the planes and turn them "into large guided missiles" ...
[But] what this carefully drafted script, fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet ...
While a few of these calls (placed at low altitude) could have got through, the wireless technology was not available. On this issue, expert opinion within the wireless telecom industry is unequivocal. In other words, at least part of the Commission's script in Chapter 1 on the cell phone conversations, is fabricated.
The media whores cannot be unaware that several companies (starting in
2004) have been working on making in-flight cellphone calls possible.
And surely at least some of the media whores are sufficiently bright to
understand that this implies that inflight cellphone calls were not
possible on September 11, 2001. But none of the media whores mention
this.
- Dan Reed, USA Today, 2004-07-19: In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test
The race is on to enable airline passengers to make and receive cell phone calls in flight.
- 2005-04-05: Inflight Mobile Phone Use — A Step Closer to Reality
OnAir has partnered with the Airbus facility at Buxtehude to develop and seek certification for an airborne system for the commercial use of mobile phones on board aircraft. "This airborne system is fundamental to OnAir's business objective of making mobile phone use a reality on short and long haul flights for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft," said OnAir CEO, George Cooper, speaking at the opening of Aircraft Interiors Expo 2005 in Hamburg today.
- ABC News, 2010-10-05: Airline to Make Cell Phone Calls Possible on Flights
Singapore Airlines announced today [October 5, 2010] that it will soon allow wireless connections -- for text messages, Blackberrys and perhaps cell phone calls -- on its medium- and long-haul flights. ...Details are still being worked out, but when the airline implements the system early next year, it could be the first carrier to allow passengers to make and receive voice calls on their personal cell phones.
"The first?" Er ... what about Flight 93? Didn't those "plucky passengers" call their relatives on their cell phones? But how could they, if such calls are just starting to become possible in 2010?
Finally two from David Ray Griffin:
- Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials (2008-04-20)
- Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners (2010-01-15)
Without the widespread assumption that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been possible. With regard to the war in Afghanistan in particular, Michel Chossudovsky has recently emphasized the fact that NATO's decision to support this US-led war was based on a briefing by Frank Taylor of the US State Department, in which he provided what was called conclusive evidence of al-Qaeda's responsibility for the attacks. Although the contents of Taylor's briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners. But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.
------------------------------------The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism5. 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"
This message was posted to the internet on September 11th 2001, within hours of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Right from the beginning, some people were not deceived. As the third anniversary of this event approached many Americans were still clueless.
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. ...
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.
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:
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
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
Clear video evidence for the occurrence of explosions occurring during the collapse of the North Tower is given at Visual Evidence of Controlled Demolition.
First look at this video (a wmv file, playable in Windows Media Player) of a controlled demolition, and observe clouds of debris ejected horizontally by explosions placed at several levels in the building to be demolished. Now look at this video of the North Tower collapsing. Two of these can be seen clearly before the collapse descends beneath the viewframe. 
Evidence of Explosives In The South Tower Collapse
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.
Seismic Evidence
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.
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
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? Not Hiroshima-style 15-kiloton blasts but perhaps the sort produced by mini-nukes developed in recent years by the Pentagon? (The term Ground-zero was coined in 1945 at Alamogordo NM to identify the epicenter where the first atomic bomb was detonated.)Christopher Bollyn:
Seismic Evidence Points
to Underground Explosions
Causing WTC Collapse
This, together with numerous demolition charges detonated at every ten levels or so
next to 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 the Towers Took to Fall
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 each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/). 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 one 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 conclusive 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?
The Twin Towers were not the only buildings in the WTC complex about which questions can be asked. There were other WTC building "collapses".
A way to prove that the supporting steel columns of the Twin Towers had been blasted by explosives would be to examine fragments from them among the debris for evidence of what metallurgists call "twinning". But the WTC debris was removed as fast as possible and no forensic examination of the debris was permitted by the FBI or any other government agency. Almost all the 300,000 tons of steel from the Twin Towers was sold to New York scrap dealers and exported to places like China and Korea as quickly as it could be loaded onto the ships, thereby removing the evidence. See Debris Mountain Starts to Shrink, an article which shows that Controlled Demolition Inc. (a world leader in the demolition of tall buildings) was apparently keen to have the debris removed and disposed of as soon as possible and was able to come up with a detailed plan for doing so within eleven days of the collapse of the Twin Towers, suggesting that this company had detailed knowledge of the Twin Towers and the entire WTC complex prior to September 11th.
As a result of reports in 2001-2002 that the Twin Towers were demolished by the use of explosives there have been more detailed scientific studies appearing on the web. See:
- Prof. Steven Jones: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
- Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan et al.: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe (9.88 MB PDF file)
According to the official version, which the 9/11 commission hardly comments on, the twin towers fell because of the impact of the planes and of the effects of the subsequent fires. The problem is that this is physically impossible, as we will show. The fall of the towers thus depends on some other cause: controlled demolition of some kind is the only possible hypothesis. The key to seeing beyond the official version is to chronicle the presence of secondary explosions, since these are the tell-tale signs of controlled demolition. When we examine the literature, we find a multitude of references to such secondary explosions. — Webster Tarpley, The Collapse of World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7Download Webster Tarpley's report (it's a 165 Kb PDF file) to read the "multitude of references to secondary explosions" and his comments on former NY Mayor Rudi Giuliani's cover-up of the crime by the quick removal of all the physical evidence.
It might be objected that the WTC employed hundreds of security guards
and had hundreds of surveillance cameras (supposedly) operating. With
this kind of security it might be possible to plant a few bombs but
planting many (and especially bombs powerful enough to destroy the
foundations of the supporting steel columns) would seem infeasible.
However, the ownership of the World Trade Center changed hands eleven
weeks before the attack. The new owner was Larry Silverstein.
The destruction of the WTC and George W. Bush's declaration of a "War
on Terrorism" has proven to be (and could have been foreseen to be) of
major benefit to Israel in its brutal repression of the Palestinian
people, its efforts to destroy the Palestinian Authority, which it
labels as "terrorist-controlled", and its attempts to dominate all its
Arab neighbors. The new owners of the WTC might well have been
persuaded to cooperate in a scheme of such obvious benefit to Israel.
But if eleven weeks is considered insufficient time to plant explosives
then how about several years? This possibility will be considered in
the next section.
explosives were used to bring the Twin Towers down and that the official story is false.
Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories
Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11
presenting evidence that small H-bombs were used to demolish the Twin Towers.
a cluster of atomic bombs (fission devices). A lot of evidence is presented in support of this view at
wtcdemolition.blogspot.com
If you don't want to wade through all the evidence and argument then try:
A Brief Summary: WTC Destruction & High Temperature Aftermath:
ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence
You might come away from this wondering why it took so many years for someone
to finally put all the evidence together so as to make the conclusion obvious.
--------------------
|
When considering the possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives
there is an interesting variation which is worth considering: What if
the Twin Towers were designed — or re-engineered — so that they could be
destroyed in a controlled demolition if circumstances required?
What circumstances might lead to an order to demolish the Twin Towers?
A situation in which it was believed that they were in danger of
collapsing in an uncontrolled manner and falling onto the buildings
surrounding them in Manhattan's financial district. In such a case, it
might be held, better to demolish one or both of the towers in a
controlled manner so as to minimize death and destruction in the
surrounding area.
A self-destruct mechanism might not have been designed into the Twin
Towers originally, but it might have been added later, especially after
the 1993 bombing of the WTC alerted all of America (an in particular,
the people working in the surrounding office buildings) to the
possibility that there might be another attack on the WTC which would
succeed in destroying the towers. It would not be particularly
difficult to engineer this possibility. One simply has to engage the
services of a controlled demolition company (such as Controlled Demolition Inc.
to set things up. (This is the company that hauled away the rubble from
the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City after its demolition and provided a
detailed plan to do the same for the WTC eleven days after September
11th.) Naturally they would be told (if they wondered at the purpose)
that this was a "fail-safe" mechanism, not intended to be used except to
minimize damage in the event of an attack.
So such a company specializing in controlled demolition of large
buildings could study the problem and, with the approval of the owners
(the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey prior to July 2001),
place explosives at just those points which would destroy the structural
integrity of the building (if and when detonated) so as to bring the
Twin Towers down precisely in the way the world witnessed on CNN on
September 11th.
So such a company specializing in controlled demolition of large
buildings could study the problem and, with the approval of the owners
(the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey prior to July 2001),
place explosives at just those points which would destroy the structural
integrity of the building (if and when detonated) so as to bring the
Twin Towers down precisely in the way the world witnessed on CNN on
September 11th.
It has even been suggested that such a self-destruct mechanism was
required in order to prevent companies with offices in the buildings in
the vicinity of the Twin Towers from moving out (fearing for the safety
of their premises and their employees), and was also required to
persuade new companies to rent office space in Lower Manhattan. It has
been suggested that the company directors of large companies with, or
considering buying or renting, office space in the financial district
would not agree to keep or to obtain that office space unless they could
be given an assurance that in the event of a major attack on the WTC,
sufficient to destroy the Twin Towers, their offices would not be
damaged significantly and their employees would not be put in mortal
danger. Whether this is true or not is known only by a few, including
the past and present owners of the WTC (and some of their employees) and
the directors of large companies with offices in Lower Manhattan.
According to this theory, then, the plane (and possibily missile)
attacks on the WTC triggered this fail-safe mechanism, and one or more
engineers were obliged (in consultation with the owners of the WTC — or
perhaps the owners acted alone) to decide whether the damage to one or
both of the towers was sufficient that there was a significant danger
that they would collapse in an uncontrolled manner upon the surrounding
areas, and that it was thus necessary to push the button which would
detonate the charges and bring the towers down, which they did.
[Testifying before a congressional inquiry] Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority [of New York and New Jersey] refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers — crucial for evaluating the wreckage — until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency [that is, against FEMA]. — New York Daily News, 2002-03-07
Was this because a close examination of the blueprints might reveal
clues that the Twin Towers had been engineered to make possible
a controlled demolition? And that FEMA was aware of this?
Since it was this very same FEMA which took charge of the "investigation" into the WTC collapse (and which later released a nonsensical report
repeating the official explanation) one might be forgiven for
suspecting that their "investigation" has been something less than an
unbiased attempt to discover the truth of what happened.
Assume now, for the sake of argument, that a "fail-safe" mechanism as
described above was actually engineered into the Twin Towers (probably
in the mid-1990s).
The explanation given above, of the collapse of the Twin Towers, still
leaves open one important question: Did those who demolished the Twin
Towers on the morning of September 11th plan in advance to do so? Did
they have prior knowledge of the plan to strike the towers and was the
controlled demolition of the Twin Towers (and the deaths of thousands of
people in the buildings) already planned by the perpetrators of the
attacks and those who assisted them?
Given the existence of the fail-safe
mechanism, a small number of people would have known about it, including
officials at FEMA and possibly including the most senior members of the
Manhattan business community (especially if such a mechanism was there
to persuade them to remain in Manhattan). Even though this mechanism
was presumably built in to the Twin Towers hoping it would never be used, some people would know that it was there and that it could be used — provided one had the authority to initiate the demolition procedure and a putatively sufficient reason to exercise that authority.
Who had such authority? Presumably the owners of the World Trade Center
(though perhaps they could not have pushed the button without first
obtaining permission from FEMA).
Most of the World Trade Center changed hands in a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance covering buildings and rents — payable to new beneficiaries. — The Blockbuster
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the 26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and [Larry] Silverstein the office portion.The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July — just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy.Silverstein was ecstatic at that time. "This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect. — The Blockbuster
The "arguably sufficient reason" was provided by the impacts and the
subsequent structural damage and fire. According to this scenario,
then, the purpose of the impacts was not themselves to destroy the Twin
Towers but rather to provide the "justification" for detonating the
explosives which brought them down in a controlled demolition.
It is interesting, in considering this idea, to look at the actual times
that the Twin Towers stood after the impacts. As noted in Section 2,
the North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m., in a direct hit and most
of the plane's fuel entered the building, causing a huge fire. Then at
9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit,
but the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and
comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most burning
up outside. In both cases the fires within the buildings died down
after awhile, giving off only black, sooty smoke. If the Twin Towers
were deliberately demolished, and the intention was to blame the
collapse on the fires (as the official story has it) then the latest
time at which the towers could be collapsed would be just as the fires
were dying down. Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the
combustion of less fuel than the fire in the North Tower, the fire in
the South Tower began to go out earlier than the fire in the North
Tower. Those controlling the demolition thus had to collapse the South
Tower before they collapsed the North Tower. And in fact the South
Tower collapsed 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.
These times are consistent with the hypothesis that the progress of the
fires was being monitored by whoever was handling the demolition, and
that they collapsed the towers at the last possible time, just as the
fires were dying down.
|
There are some who wish to dismiss this webpage as 'conspiracy stuff',
and pour scorn upon its author. Such people never offer answers to the
following questions. As Gore Vidal has recently stated (The Enemy Within), "Apparently 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth."
- In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware (or so they say) of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN? And why has this (apparent) incompetence been rewarded with yet more billions?
- The four AA and UA jets took off with an average occupancy rate of 27%. That four airliners from major airlines leaving from the East Coast around 9 a.m. on a weekday for the West Coast would all have such low occupancy rates is highly unlikely. Was the booking system tampered with in order to ensure such low occupancy rates (so that the passengers from all four planes could eventually be loaded onto UA Flight 93 for elimination)?
- Why would hijackers intending to crash planes into the WTC hijack jets taking off from Boston rather than from someplace closer such as JFK Airport in New York?
- Why would hijackers intending to crash a plane into the Pentagon hijack a jet from Dulles Airport near Washington DC (and thus close to the Pentagon) and allow it to fly for 40 minutes away from its target before turning around and flying another 40 minutes back to it (knowing that interception by military jets during this time would in normal circumstances have been very likely)?
- AA Flight 77 (the jet which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon) was allegedly hijacked at about 9 a.m., at about the same time as the Twin Tower impacts, and its change of course back toward Washington, or its transponder having been turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why, then, were U.S. Air Force jets not scrambled to intercept AA Flight 77 forty minutes before it (allegedly) hit the Pentagon, when there were U.S. Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice?
- Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?
- Where are the black boxes (the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders) from all four jets? These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency which normally investigates airplane crashes? If not, why not?
- In particular, what is on the FDR and the CVR from UA Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania? Why, exactly, did this jet crash? Was it shot down?
- Were the conversations between the pilots of the other three hijacked planes and air traffic controllers recorded? If so, what did those pilots say? Were those recordings siezed by the FBI? Were (alleged) transcripts given by the FBI to the mainstream media? Were those transcripts fabricated to provide false evidence in support of the "Arab hijackers" story?
- Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?
- Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack?
- Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights?
- Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?
- If the outer perimeter walls of the Twin Towers were connected to the central cores only by lightweight trusses, how was wind load on the towers transmitted to the central core (as it must have been because the floors did not buckle in a strong wind)?
- What exactly was the nature of the structural connections between the outer perimeter wall and the central core of the two towers? Is it not false that this consisted only of lightweight flimsy trusses? Is it not the case that the connection was actually made with 32,000 tons of steel beams?
- Why are the architect's plans of the Twin Towers not publicly available?
- Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition?
- Were the Twin Towers re-engineered in the mid-1990s to make possible a collapse-on-demand if that were judged necessary? Was FEMA aware of this? Do blueprints of the Twin Towers in the possession of the past owners reveal any evidence of this?
- Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced?
- Were any tests done on the debris for the presence of radioactivity?
- Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of airliner impacts and fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know exactly how this was accomplished)?
- Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?
- What was the actual size of the entrance hole made by the object which hit the Pentagon? Is it not the case that photographic evidence reveals that it was in fact at most just a few meters in diameter, much too small to have been made by a Boeing 757 jet, but just the right size for a missile?
- Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site?
- Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives for burial?
- Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?
- In September 2001 the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an inquiry to establish who benefited from the unusually high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options. Why has this inquiry stalled? Why have those who benefited from the purchases of these put options not been identified (or at least, not publicly)?
- Is it not the case that this atrocity was planned and carried out by elements at high levels of command in the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, the Justice Department and FEMA (possibly with the involvement of well-placed civilians outside the government), acting under orders from, or with the approval of, high officials within the U.S. Administration, and that those same elements are now directing a propaganda campaign against the American people to justify a war of aggression in Asia and the Middle East aimed at controlling the oil and mineral wealth of those regions?
- Why has the U.S. mainstream media ignored questions like these for over three years? Why are they complicit in the cover-up?
No comments:
Post a Comment