| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
Neocons publish plan for world domination
In 1999, Washington-based war-mongering think-tank The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) asked their top "thinkers" (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle) to outline a Pax Americana for the new millennium. Their paper, entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", called for a return to Cold War levels of defensive spending, expansion into space-based weaponry, and strategic repositioning of the USA in the Middle East for control of natural resources. However, the report warned that such a transformation
"... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
|
Warmongerer
Richard "new" Perle "Harbor"
|
| |
Former German defense secretary and Minister of Technology Andreas von Bulow has been outspoken in casting doubt on the official story. He stated in an interview with Alex Jones:
"So for me... the official version [of 9/11 is] not credible at all, it’s totally incredible. The second solution for me is a covert operation. And this is a way to influence, to brainwash the American people into [a] long, long, ongoing conflict with the Muslim world..."
Andreas von Bulow
|
Andreas von Bulow
|
| |
|
|
|
The controlled demolition of WTC 1 & 2
For the first and only three times in history, steel-frame buildings collapsed due to "fire". The black smoke clearly visible was indicative of a cool, inefficient, oxygen starved fire, rather than the towering inferno that the official account would have us believe. The fires were soon contained by firefighters, but the buildings stood for only 102 and 56 minutes respectively before collapsing.
The official story of the "pancake theory", whereby fire induced structural failure caused each floor in turn to collapse into the one below in cascade, is incompatible with the fact that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 happened at near free-fall speed (around 10 seconds). Even if we suppose that a "pancake" collapse is theoretically credible, it's speed must still be significantly less than that of free-fall, as each floor, support and buttress will provide resistance to any falling material. Then we must further suppose that all this can happen in near-perfect symmetry, twice in a row.
Many witnesses have come forward to describe how they witnessed bombs exploding in the buildings including firefighters, police, maintenance staff and other survivors. The concrete from the buildings was pulverized into the super-fine crystalline dust that covered lower Manhattan, an effect only expected of high-explosives. Many anomalous explosions and smoke puffs are visible throughout both collapses.
‘BOMBS INSIDE WTC’ - FIRE OFFICER SAYS FIREMEN, COPS KNOW TRUTH
NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.
... Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept. 11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated inside the World Trade
Center towers.
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.
“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11...
American Free Press, 2005
Senior north tower janitor William Rodriguez was heralded as a hero for saving the lives of numerous people trapped in the burning tower. He claims that his statements of explosions in the basement before the impact of the plane were consistently cut from his network television interviews, and his evidence to the same effect given to the official 9/11 Commission disregarded. Said Rodriguez in a telephone conversation:
"What really upsets me is that we have all these people coming forward with credible testimony about explosions and we have been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission and the major media... [T]he American press, they have locked their doors on all of us, never allowing our stories to surface or even trying to investigate why the 9/11 Commission didn't bother to include out statements in the final report... What does that tell you?"
William Rodriguez
In his paper entitled "Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?", Professor of Physics Steven Jones of Bringham Young University, Utah calls for a "serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges [explosives]," and includes key points which Jones and many others feel have not been addressed by the FEMA, NIST, or 9-11 Commission Reports. He goes into detail about the large pools of molten metal that were observed for days under all three buildings.
A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero. The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location....
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.
Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water... On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, 2005
Neither the 9/11 Commission, FEMA or NIST reports mention the molten metal. Prof. Jones appeared live on MSNBC news to discuss his paper with a hostile Tucker Carlson.
|
 |
|
WTC janitor
William Rodriguez (left) 
Prof Steven E. Jones,
Bringham Young University
|
| |
|
|
|
The controlled demolition of WTC 7
The case for controlled demolition, as opposed to fire, is strongest for WTC 7. The similarly constructed 47 storey building was not hit by a plane, yet five hours after the collapse of towers 1 & 2, and with seemingly little damage save minor fires on two floors, came straight down into its own footprint in a perfectly symmetrical near-freefall collapse of around 7 seconds. Its collapse has all the hallmarks of, and can only realistically be explained by, a conventional controlled demolition. As outlined by David Ray Griffin in his paper entitled "The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True", these hallmarks are:
-
Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings.... [Indeed, a classic "crimp" is visible in the centre of WTC 7's roof seconds before it collapses, indicative of a central support column being blown out in advance of the main demolition, a standard practice to induce the building to fall slightly inwards on itself - Chike]
-
Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance.
-
Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high.... The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns. According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004...)
-
Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: “Our DREXSTM systems... segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.
The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into... sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero".
-
Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles...
-
Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy...
-
Horizontal Ejections ["squibs"]: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7)...
-
Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.
-
Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions.. [T]here is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.
-
Molten Steel: [A] feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns...
Prof. David Ray Griffin, The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
The 9/11 Commission sidesteps the whole mystery of WTC 7 by declaring the collapse out of its scope. Similarly, the 2005 NIST report also does not investigate WTC 7; a separate investigation has been delayed and is pending. The FEMA report's best hypothesis, that of fire-damage, is by their own admission an unlikely one:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
FEMA report, 2002
FEMA does not consider the hypothesis of controlled demolition.
|
The controlled demolition of Building 7
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Silverstein's slip
In September 2002, complex owner Larry Silverstein stated on a TV documentary that he gave the order to "pull" WTC 7, accepted industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it [WTC Building 7].' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Larry Silverstein on America Rebuilds, PBS
As Paul Joseph Watson points out:
We know that the term "pull it" means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull building six."
Rigging a building this size for demolition is a painstaking process that takes weeks at the very least. After years of stonewalling, in 2005 Silverstein finally explained himself through his spokesman in a debunking article on the US State Department's website, where he claimed that by "it" he was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. Even if we leave aside the fact that contextually this makes little sense, the following still needs to be explained:
The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7 [at this time].
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
Paul Joseph Watson, Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges, 2005
Silverstein received a $7.1 billion insurance payout based on an obscure terrorism clause in a policy taken out five months before the attack, more than doubling his initial investment. Click here for videos of the collapse and of Silverstein's statement.
|
Larry Silverstein on PBS
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
The 2005 NIST report
US governmental agency the National Institute of Standards and Technology have compiled a mammoth technical investigation into the reasons for the collapses of WTC 1 & 2. They sum up their conclusion as follows:
The buildings would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires, if the fireproofing had not been dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
NIST Report, 2005
In other words, their entire case is built on the speculation that a large proportion of the fireproofing became completely dislodged, an unlikely scenario to say the least, allowing the ensuing fires to buckle the exposed steel and lead to complete collapse.
Assuming for a moment that the fireproofing was indeed dislodged as NIST speculate, we still have the problem of how fires could cause the complete collapse of a steel frame building. NIST's first attempt at a solution was to contract Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to construct physical scale models and observe their behaviour under similar conditions to those expierienced in WTC 1 & 2. But even under their worst-case scenario, their models stood firm. However, Kevin Ryan, a management level employee at UL, outlined his objections to how UL's results were being used in a letter to Dr. Frank Gale of NIST:
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that... the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year... But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1)...
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to... suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able (sic) to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers...
Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories, 11 Nov, 2004 [emphasis added]
Prof. Steven E. Jones points outs that the NIST report makes no secret of the fact that they were unable to simulate structural failure in their physical model:
That models of WTC trusses at Underwriter Laboratories (UL) subjected to fires did NOT fail is also admitted in the final NIST report:
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)
So how does the NIST team justify their hypothesis, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, 2005
Failing to finding evidence in the real world for their hypothesis, NIST instead turn to the virtual one. And, finally, after heavy use of worst-case scenarios and tweaking of their custom-written software simulation, they got the result they were looking for - those virtual buildings came down. However, Prof. Jones goes on to say:
An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends support to concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. It states:
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators...
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said…
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models... “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.” (Parker, 2005; emphasis added.)
Here we have serious concerns about the NIST WTC collapse report raised by structural and fire engineers, augmenting the arguments raised here by a physicist.
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, 2005
So where exactly is NIST's evidence for their conclusion (the plane-dislodges-all-fireproofing-inferno-raises-building theory), apart from an opaque, proprietary, secret computer simulation?
Veteran 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman criticizes the report as follows:
NIST's investigation is being presented as the presumptive last word on the collapses of the Twin Towers... The collapse of each of the Twin Towers was the last of three events:
- A jetliner collides with the Tower, punching a gaping hole and producing a giant fireball.
- The jet fuel ignites fires on multiple floors, producing thick smoke and heating and possibly deforming some structures.
- The Tower collapses totally, from top to bottom, leaving virtually no recognizable pieces except fragments of its steel skeleton and aluminum cladding.
Each event was horrific and killed hundreds of people. But only the third event violated engineering experience and required the invention of new theories to explain. Yet the Report looks only at the first two events -- the subject of hundreds of pages -- while showing no interest in the third. These are curious priorities for an investigation that purports to explain the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history.
In other words, their investigation encompassed the period of time only up until the point of collapse; at this point they considered their investigation complete, neatly avoiding having to explain the collapses themselves. A footnote in their draft report states:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
NIST, 2005
NIST makes no mention of the observed molten metal pools in their report. They dismiss the hypothesis of controlled demolition with a single sentence, claiming to have found "no evidence" for it.
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
No proper forensic process
The ruined WTC complex was not treated as a crime scene as prescribed by American law. A thorough forensic examination of the steel and other debris, which could have confirmed or refuted the theories offered above, was never carried out. The steel was hurriedly removed by Phoenix contractor Controlled Demolition, Inc, a company specializing in building demolition and rubble removal, and sold off to various national and international salvage organizations.
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.
New York Daily News, 16 April 2002
|
 |
| |
|
|
| |
Hijackers found alive
At least 9 of the accused 19 "suicide" "hijackers" have since been reported alive.
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre [sic] on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.
Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco...
BBC, 23 September 2001
|
Suicide hijacker Waleed Al Shehri (survived)
|
| |
|
|
| |
Presidential Secret Service behaviour
Despite the fact that the president was on a publicly advertised media call, the Secret Service made no move to relocate him to a secure location until 30 minutes after the second plane hit the WTC.
|
Riveted by the goat
|
| |
|
|
|
FBI agents warned off anti-terror cases
Whistleblowing FBI agents have gone public alleging that they were threatened and impeded in certain anti-terrorism investigations in the months prior to 9/11.
Agent: FBI Could Have Prevented 9-11
WASHINGTON – A veteran FBI agent Thursday charged that corruption inside the bureau derailed investigations that could have averted the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11. His lawyers said the FBI had evidence that the World Trade Center was a possible terrorist target.
In a memo written 91 days before Sept. 11, Special Agent Robert G. Wright Jr. warned that Americans would die as a result of the FBI's failure to investigate terrorists living in this country.
Wright went public at a press conference even though FBI Director Robert Mueller ordered him to stay in Chicago and threatened him with criminal prosecution if he spoke publicly about the agency's wrongdoing.
"The FBI is not protecting the American people," declared Wright at a conference sponsored by his attorneys at the public interest law firm Judicial Watch.
"... [There is] virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing in the United States. Unfortunately, more terrorist attacks against the American interests, coupled with the loss of American lives, will have to occur before those in power give this matter the urgent attention it deserves..."
Newsmax, 31 May 2002
|
Former FBI agent Robert Wright
|
| |
|
|
| |
CIA insider trading
Massive irregular trading occurred in the days preceding the attacks specifically in American and United Airline stocks. CIA Executive Director A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard was implicated along with other CIA-related investment firms, although no official investigation has ever taken place.
SUPPRESSED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA's HIGHEST RANKS
...the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.
... Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million... The levels of put options purchased... were more than six times higher than normal.
... On September 29, 2001 - in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media - the San Francisco Chronicle reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors - whose identities and nationalities have not been made public - had advance knowledge of the strikes." ... The suspension of trading for four days after the attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking."
Excerpts from an article by Michael C. Ruppert
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
NORAD drills and the military stand-down
Despite government rejections that such an attack had ever been envisaged, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) ran drills in the years previous simulating the exact 9/11 plot:
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...
USA Today, 18 March 2004
It has been reported that similar drills also occurred on the morning of 9/11 itself, apparently confusing air traffic controllers, and were offered as one of the many excuses for military failures. Indeed, NORAD did not respond until 85 minutes after the initial impact. Standard operating procedure is to scramble jets the moment a plane leaves its course, a procedure already put into practice 67 times by the American military that year.
|
|
| |
British MP and former Blair cabinet minister Michael Meacher questioned the official version of events in an article in the London Guardian:
... The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?
... could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11?
... 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action [see top]. The evidence... is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11.
Excerpts from This War on Terrorism is Bogus, The Guardian, September 6 2003
|
Crackpot conspiracy theorist
Michael Meacher MP
|
| |
|
|
| |
Cheney's stand-down order
In giving evidence to the 9/11 Congressional Commission, and despite coercive questioning to the contrary, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta described how Dick Cheney was informed well in advance that a plane was headed for the Pentagon but consciously failed to issue a shoot-down order. From the testimony:
"There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane [headed for the Pentagon] is 50 miles out [...] The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant."
Norman Mineta addressing the 9/11 Commission
|
"Of course the orders still stand"
|
| |
|
|
|
The 9/11 Commission Report: "a 571 page lie"
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) was a supposedly independent all-encompassing investigation into the events of 9/11. Such an enquiry was initially resisted by the Bush administration who saw it as an waste of resources. When public pressure finally forced them to act, the administration placed many obstacles in the enquiry's path, including giving it extremely meager funding and by putting Henry Kissinger in charge. Kissinger resigned facing questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Kissinger resigns as head of 9/11 commission
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Facing questions about potential conflicts of interest, Henry Kissinger resigned Friday as chairman of the September 11 commission.
President Bush named Kissinger to lead the 10-member commission last month, dropping his longstanding opposition to an independent probe of the events leading up to the September 11 terrorist attacks...
CNN, 13 December 2004
|
 |
|
The report, which was published in August 2004, has been criticized by philosopher and former Professor of Theology David Ray Griffin, who has written two books and given lectures on the subject of the attacks. In his book The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, he dissects the official enquiry, and has described it as a "571 page lie". Griffin has summarised more than 100 points from the report that he describes as implicit or explicit lies, some of which include:
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air...
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America’s “most wanted” criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent...
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October...
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD’s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews...
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times...
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane...
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane...
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president...
112. The failure to point out that the Commission’s claimed “independence” was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration...
114. The failure to point out that the Commission’s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest...
Excerpts from The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Prof. David Ray Griffin
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
The Bush-bin Laden connection
The ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families are long and convoluted.
Bin Laden family allowed 9/11 leave
NEW YORK, Sept. 2 (UPI) -- The bin Laden family were granted extraordinary White House privileges to fly out of U.S. airspace following the attacks of Sept. 11th, 2001.
Former White House counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke told Vanity Fair the Bush administration decided to allow a group of Saudis to fly out of U.S. airspace just after Sept. 11-- a time when access to the United States was still restricted and required special government approval.
According to the magazine's sources, at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two-dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week without even being interviewed or interrogated by the FBI.
Clarke, who headed the counter terrorism security group of the National Security Council, said he does not now recall who initiated the request for approval. He said it was probably either the FBI or the State Department, both of which have denied playing any such role.
United Press International
|
One big happy family
|
| |
|
|
| |
Operation Northwoods
Drawn up in 1962 by top US military leaders and declassified in 2001, Operation Northwoods is a proposal to commit staged acts of terror in the US and elsewhere that would subsequently be blamed on Cubans to create public support for a war. It has been reported that the plan was rejected by president Kennedy himself. It is presented here as evidence of past US governmental deliberations to create fake terror events to blame on their enemies as an excuse to go to war.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the attached Memorandum for the Chief of Operations, Cuba Project, which responds to a request of that office for a brief but precise description of pretexts which would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.
[...]
We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba... We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities or even Washington... Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba... It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States... It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
|
Operation Northwoods (PDF)
|
