How Did The WTC Towers Fall So Easily?
Melting 110-Stories of Steel and Concrete in just 57 Minutes
How did three huge skyscrapers implode within :10 seconds or less?

WTC 7 Destruction, Madrid Fire Are Keys To Unraveling 9/11

By Tim Watts

A Basic Understanding

Despite the differing opinions and countless theories which have been discussed and vehemently argued over concerning 9/11, one thing is painfully clear, this event was very well planned, with skilled military precision and strategic execution. This was a daring assault of monolithic proportions, outrageous in its temerity. No matter who was responsible, it was undeniably an orchestrated conspiracy. That much is fact.

Whoever was behind the planning was certainly no rookie. Clearly there was big money behind the operation, but more importantly, there was quite obviously a very high degree of skilled intelligence involved. By that, I am referring to alphabet state intel.

Whether that intel was foreign military or state sponsored, or merely a rogue splinter faction, it was indeed a valuable key in the success of the 9/11 attacks, an event which has become the primary catalyst of constitutional change for the United States, but also the pretext for war in the middle-east and North Africa.

The sad, perverse irony in all of this is that the United States claims to be bringing democracy to the many countries we've invaded, all the while it's being taken from us here at home.

The epic horror and cold brutality of this disaster, brought immediate public outcry, as well as a united grief and an outflow of compassion that did briefly unify the people momentarily, however, in just a short amount of time this infamous event has now become a contentious boiling point for many in the international community, while at the same time forming an indisputable divide among Americans.

Where We Are Now

Clearly the most acrimonious division has formed among the people of the United States. You either believe the government theory or you don't. If you should choose to recognize an alternative theory for 9/11, contrary to the official version, you are the one that is labeled as the conspiracy theorist, even though the government's version is perhaps much harder to believe than many of the alternative explanations.

There are still some who are, for whatever reason, either ambivalent or indifferent on the issue, however, the overall mass perceptions that exist today appear to be firmly entrenched and thus have become quite divisive. Many of these perceptions have been manufactured and nurtured by a non-inquisitive media that complicitly parrots the official government version. Those who resist that narrative are those who have explored alternative media and performed independent research on their own. It essentially comes down to coerced opinions versus learned opinions.

There are essentially three primary camps of thought that are being argued about regarding the 9/11 issue:

• The 9/11 plot that totally defeated numerous airport security checks, World Trade Center security & surveillance systems, FBI and CIA intelligence services, all active NORAD military defense measures, as well as local built in Pentagon defense mechanisms... was meticulously coordinated and executed by Osama bin Laden and his band of Al Qaeda terrorists. This is the DKIWH theory, Didn't Know It Would Happen.
   

• The 9/11 attacks were learned of by some U.S. officials who were warned early on by intel from many countries, but who chose instead to sit on that information, using the opportunity as a new Pearl Harbor, in order to engage in preemptive wars of aggression in the middle-east and North Africa, by being complicit regarding the attacks, if not odiously helping to facilitate them in order to justify their wars of imperialism. This is the LIHOP theory, Let It Happen On Purpose.
   

• The 9/11 event was orchestrated and deliberately engineered solely by rogue government intelligence services, using the the alleged hijackers as mere patsies in the plot. The impetus for such a false flag operation include the spoils from scenario two, but with the primary objective being the enactment of a world-wide police state, the dissolution of the United States, and the emergence of the long planned new world order. This is the MIHOP theory, Made It Happen On Purpose.

Out of the three outlined scenarios above, there appear to be two distinctive theories that emerge. One, that the U.S. government was innocently or ignorantly caught by surprise and totally bungled the defense of the country. The other is, whether exploited or heinously engineered, a rogue faction of our government explicitly used the event for its own nefarious agenda.

That's about as mixed as you can get on the topic, and that's clearly not a good thing for getting at the truth. As a result, this has divided people into two camps, those that naively trust and believe the government explanation of 9/11, versus those who have methodically explored the evidence and do not believe the official story.

From an analytical point of view, one thing is obvious in looking at these two divided factions; one of the two groups has been exposed to both sides of the story, while one absolutely refuses to look.

As a result of this dichotomous contrast and its resulting contentious debate, both sides vehemently resist the other, if not wholeheartedly resent the other. This contention, along with its deeply impassioned emotion, is often rooted with a strong patriotic underscore from both sides, making the issue quite divisive and socially volatile.

So the question is, how do we move on from where we are now?

We were all shown those awful events that day, repeatedly, as they played over and over again on our televisions. Each and every one of us saw with our own eyes the catastrophic events as they unfolded that day, albeit through a construed media lens.

Like everything else in life, our current perceptions of 9/11 have been carefully formed and coerced, if not outright manipulated, through an openly gullible trust of our corporate news media. We all saw the attacks with our own eyes, yet we have continually been bombarded by a complicit media to buy into an official story that arguably has more glaring holes and inadequacies than any of the so-called conspiracy theories. It is often argued that the real conspiracy theory is the government's official version.

The government wants you to believe: That 19 men, divided into four groups, not armed with guns or explosives, but with mere simple box-cutters, were able to bypass security at three major airports, overwhelm the crew and passengers of four airplanes despite being greatly outnumbered, fly the planes with little or no piloting skills, easily defeating well structured long standing U.S. air defense systems, skillfully steering three of the mammoth jetliners unabated into their designated targets, crumbling the twin towers in a near free fall fashion into their own footprints in ten seconds or less, while also striking the Pentagon, the most secure structure within the most guarded airspace in the entire world, which was somehow left undefended, even after declaring that America was already under attack over half an hour (:34 minutes), before it was hit by a plane that had its transponder off for :41 minutes! There was no intercept of that obvious hijack, nor either of the New York flights which had transponders off for :26 and :17 minutes respectively. The military tried to muster an air defense, but just couldn't get there in time.

Those searching for a more reasoned explanation suggest: That a rogue group of high ranking government individuals, with complete control and unfettered access to Federal aviation systems and U.S. military operations, either exploited an uncovered terrorist plot, or engineered a false flag operation of their own, to attack symbolic targets in the country, all of which held beneficial side gain to U.S. officials from either their substantial wealth resources, or else crucial incriminating records that needed to be destroyed, all conveniently contained within the targets, all the while initiating an environment of fear and panic that could be used to consolidate government power through the restriction of rights, while enabling an excuse for unprovoked wars that immediately benefit the military industrial complex, the corporate elite, and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century), the latter which penned a document in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses,"  which openly talked of a new Pearl Harbor in order to facilitate its agenda.

While both plots may be hard to conceive, the fact of the matter is, the last one outlined is arguably much easier to achieve, due to the overwhelming number of PNAC members that were strategically positioned in key government seats of power. A neo-con mechanism was clearly enabled within the Bush-Cheney administration that possessed the ability to implement strategy and achieve the goals set forth by the PNAC. (See more on the PNAC's access to power further in this article.)

Some are understandably scared to look at an alternative theory, afraid of having their world upset with a national revelation too ugly for them to personally bare, or fearful of being denounced as "being against us," thus being accused of not supporting the country, but for others, a search for the truth is the only recourse in dealing with an event of such horrific destruction and cold-blooded mass murder.

Never being one to wait for an epiphany from the media, I began this exploration in search of answers that every single American has the right to know. What really happened on September 11th, 2001 that caused our politicians to change the world around us so much?

An Unwanted Journey

In all honesty, this long, arduous journey of discovery began, not quite so willfully, on 9/11, as TV network after network re-racked the video footage of the World Trade Center destruction, over and over and over. It was all so hard to believe at the time, let alone to accept the odds that not one tower would fall, but two! Unbeknownst to many at the time, and even still many people today, a third WTC  tower, not hit by an airplane, would also implode into dust later on that afternoon, in exactly the same fashion.

Three steel and concrete buildings all collapsing in similar fashion on the same day, allegedly from fire, all for the first time ever in history.

This is red flag number one.

The other significant happening was that all towers fell so quickly, in like-fashion, at essentially near free-fall speed. All three of them.

Red flag number two.

These oddities of WTC buildings one, two and seven are obviously the foremost stunning and remarkable aspects to this horrible event, yet the fact remains that all buildings did the impossible, literally falling right through their own structural core, where the most resistance should have come from, yet all the buildings fell with little or no resistance at all. With the laws of physics in mind, it was very hard for many to comprehend the very short time duration in which each building imploded, especially when this had never ever happened before in the history of high-rise buildings and modern architecture.

On the day of 9/11, using a stopwatch and calculating the height and number of floors, it was readily apparent that the speed of implosion was roughly nine or ten seconds for each 110 story tower. That was physically impossible, unless of course there were bombs mined inside the building, which is of course exactly the type of reports that we initially heard from eyewitnesses and the news media that day, immediately following the destruction. Some feel there may have been more than just explosives. We will explore that later.

WTC maintenance worker William Rodriguez, a hero from 9/11 who personally saved many people on his own, testified that he heard huge explosions coming from sub-level basement (B-2) of the towers, yet his eyewitness testimony was completely disregarded by the 9/11 Commission.

New York Housing Authority Barry Jennings also testified about huge explosions taking place, but perhaps more interestingly, his account was of World Trade Center building 7, one of the structures not hit by an airplane. His testimony was also ignored by the 9/11 Commission in their final report.

The fact is, there were numerous broadcasts from the various news networks that day with eyewitness reports of bombs going off in both towers one and two, as well as seven. An initial thought of many was that this must clearly be the explanation for the towers quick and rapid descent. Somehow these explosions had to be connected to the towers demise. It was the only way to explain the extraordinary speed in which each building imploded. Dan Taylor and Peter Jennings of ABC, Dan Rather at CBS and Aaron Brown from CNN all claimed it looked like controlled demolition.

As time went on though, that was not the official story that was disseminated to the media. The official storyline given was that the buildings had collapsed from structural degradation due to the impact from the airplane attacks and the ensuing brief fires. To many, this did not seem right. Never had a steel structured skyscraper ever collapsed due to fire.

What about the eyewitness reports of explosions? Surely they had to play a role. Surely the NIST investigators had missed something.

Stories surfaced of a group of middle-eastern looking men that were seen videotaping the WTC towers as they imploded, all the while cheering as the buildings came down. We were all shocked with the destruction, but this group was apparently not surprised in the least. Instead, they seemed to be anticipating the implosions. Later on they would testify that they were merely there to record the event.

So how did they know?

Accounts have also surfaced from others, commenting days before 9/11, that the towers would not be standing much longer.

Coupled with the eyewitness reports of bombs going off in all three World Trade Center towers, these well documented accounts have certainly not set well with those who are familiar with them, raising many legitimate questions.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the official story listed fire as the suspected cause of the destruction, with no real investigation into any possible covert demolition scenario. This was hard to take for those who openly testified about the numerous huge explosions that they heard and felt that day.

At the time it seemed readily apparent, to a few people at least, that foreign nationals had somehow circumvented our security and were able to place hidden explosive charges within the WTC buildings to facilitate their demise. That's exactly what Ramzi Yousef did in the first World Trade Center plot back on February 26th, 1993, with the help of FBI agents. So, after 9/11, it seemed perfectly logical to conclude that this time the terrorists were somehow successful.

The foremost goal going into this research was to prove that foreign terrorists had somehow infiltrated into World Trade Center security, facilitating a successful demolition of the WTC towers, realizing a plan initially fostered by Yousef in '93, a plausible scenario much more consistent in explaining the events as they happened on 9/11.

And with that, a daunting quest for the truth was underway. It was hard to fathom all three towers falling so quickly, at very near free fall speed. Surely the bomb explosions had to be the key component.

So, in this patriotic inspired and altruistic effort, I set about my naive investigative journey. In the course of those efforts, a Pandora's box of information was opened that this author was not quite prepared for, nor overly willing to reconcile with, yet facts are facts and they need to be admitted and acknowledged for what they are, no matter how uncomfortable they might be.

The inordinate amount of highly suspicious, questionable reports and absurdly bizarre coincidences may be extremely difficult to fathom and accept, but at the same time, they are very much still plausible and thus they serve as an accountable explanation that should not be easily dismissed, nor discounted out of hand.

Truly the most difficult aspect of this journey has come from trying to assess and resolve the numerous unexpected and undesirable heretical insights that have arisen over the course of this research. Many deeply troubling reality-check confrontations came forth, all of which challenged personal paradigms, and subsequently led to some very unsettling and controversial questions regarding the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

There came a point when the epiphany was blatant, undeniable and most unsettling to admit to, but the obvious facts were too glaring to refute, staring me right in the face. That was a pretty low day for me.

Taking The First Step

One of the hardest things for many to understand about 9/11 is... how is it that the World Trade Center towers all fell so easily?

For many it's a moot point, not even worth the time to consider. After all, the 9/11 Commission already met and thoroughly investigated the whole thing... right?

Wrong.

The 9/11 Commission did not even bother to look into the World Trade Center building 7 destruction, let alone write anything about it in their final report. So If you think that America has sufficiently entertained all the facts on 9/11, you would sadly enough be quite mistaken. Those that have studied the numerous inconsistencies and peculiar coincidences of 9/11 have arrived at a strangely different conclusion than the official government line on the attacks.

How do you get two camps of diverse opinion on a public event that happened on live television for all the world to see? The dichotomy exists because many have refused to look further into the data from that September day and have instead blindly swallowed the feeble government explanation of what allegedly took place.

For those who have taken the time to investigate the 9/11 facts, they now form the resolute contrast of objectivity in a controversial debate that continues to grow in the U.S. as well as the international community. The world in general is far more mistrusting regarding the official U.S. story and the events of 9/11 than most Americans.

Despite whichever poll you look at, a majority of Americans are very unsatisfied with the official government story on what really happened on 9/11.

A damning 2006 CBS / NewYork Times poll actually found that an astounding 81-percent of Americans felt the U.S. government is not telling the real story about 9/11.

• Telling the truth 16%

• Hiding something 53%

• Mostly lying 28%

• Not sure 3%"

This is a staggering number of people (81%) who do not buy the lie, despite concerted efforts by the corporate media and assorted paid  mouthpieces, such as Popular Mechanics, to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

One year later, a 2007 Zogby poll, found that over half of Americans, at that time, were actively calling for a new investigation of 9/11. That's roughly 155-million people that are unhappy with the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

These are startling numbers, despite the fact that since 9/11, our nation has been incessantly brow-beaten by the administration into believing that it's unpatriotic to question the actions of our political leadership during this so called "war on terror."

Immediately following 9/11, most Americans followed along and were good little lemmings that simply didn't bother to reconcile the myriad oddities, incongruities, and unbelievable improbabilities that make up this disturbingly sordid, clandestine event. Sadly enough, many still don't truly realize that so many alarming conflicts with the official story exist. For those who have spent time doing the research, looking into the evidence and eyewitness accounts, the facts of the event are undeniably disturbing.

It's time for the rest of America to consider the reality of what actually happened on 9/11. If the questions brought forth in this article don't raise an eyebrow, or percolate the smallest amount of suspicion regarding the actual presentation of the 9/11 facts, then you have no reason to fear because your paradigm is safe.

For those that are able to grasp and understand the seemingly implausible scenario of that tragic eleventh day of September, your new reality may become rather unsettling, to say the very least.

A New Perspective

For the moment, please forget what the government has already told you about that fateful day in 2001. Forget what the corporate media has ingrained into your brain regarding box cutters and terrorists flunking out of flight school. Instead, open your mind to the evidence and basic facts, and for just once, entertain and try to reconcile the numerous oddities and unbelievable coincidences of those awful attacks.

While there is a rather voluminous list of questionable coincidences and unbelievable occurrences from 9/11 to address, this article will attempt to focus on just some of the most glaring facts and peculiar circumstances from that horrible tragedy.

Please, consider the following points before letting some within our government tell you their version of what happened that terrible day. Get the facts that the media have been too timid to talk about or put in print before you form an absolute opinion of what really happened on 9/11.

Click picture for larger image

Where's the Fire?

The official government explanation is that the towers were greatly ravaged and weakened by the intense fires, however, the fires in the WTC never swept through the lower floors of either tower, nor were they ever that intense, at least for no more than maybe 10 to 20 minutes, tops! The major fire source was from the jet fuel that actually burned off very quickly. The jet fuel on its own is reportedly incapable of producing fire temps exceeding 1120 Celsius. That is not hot enough to bring down the WTC towers, contrary to the scientifically challenged official report.

Neither building was rampant with widespread fire. There was no top-to-bottom burning of either building, so how could the lower structural supports have been weakened so badly, as has been claimed?

The second plane to hit that morning lost most of its fuel outside WTC tower 2 in a tremendous fireball witnessed by everyone who saw it live on TV.

Video:  9:03am - 2nd Plane Hitting WTC 2

Video: Close-up of the fireball

So what then was able to allegedly ignite an entire 110-story skyscraper, in less than one hour?

Two Before One?

Regarding WTC 2, the second tower hit that morning, a building with far less airplane fuel inside- why did it implode almost a full half hour before WTC 1, the tower that was actually hit first? How does that happen? The building exploded and dropped directly into its own footprint at 9:59am, with WTC 1 falling at 10:28am.

WTC 1 was hit first at 8:45 by American Airlines flight 11. It burned for 45 minutes longer than WTC 2, which was hit last at 9:03 by United Airlines flight 175. With most of the jet fuel visibly exploding outside tower number 2 in the initial fireball, what then could have possibly caused a heat source so hot inside that could permeate 110-stories in only :57 minutes and drop the entire structure, even though no high-rise before it in modern history had ever been dropped by fire?

Not once. Absolutely never.

Yet WTC 2 burned ONLY :57 MINUTES and we're expected to believe the building code of New York doesn't call for better construction than that? Again, it burned for merely :57 minutes. Barely the length of your favorite TV show.

Fact: Both WTC tower fires burned a very short time. New York firefighters are on record as saying the fires were "contained" and could be managed. Most all of the major fires were already burning out when the buildings imploded.

Question: With only sparse fires remaining at the WTC, how was the building so hot that it would thoroughly compromise the mammoth steel girders, the thick cement slab flooring, and overall structural integrity of a 110-story building in just :57 minutes?

Think about that for a moment. Let that miracle of nature sink in for just a moment. Not ten stories or twenty stories or even 40 stories in one hour, but ONE HUNDRED TEN stories of concrete and steel and literally tons of fire proof asbestos... in a mere :57 minutes!

That's a pretty tough thing to do when there were no major fires underneath the 78th floor to undermine the integrity of the building.

The official story would have you believe the fire was able to sweep rampantly and freely throughout all floors. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Secondly, the World Trade Center had fire-proofing between all floors, as well as the mandatory fire sprinkler system to help control a possible fire and thus prevent it from getting out of control. Again. the buildings had literally tons of asbestos surrounding the support beams and interior infrastructure. These buildings were designed and engineered to contain a fire and not let it spread out of control, most specifically from floor to floor.

Arguing Physics

To help its case with the World Trade Center destruction, some in the US government have argued after 9/11 that the melting point of steel is 2,500 degrees F. To the contrary, many scientists have come forward to argue that the temperature needed to melt a steel alloy is actually closer to 2,800 F, 300 degrees hotter than the government claim.

What becomes clear out of this is that there is obviously a group within the government with a vested interest in arguing for the lower temperature. They want people to accept the lower temperature extreme so that their official explanation for the WTC towers falling is plausible and has some scientific basis.

However, as the temperature argument continued, a key event took place in Madrid, Spain which soon gave weight to the scientific communities' higher temperature claim, and at the same time dealt a serious blow to the lower temperature official WTC crash theory.

The Madrid Windsor Fire

The Madrid, Spain Windsor high-rise fire made Irwin Allen's "Towering Inferno" look like a small birthday candle. This building burned arguably hotter for a much longer duration than any high-rise building in history. (see gallery below)

The Windsor building in Madrid had no sprinkler system, unlike the WTC towers. As a matter of fact, at the time of this monstrous blaze, the entire building was shut down for repairs, to actually retrofit the building with a fire safety sprinkler system. So unlike the WTC towers, this building had nothing to keep it from getting very hot. It burned as a raging inferno for all the world to watch for 21 hours continuously!

The Comparisons

WTC 2 stood for only :57 minutes before collapsing to the ground at phenomenal speed, in ten seconds. Tower one lasted 102 minutes before giving way. Yet the Windsor tower in Madrid, Spain raged for a staggering 21 full hours, top to bottom, and it never fell.

Compare the respective fires yourself with the galleries below.

No Building Implosion In Madrid

Only a smaller portion of a few of the upper floors of the Madrid Windsor building dropped on top of each other, much like they claim happened on 9/11, yet mysteriously the far hotter Madrid Windsor building did not begin a cascading "domino effect" of floors collapsing under the fallen weight, as happened with the WTC.

Most importantly, after 21 hours of super-hot blast furnace inferno conditions that clearly far exceeded those of 9/11, there was no exploding or pulverized concrete from the Madrid tower, as was the case with the WTC.

As the Windsor fire reached the scientific community's claimed melting point, the steel girders actually did start to become malleable and bend. Girders are seen curling up at the ends in many photos, yet the building never fell. (see Madrid Windsor gallery above)

It would seem apparent, according to the evidence from the Madrid fire, that the scientific temperature claim for melting a steel alloy is indeed correct. The features of the Madrid fire are undeniable proof that this raging inferno was indeed much hotter than the WTC.

Over 21 hours later, the fires were finally put out and the building was still standing.

Still standing?!

Burning Questions

Shouldn't a fire as intense as that in Madrid have dropped the building, just the same as the WTC towers allegedly fell on 9/11? The fire burned far hotter and easily twenty one times longer.

How is it the fire burned so hot in the first place? Some officials have questioned how anything inside the building could have fueled the fire to have burned so hot.

Many have suggested that an accelerant was used in the Madrid building to fuel the fire temperatures to the extremes that occurred. Again, that may sound far fetched, but then how do you explain the two men going from floor to floor in the middle of a raging inferno?

That's right, a couple videotaped the fire from a neighboring building and caught images of two people moving about. What were they doing inside the shut down Windsor building during this raging inferno?

Video: Spanish Video Showing Men Inside Burning Windsor Building

Couple Video Tapes People Inside Windsor Building During Fire

Spain Police Call Video on High-Rise Fire Authentic

A case could be made that someone or some group deliberately set the Madrid Windsor building ablaze in an attempt to discredit the U.S. government's official explanation for the destruction of the WTC towers on 9/11. That may seem a bit extreme and almost far fetched, but when you consider what is currently at stake in the world as a result of 9/11, the improbable suddenly becomes plausible.

The two biggest questions surrounding the blaze are...

• How did it begin?
• Who were the people inside, seen moving from floor to floor?

Is it possible that a foreign intelligence service was behind the blaze, in an attempt to disprove the US explanation for the World Trade Center destruction?

The alternative of course is to accept the event as just another of the myriad peculiar and timely coincidences that we have been urged to discount and disregard in order to buy the absurd convenience that appears to have been made exclusive to the official 911 explanation.

How Hot Was It?

The Madrid fire was originally reported at its peak to be a scorching 1500 Celsius! That is 2,732 degrees Fahrenheit and is very close to the 2,800 degrees that the scientific community claims is necessary to melt a steel alloy. This would be directly contrary to the official government claim of the lower melting point temperature of steel.

Part of the Madrid Windsor fire early on, before it really got going.

Video: The Spain Windsor fire (YouTube)

[ Archived News Webpages ]

Madrid Fire Originally Reported Up To 1500 Degrees Celsius

Madrid Fire Temp Rises

Immediately, the day after the blaze, the original fire temperature that was reported during the fire's peak was drastically reduced to nearly half of what had been officially reported the day before. (1500 Celsius to 800 Celsius.) That's undeniably a huge drop in heat.

Why the sudden change and the huge disparity in temperature?

If the Madrid building could burn so hot and yet still be standing when it was over, an argument could be made that there must be a flaw in the U.S. explanation for the WTC destruction. If those hotter temperatures are kept at the original 1500 Celsius, the government has a serious problem with its scenario of 9/11 because the Madrid Windsor tower was not falling down like the U.S. government said it should under temperatures far more extreme than the WTC.

Question: Why didn't the Windsor building thoroughly melt and implode in the first hour or two like the WTC?

The Windsor building should have dropped, beyond any shadow of a doubt... that is, if you buy into and believe the official government argument on the questionably low melting point of a steel alloy.

Remember, after 9/11 the U.S. government argued that the melting point of steel was 2,500 degrees F. That debate has fermented ever since in order for the powers that be to argue that, even though the buildings were not physically that hot, there was feigned scientific reasoning, jaded as it was, to support the destruction theory under a lesser temperature. The scientific community has long since argued that the temperature needed to melt a steel alloy is actually closer to 2,800 F.

So, if the original Windsor fire temperature is left to stand at 1500 C, or 2,732 F, as it was originally reported, that is 232 degrees hotter than the reported U.S. government claim of 2,500 F for the melting point of steel, as they argued in their WTC 9/11 explanation. The obvious point here is that the Windsor should have toppled easier than any of the WTC towers, but it didn't.

According to the U.S. temperature claim, the Windsor should have literally melted since the fire was a roaring 232 degrees higher than the government's own alleged benchmark for the melting point of steel.

Now ask yourself, according to the apparent evidence from both fires, who was right about the melting point of a steel alloy, the U.S. government or the scientific community?

If the government is proven wrong on the true melting point of steel alloy girders, this would undeniably contrast the administration's position and the official 9/11 explanation of the seemingly effortless and very questionable dropping of the WTC towers.

The crux of the matter in question is this... why did the Madrid Windsor tower withstand much hotter temperatures for twenty-one times longer duration and yet was still standing afterwards?

This immediately begs the question: How did a lesser fire in New York drop two larger buildings in a scant fraction of the burn time, with much less heat and ferocity?

That, in a nutshell, blows the entire U.S. government explanation out of the water for why the WTC towers imploded so easily. If the WTC towers could implode with very little fire and much less heat in less than an hour, why didn't the Windsor itself drop when it was clearly much hotter and burned undeniably far longer than the WTC?

And that is the trillion-dollar question in all of this, because this event was used as the basis of an attack on two countries, the start of an all-out Mid-East war, an attack on people's rights worldwide, and the usurping of the US Constitution. The horrific event of 9/11 is unarguably the infamous trigger for all that has been forced upon the world since 2001.

So which building do you think was hotter, the Madrid Windsor building or New York WTC?

Whether 1500 Celsius or not, the Madrid building undeniably far eclipsed the WTC towers in fire and heat. Look at the damn pictures for crying out loud. You don't need a thermometer to see that the Madrid building fire was clearly waaaay hotter than the WTC. Use your eyes and your God-given brain and decide for yourself.

So why didn't the Windsor tower in Spain fall, as the WTC towers so easily fell on 9/11?

Similarities And Improbabilities

It's interesting to note that the WTC in New York and the Windsor building in Madrid were both of late 60s / early 70s design and engineering. The Madrid building even had an inner concrete core for stability, very much like the WTC towers. There are some basic similarities between the WTC and the Madrid Windsor building.

But somehow we're left to try and understand why TWO buildings, with working sprinkler systems and built in fire-walls between floors, buildings that were clearly not anywhere close to as hot as the building in Madrid, Spain, BOTH imploded in :57 minutes and :102 minutes respectively.

When you add in the WTC 7 destruction later that afternoon, that makes three steel structure high-rise buildings in one day that allegedly fell due to fire for the first time ever in history!  

Wow.

First off, what are the odds of a steel frame high-rise building dropping for the first time ever in modern history due to fire?

Secondly, what are the odds of that happening to three steel frame high-rise buildings for the first time ever... all in one day?

Whatever those odds are, they would most certainly break any bank in Vegas, many times over.

Meanwhile, another high-rise building that was indeed much hotter was able to burn uncontrollably, with no building sprinkler system at all, for over 21 straight hours, and yet was still standing when it was over.

Double-wow.

Actually, it's more like, unbelievable!

But how could this be?

For those that may be trying to keep track, or should be, that's 1,260 minutes of burn time for the Windsor building, which figures out to 1,203 minutes longer burn than WTC 2 and 1,158 minutes longer burn than WTC 1. And once again, the Madrid building clearly burned at a much higher temperature than either building in New York.

The China BTCC Fire

The Windsor fire wasn't the only high-rise building to burn hotter and longer than the WTC and still not fall. In February of 2009 the Beijing BTCC building caught fire and also burned like a raging inferno, long past the burn-time of WTC towers one, two or seven.

The Beijing BTCC fire burned through the entire structure.

Video: Chinese BTCC fire (YouTube)

The 44-story structure, just three floors smaller than World Trade Center building 7, was under construction and near completion when allegedly set fire due to a new year's fireworks display. The blaze roared through the building for over six hours, longer than WTC 1 or 2, yet the structure did not topple into a cataclysmic free fall as those in New York did on 9/11, despite its top-heavy angular design.

So now we've had two high-rise fires since September 11th, 2001, both burning indisputably hotter and far longer, yet neither building imploded. Each building burned from top to bottom, unlike WTC 1 or 2, yet neither dropped within 57-minutes or even 103-minutes. Each building was totally consumed with fire throughout. Both of the buildings withstood the far greater fire damage and intense heat and were still standing when the fires were eventually put out.

As a point of fact, no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire in the history of high-rise structural engineering, not before or after 9/11. There have been many historical high-rise fires, but none of the buildings has ever collapsed. All of these fires burned far longer and much hotter than the WTC buildings. Some of these fires consumed the entire building all at once, with flames leaping out 30 feet from the buildings, yet all of them were still standing once the fires were out.

• First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles (5/4/88) – 62 stories.
  (Four floors burned for nearly four hours with no collapse.)

• One New York Plaza, New York (8/5/70) – 50 stories.
  (Five floors burned for 6 1/2 hours with no collapse.)

• One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia (2/23/91) – 38 stories.  (Eight floors burned for 18 hours with no collapse.)

• Caracas Tower, Caracas (10/17/04) - 56 stories.
  (26 floors burned for 17 hours with no collapse.)

• Windsor Tower, Madrid (2/12/05) - 32 stories
  (29 floors burned for 21 hours with no collapse.)

• BTCC Building, Beijing (2/2/09) - 44 stories.
  (44 floors burned for 6 hours with no collapse.)

• Chechnya hotel, Chechnya (4/3/13) - 40 stories
  (30 floors burned for 29 hours with no collapse.)

• Torch Tower, Dubai (2/21/15) - 79 stories
  (Many floors burned for hours with no collapse)

Numerous high-rise fires that all burned much longer and way hotter than the World Trade Center, yet not one building collapse from any of them. (except the WTC towers in red)

How is this possible, considering the feeble explanation given for the total destruction of THREE high-rise buildings on 9/11?

So Why Did Only The WTC Buildings Fall?

Why didn't the upper floors of the WTC just simply collapse on top of the building, rather than cascade all the way down in total destruction, without showing any physical resistance, nor any loss of momentum and speed?

Parts of the upper floors of the Windsor did fall, however the building below it held just fine, unlike the World Trade Center towers.

If anything, the WTC buildings should have only fallen down to the crash impact portions of the towers, rather than fail completely, falling to the ground in a finely pulverized pile of concrete dust. Not surprising to most building architects and structural engineers, buildings are built to actually resist collapse, not facilitate it.

Believe it or not, tall buildings are built with airliners and disaster in mind. They are not built to fall apart quickly. Our building standards are certainly much higher than that, contrary to what some would have us believe.

Many argue that the structure of the WTC towers was compromised due to the plane strikes and that is the reason they fell. According to the people who built the towers, nothing could be farther from the truth. The building was designed by engineers to withstand multiple large airliner hits. (see video below)

Video: WTC Built To Withstand Multiple Airliner Strikes

Was the WTC really as hot as officials have led us to believe? The woman below sure knew. She's standing right where the plane went through the building.

So how hot was it?

There were fires above and just below, but from all appearances the area you would think was hottest, the hole where the airplane entered the building and dumped its load of fuel, was actually okay to stand in.

A woman identified as Edna Cintron stands in the airplane crash hole of WTC 1.

Video: The woman shown above (1.23 MB)
DivX format, plays on most players

Underwriters' Labs Employee Slams WTC Collapse Report

In 2004, an intrepid employee of Underwriters' Laboratories called into question the official account of the towers destruction. Kevin Ryan of Underwriters' Labs wrote a letter to Mr. Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which questioned the official collapse explanation. Underwriters' Labs is the company of record that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.

Read the letter yourself.

Underwriters' Labs Slam WTC Collapse as Fairy Tale

Unfortunately for Ryan the whistleblower, he was promptly let go after the story became public and is no longer employed by Underwriters' Laboratories.

Classified FDNY Dispatch Tapes- Say What?

Why were the FDNY dispatch tapes from 9/11 originally classified as secret?

Secret?! Seriously?

Court to Decide Access to 9/11 FDNY Tapes

What could possibly be in those audio tapes that someone wanted kept secret? Hmmm... what about the possibility that there were no horrendous infernos sweeping from floor to floor, as reported in the official WTC destruction theory?

Reports claim that firemen inside the WTC were heard saying that the fires were manageable and could be brought under control. According to them, there were only a few small fires reported and none were described as raging out of control.

In the 911 dispatch audio the firemen do not sound as if there are rampant fires raging throughout the WTC. One firemen on his way up even asks to be informed when they finally see fire. Odd for a building that was allegedly raging with enough fire to drop a 110-story building in less than an hour.

If the buildings were so hot, how were the firemen able to move effortless up from the lower levels of the building to the upper levels with no regard for any intense heat? Simple, because there wasn't any fire and that's the real reason the tapes were classified in the first place.

The tapes prove, through the firemen's own on-scene reports, that any claim of the towers allegedly melting from internal fires is undeniably and clearly an unsupportable claim.

All floors reported below the 78th floor curiously seem to be free from any structure threatening, raging infernos. Listen and see for yourself through the links below.

Audio: FDNY from 9/11 (edited without static)

 Audio: Click here for the unedited FDNY recording with static

NY Firefighters’ Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11

Additionally, the firemen had also made reports of other explosions going off inside the buildings, prior to their destruction. If indeed this is the case, as many have testified to, it would most likely have a major impact on the official version of why the World Trade Center towers imploded.

Why were there numerous large explosions being heard and felt by eyewitnesses? Many reports were originally aired once, but never repeated nor followed up on by the networks.

The Lobby Explosion

What was it that blew the lobby out and caused some people to be set on fire? The official story says that fuel and a fireball traveled down the elevator shafts and blew up the lobby. How does the fuel travel that far and not burn out, nor lose its explosive force?

In the Naudet brothers film, many people are seen exiting from a trapped elevator car after the lobby had already been damaged. Apparently no fireball came down their elevator shaft.

Video: People leave elevator unharmed with no fireball

The lobby area was a considerable distance from the elevators and  the windows were still blown out, while the areas directly around the elevators showed little fire damage. How is that possible? What actually hit the lobby? Eyewitnesses have reported that there was a large explosion heard from the bottom of the tower, just before the  plane hit. What was the cause of this explosion? This report could clearly explain the lobby damage and the blown out windows.

Firemen Not Wanted At The Towers

What of the report after the plane strikes and before the towers fell, that FDNY firemen were asked to return to their precincts, rather than stay downtown and battle the tower blazes? That fact is also caught by the Naudet brothers on film.

Video: Firemen asked to return to fire station

Why was someone trying to keep the FDNY away from the towers?

Flying Body Parts

How is it that human remains were found after the 911 attacks on the rooftops of buildings over 400 feet away? How do body parts fly that far without an explosive force or something to accelerate them?

The Naudet film highlights this event with actual eyewitness firefighter testimony, talking of "raining body parts."

Video: FDNY fireman talks about the rooftop body parts

If the buildings collapsed naturally, how were the body parts, along with huge steel beams, thrown hundreds of feet away from the building, while the rest of the mammoth structure landed eerily in its own footprint? What extraordinarily powerful force blew the bodies and steel beams from those buildings?

Molten Steel?

With no raging fires burning out of control in the lower floors of the WTC, how is it that molten steel was found in the basement of the towers? How is it that after pouring water on the basement rubble that the steel was still red hot for well over six weeks afterwards?

That's right, not six days... over six weeks!

What outside reaction caused the basement steel to melt and stay hot for six weeks after 9/11, even after having water sprayed on it? (Other reports claim the fires burned until December. Whether six weeks or ten weeks, it is unheard of to have a fire burn that long, especially with molten metal flowing as a result.

Some have speculated that the explosions heard were from deeply mined low-yield tactical thermonuclear bombs, such as bunker-busters, buried deep in the basement of the towers. This might explain the red hot steel that still burned at an estimated 1500 degrees over six weeks later after the disaster.

Video: Molten Steel Red Hot for SIX WEEKS After 9/11?

If the top structure materials can been dowsed and put out, how does the core of the building remain so hot for six to eight weeks afterwards? This was never an area that was supposed to have been hot in the first place. What type of reaction would cause a fire to literally melt steel and keep it molten red hot for over six weeks after the event?

If not a controlled detonation, then what else does explain the remaining leftover molten steel in the basement, with no fire hot enough to produce it? And again... what were the tremendous explosions that so many people heard and felt just before the towers came crumbling down? The explosions were not the sounds of a building ripping apart as some wrongly claim, they were literal explosions.

Numerous firemen, policemen  and eyewitnesses are on record saying there were a number of large explosions in the lower structure of the WTC. FDNY actually reported finding explosive devices in the building. Those reports were also broadcast in the media as well.

The molten steel report is well documented and cannot be refuted, as corroborated by NY Governor Pataki in a CNN news piece.

 Airplane fuel burns out in minutes, so what could possibly cause huge steel girders in the lower basement to melt and then stay molten for weeks, all the while being sprayed by FDNY with water?

There are also many pictures and video before the destruction which show small localized areas of molten metal spewing from sides of the building, areas not particularly overwhelmed with fire. What then was causing this reaction without an overwhelming fire to drive the heat?

Cut Steel?

Why didn't all the girders melt if the fire was so hot?

Probably the biggest question of all regarding the girders, how were the solid steel beams cut cleanly in half, conveniently into easily transportable sections?

In the picture below, these beams have been cut cleanly in half. Note the absence of rivets or bolts. These beams did not come apart at a man made junction. They appear to be cleanly cut in half.

The other notable point to recognize is the diagonal cut seen in the circled support below. This is a technique in controlled demolition which promotes the girders to slide off each other in an effect known as "walking." This helps topple a structure quickly and efficiently.

Girders cleanly shaved off with signs of thermite melt. Click for larger pic

Many have speculated that one theory to explain the cut steel is a possible chemical thermite reaction. A known property of thermite is to burn extremely hot and literally melt its way through anything it comes in contact with. It would explain the ability to effortlessly shear through massive steel support columns without having to use smaller explosive charges, however, it fails to address the shattered steel, pulverized concrete and obliterated building objects.

Another interesting note was that beams and girders were being found with molten holes burned right through them. Many have surmised that these molten characteristics are the reason that 1) all pictures of ground zero were banned, and 2) why the steel debris was shipped away so quickly, out of the country.

The use of thermite, or a military grade known as thermate, could also possibly explain the molten red hot core of the WTC basement. One theory put forth is that as the girders fell, any residual termite would also fall. As the girders slammed to the ground, leftover nano-thermite (thermate) most likely fell off the steel beams, landing in the rubble, continuing to burn as it burrowed its way to the basement.

This is one possible explanation for the molten steel that was red hot in the basement of the WTC for over six weeks.

Active Thermitic Material Is Found

A 2009 discovery by a group of nine scientists and researchers has revealed that active thermitic material was found in individual dust samples from four separate locations in and around the World Trade Center. What was found is not just active thermite, but instead active thermate, a military version with a much lower combustion flashpoint which burns far hotter. This corroborated early suspicions from investigators who were questioning the presence of molten steel.

A scientific crew that included Danish scientist Niels Harrit, former Underwriters Lab researcher Kevin Ryan, as well as BYU physicist Dr. Steven Jones, found trace elements of military-grade thermate in many of the leftover debris and dust samples that were collected from the WTC debris.

Other team members included Jeffrey Farrer, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, and Bradley R. Larsen.

The group co-authored a paper and published their findings in the Bentham Science Chemical Physics Journal. They wrote in their collaborative work, 'We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper.'

The paper goes on to note:

'The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.'

The new scientific study strongly refutes the official story that there is no evidence for explosive-pyrotechnic materials in the World Trade Center 9/11 debris.

The article has been received by the 9/11 truth movement as "smoking gun" evidence, when in all actuality, it may very well only be but a single bullet n the chamber.

Read the complete report:  Thermite Identified In 9/11 Dust

Back-scattered electron (BSE) photo from the newly released scientific study.

The finding of super-thermite, a specialized military grade known as nano-thermite, or thermate, is a very peculiar substance to find in the WTC debris dust. Who could have possibly procured such vast amounts of thermate to load three massive skyscrapers with?

It is hard to believe that a nano-thermite substance was the lone source for demolition of the towers. Thermite is not known to be highly explosive, so it more than likely would have had to be used in conjunction with another demolition tool, such as tactical explosives.

It is interesting to note that the 2009 story of the swine flu epidemic suddenly came out of nowhere, just as the 9/11 thermate story was building some interest. It essentially eclipsed and buried the thermate story in the media. What a coincidence. And when it was all over, they said the swine flu was never as dangerous as they had originally thought, although alarm quickly grew back, squashing the thermate story in the press. Hopefully one day the media will get back to the thermate-WTC connection and start asking some tough questions.

Remember the anthrax attacks after 9/11? Those media reports mysteriously went away immediately when it was found to be a special military grade anthrax that was traced back to Fort Detrick. And now we have military grade thermate found in the WTC debris. Very intriguing to say the least.

It should be noted that the professor who oversaw the publication of the scientific journal in which this WTC breakthrough research was published was asked to resign shortly after publication.

So now that evidence of a cutting charge has been found, will there be another event to stifle a new 9/11 investigation? It's a horrible thought to consider, but ask yourself this... what would you do to cover-up 9/11 if you were involved in the murder of thousands of innocent people and you were about to be exposed? We can only hope that the rats start jumping off the NWO ship and start turning on each other. At some point, some of the groups involved have to say enough is enough already.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center The Open Chemical Physics Journal - Volume 2 ISSN: 1874-4125

Whatever the value of its role in the towers destruction, the discovery clearly has to be recognized as making revolutionary inroads into the public's awareness of a controlled demolition for the WTC towers. While the discovery clearly does not explain everything in regards to the destruction of the towers, it undeniably cannot be disputed that it has been an integral key in opening the door of public consciousness towards accepting the theory of controlled demolitions on 9/11.

At the present, a debate rages within the 9/11 truth movement among researchers as to whether or not thermite, or thermate, could be the sole cause of the three WTC building collapses. It would seem to this researcher that it was part of the destruction, but it was more than likely used in conjunction with explosives, and possibly a third unknown technological weapon that I will get into shortly.

Researchers hanging their hats solely on the thermite (thermate) explanation might be selling short their explanation for the buildings collapse, but those resisting the substance in favor of another explanation could also hinder valuable inroads made towards public acceptance of the "inside job" theory.

Again, it is very possible, if not likely, that more than one demolition technique was used on 9/11. Perhaps the best idea when it comes to 9/11 research and the thermite evidence is, to coin a phrase, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If anything, the thermate discovery will hopefully bring about renewed pressure from the public to re-open the 9/11 investigation.

Just The Facts

World Trade Center tower # 2 imploded first, at 9:59am.

Video: WTC 2 Tower Destruction

World Trade Center tower # 1 dropped second, at 10:28am.

Video: WTC 1 Tower Destruction

Both towers free-fell to the streets below in only :10 seconds time, or less. There was no impedance or resistance whatsoever it seems.

The top 34 floors of the south tower begin to topple over.

The top of the South tower actually began to fall away from the building, so why then did the rest of tower implode if it did not fall on top of itself? How did the bottom just fall out from under those top 34 floors as they were falling off the top of the building?

What could have caused thousands of tons of concrete to be instantly pulverized into a fine powder?

Controlled Demolition?

How does a 110-story building free-fall at the rate of gravity?

Video: Fast Free Falling Towers (time it for yourself)

If you tossed a hammer from the top of the WTC right at the exact second of the implosion, it would have hit the street at roughly the same time as the top of the building. That's not possible for a building that is falling apart and coming down naturally due to extreme environmental duress.

Video: NYC Firefighters: Collapse Was Like Controlled Demolition

Make no mistake about it, in the world of architecture and structural engineering, large buildings and high-rise structures are specifically built to resist collapse, not enable it.

Nowhere in the destruction of either WTC 1, 2 or 7 did the buildings ever exhibit any structural resistance whatsoever during their implosion. All three fell with extreme rapid descent. And all three exhibited demolition puffs of smoke, squibs, as they imploded.

Again... all three buildings gave no structural resistance whatsoever during their destruction. That is indeed very strange.

How is it that both buildings fell so quickly, without any resistance, and both at the same speed?

What could have caused the enormous rooftop antenna to drop in a perfectly vertical fashion, rather than toppling over onto its side or into a nosedive? It was as if all the supporting structure underneath it fell away with perfect symmetry and precision timing. The rooftop that supported this massive antenna had its base drop in a perfectly level fashion.

And why did eyewitnesses on the scene report that they heard numerous loud explosions and then actually felt the ground tremble before the towers fell? That's right, they felt the ground tremble. What force short of a large earthquake would cause that?

Finding The Weapon

As with any murder investigation, you need to find the weapon used. So, we have the discovery of thermate, as well as the numerous eyewitness accounts of tremendous explosions. Given the known properties of thermate, it would more than likely have to be used in conjunction with explosives, so the evidence at hand works together quite well to explain some things, however it does not entirely explain everything, such as the finely pulverized concrete and all other office items. That is one of the key mysteries. So much of the concrete and steel just turned to dust.

Another disturbing piece to the puzzle is the top portion of the tower that broke off and was falling off to the side. It should have ended up on the ground as a 30-plus story remnant, but it literally disintegrated on the way down, in mid air. How does that happen? The pile-driver effect that some like to falsely tout had no bearing on that piece of the structure, let alone the rest of the WTC. 

Much of the steel also exhibited signs of rusting, an uncommon finding for these large beams. Some have attributed this to the Hutchison Effect, a telltale indication of Tesla scalar technology at work.

The nearby Bankers Trust building was rebuilt, but then later torn down. Why repair a building and then demolish it shortly thereafter? One clue might be that it too was showing the strange rusting of steel beams that weren't supposed to rust.

In conjunction with the steel beams, cars all around the perimeter of the WTC showed strange burn charring and unexplained rusting, some reported to be up to half a mile away. Some cars were flipped upside down, while they were in-between cars that were left right side up. It is as if objects were levitated and then suddenly flipped over.

One example of strange levitation taking place near the World Trade Center comes from photographer David Handschu who claims that he was running from the site when he was mysteriously levitated into the air and carried for nearly one block.

All in all, it would appear that there were indeed some very strange unaccountable forces at work on 9/11. Not only were the buildings and furnishings turned to dust, but hundreds upon hundreds of bodies were never ever found. That is indeed very odd. A few hundred or so bodies missing is one thing, but over a thousand is a another issue entirely. Not one single spec. People that absolutely just vanished into thin air.

After much analysis, it would appear to this researcher that another key element, an advanced technological component, was involved on 9/11. There is no other way to explain the absolute disintegration of these buildings without some form of exotic technology application that is not well known to the public. The research of Dr. Judy Wood regarding a directed energy weapon (DEW) appears very likely and deserves further scientific study.

A DEW is a likely possibility, but thermate and explosives were very possibly still in the mix in order to initiate the perfectly controlled demolitions. Maybe DEWs were used in towers 1 and 2 and conventional demolition techniques were used for building 7? After all, there were marked differences in those collapses. Towers 1 and 2 were both top-down destructions, while building 7 was a bottom-up collapse.

It is speculation only, but based on the evidence at hand, it is very possible that thermate and explosives were used with precision timing in conjunction with directed energy weapons, or another unknown tactical destructive force.

Much of what we place our assumptions on is known technology. Considering that advanced weapons research is easily 25 years or more ahead of what we know, the capability for an unknown weapon beyond our experience is very possible, if not highly probable, considering the intelligence operatives that were more than likely involved.

Enter The Landlord

Last, but not least, we have the story of WTC lease holder Larry Silverstein, who coincidentally had just purchased the center less than six months before 9/11, and then promptly had it heavily insured against terrorist attacks. The building lease was said to be finalized just six weeks before the attacks.

After 9/11, Silverstein literally made out like a bandit and was able to profit from 9/11 by winning a lawsuit against the insurance companies, claiming that 9/11 was two separate attacks, thus being awarded twice the insurance payout!

The total settlement was originally for $4.5 billion although a court decision in 2004 overruled the award and lowered the amount to $3.5 billion. That's way more than enough to rebuild the WTC and still have a hefty profit left over.

WTC Owner Wins Big On 9/11

Court Overrules Settlement Award

Some would argue that therein could be reasoning for possible criminal motive, setting Silverstein up as potentially the perfect patsy, but the issue has so far never been broached to this day. At least not yet.

Controlled Demolition!

When the 47-story Salomon building (WTC 7) came down, everyone was surprised. The official government explanation ranged from don't know to fire weakened steel, like WTC 1 and 2. By no means did anyone at that time mention anything about the building being brought down by a controlled implosion.

"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 has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." - FEMA Report on 9/11

FEMA's official report of Building 7's Destruction

Listen to Dan Rather of CBS television news as he describes the fall of World Trade Center 7.

"Amazing, incredible, pick your word... for the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."  - Dan Rather

Video: CBS' Dan Rather Talking about the WTC 7 Destruction

The most interesting part about Mr. Silverstein is that he went on record a year after 9/11, on a PBS program called America Rebuilds, saying that he actually gave the order to have WTC 7 "pulled" by means of a controlled demolition!

"And I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ya know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is.. is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."  -Larry Silverstein

Video: WTC Owner Admits having WTC 7 "Pulled"

Video: WTC Owner Admits having WTC 7 "Pulled" (WMV ver)

Video: Eyewitness recounts explosions in World Trade Center 7

Silverstein made this blockbuster revelation well after the fact of the government's own statement, already on the record, saying that the collapse of WTC 7 was "unknown," and thought to be the result of extensive fire damage, the same as WTC 1 and 2.

So why did Silverstein ever say such a thing?

To "pull" a building is a controlled demolition term for bringing a building down.

It's interesting to note that Silverstein appears to have a nervous twitch in his right eye whenever he mentions having the building "pulled." (Watch the video above again in case you missed it.)

When Silverstein first made his startling revelation about "pulling" building 7, many holes in his story immediately became apparent.

First off, how was it possible to wire and mine a building with tons of explosives in just a few hours on 9/11?

Secondly, why did Silverstein claim that FDNY had the building pulled? Since when has the FDNY been in the business of imploding buildings?

Do the firefighters at the end of this video look like they were responsible for pulling WTC 7?

Video: Surprised FDNY "It's gone man."

After watching the video, do you really think that the fire department was responsible for this or even knew anything about it? It certainly seems a surprise to the firefighters in the above video.

When was Silverstein called by the fire commander and who was the person that called him?  Was it Thomas Von Essen or Daniel Nigro? Perhaps Frank Fellini? The funny thing is, no one from FDNY admits to Silverstein's outrageous claim of calling him.

Who is Silverstein referring to when he says "they" made that decision to pull?

Silverstein's story about "pulling" building 7 started falling as fast as his buildings did.

You have to believe they were able to...

• Find a demolition crew with explosives on hand.

• Load literally tons of explosives quickly for transport.

• Deliver the explosives, despite the New York traffic jams.

• Unload the trucks of tons of explosives.

• Move tons of explosives into WTC building 7.

• Find all structural load bearing points and hastily wire and mine the entire building with explosive charges, regardless of fire.

Taking all of this into account, you can see the immediate error in Silverstein's judgment. It was physically impossible to have a building wired and mined with such short notice and imploded at 5:20 that day. It is just not humanly possible.

The only way to have a controlled demolition was to have the building wired in advance.

So after making such an incriminating public gaffe, it was clear to Silverstein that he had to somehow recant his meticulously worded admission, or at least attempt to.

So Silverstein tried to feebly explain that what he meant to say was to have the firemen pulled from the building. Unfortunately for poor Larry, there were immediate problems with that story as well, because the FDNY was not allowed to go the building 7. All firemen were ordered that morning to attend to the other World Trade Center buildings instead. Building 7 was evacuated of all personnel early that morning, before the towers came down.

Larry has now been ducking that comment ever since.

How Did The Building 7 Fires Start?

Much like World Trade Center towers one and two, how could such small fires ever compromise the entire structure of WTC 7 in such a short time period?

The building was alleged to be pelted by debris when the North tower imploded at 10:28, but it was not. WTC 7 was a good distance from the towers. Whatever the origin of the fires was, they were not burning in the morning. It wasn't until late in the afternoon that the building was actually reported to be on fire by the major media.

On 9/11, CNN News reported that WTC building 7 was on fire at 4:10 in the afternoon. The building fell in six and a half seconds at 5:20pm. No one ever reported that the emergency fuel tanks exploded, so how did this building allegedly burn out of control and drop in a symmetrical free-fall fashion?

These fires were too small to threaten the structure of WTC 7.

There are only two localized fires in the picture above. There are no pictures of building 7 raging out of control with fire. And don't forget, no plane hit that particular building.

Even if the fire reached the 23rd floor and ignited the Emergency Command Center's supply of diesel fuel, there is physically not enough time for a fire to undermine the structural integrity of this building. Again, the command center was reported on the 23rd floor. The fires in the picture above are no higher than the 11th or 12th floor. That's a full 11 floors to have to burn through first just to get to that fuel.

So how does the building burn in such a short amount of time? How did the fire spread that fast?

What Was So Special About Building 7?

Reports claim that vital SEC records regarding the WorldCom and Enron scandals were housed in WTC 7, as well as paperwork dealing with the Enron California energy swindle. The building housed offices for the IRS, Secret Service, the Office of Emergency Management, and the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The building was also alleged to have held offices for the NSA and the CIA.

What other vital records might have been in that building, or possibly shipped to it just prior to 9/11? Whatever they had stored there, it was all conveniently destroyed at 5:20pm that day. Many judicial  cases were closed or severely damaged as a direct result of this lost critical evidence.

Building 7 also just so happened to have its own fortified command bunker. The building 7 command center was designed to survive a major disaster, such as the extreme forces of mother nature. It was intended in every way to be an impenetrable, secure, emergency fortress. Floor 23 was specially reinforced and hardened, most interestingly with bomb and bullet proof windows.

Why put bomb and bullet proof windows on the 23rd floor?

Considering that rooftop camera surveillance was clearly an option, why build an emergency bunker up high in the first place? Why not build it in the basement, safe from tornados, hurricanes and severe storms, where they could safely view their rooftop cameras from TV monitors?

If anything, they appeared to be building an observatory. From that 23rd floor command center, they had the best eyes-on view of the city. They certainly had a great view of towers 1 and 2.

If building the bunker up high was a safe thing to do, why was it so easily dismissed and discarded by Mayor Giuliani and the city of New York as an emergency operations command center? (They moved to 75 Barkley Street on 9/11.) .

The big 9/11 question for many is, how and why did WTC 7, the Salomon building, fall so easily with very little fire and no plane crash to threaten its structure?

The Buckle And Topple Theory

Many try to feebly explain the destruction by claiming that the fire undermined a lower section of supports, thus causing the building to fall. If that was indeed the case, then the building should have acted like a table without a leg and collapsed to the unsupported side.

Instead, this building did just the exact opposite. It fell as if all legs of support were removed at once. It falls level and evenly, all the way down.

The building falls flawlessly, in a free-fall fashion in just under seven seconds, very much like WTC towers 1 and 2 did earlier that day.

A perfect demolition by any standard.

Video: CBS: WTC 7 Destruction

Video: CBS: WTC 7 Destruction

The downfall of whoever wired this building is that they did too good of a job on it. It falls too precisely and flawlessly to have simply collapsed under natural duress.

It did not topple over as one might expect. Instead, this building, not hit by an airplane, fell in free-fall fashion into nits own footprint, just as towers one and two did, directly through its structural core and the path of most resistance.

Lastly, it is odd that it destructively collapsed, while all the other buildings around towers one and two did not. Many of those buildings took much larger debris hits, yet not one of those structures collapsed as WTC 7 did.

FEMA was able to acknowledge the total collapse of building 7, yet the 9/11 Commission felt it unworthy to even mention in their report.

FEMA Report on 911 - Chapter 5: WTC 7

Why does the 9/11 Commission mention absolutely nothing about the WTC 7 destruction?

Eyewitness WTC 7 Testimony Ignored

WTC 7 eyewitness Barry Jennings, an employee of the New York City Housing Department, said that he did not believe the official story of how WTC building 7 fell. His own account is drastically different and gives an entirely contrary view to the official story on the destruction of WTC 7, the Salomon building. He claimed that there were big explosions coming from the 8th floor, not the 23rd floor, nor the emergency generator fuel stored in the building for the command center's operation. He was adamant about that.

Another eyewitness described WTC 7 as something out of a Bruce Willis "Die Hard" movie. An interesting comparison.

Video: Barry Jennings Talks About Huge Explosions

Video: Barry Jennings Interview (Dylan Avery/Jason Bermas)

Barry Jennings went on public record saying that he and Michael Hess, the NYC Corporation Counsel, were stepping over dead bodies as they tried to escape WTC building 7. The building was reported to have been evacuated early on that morning, after the first plane hit WTC tower one, the North tower. OEM Commissioner John Odermatt said that after the first plane hit the WTC, he left only two staffers there (at building 7). So where did all the dead bodies come from that Jennings claims to have been stepping over?

In an interview with Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, Jennings said that he was called to the WTC 7 command center, along with New York Corporation Counsel Michael Hess.

Jennings said the command center was empty when he and Hess arrived, and that was not normal. He said that when they got to the 23^rd floor command center, no one was there, yet steaming cups of coffee still sat on the desk, as if someone had been there and left in a hurry.

According to Jennings, “Upon arriving into the OEM EOC we noticed that everybody was gone. I saw coffee that was on the desk, still, the smoke was still coming off the coffee. I still, I saw, uh, half eaten sandwiches and only me and Mr. Hess was up there. Uh, after I called several individuals, one individual told me that uh, to leave and leave right away."

Hess and Jennings left the 23^rd floor command center, but when they reached the 8^th floor, there was a huge explosion.

Jennings stated, “That day I will never forget and the explanations given to me were totally unacceptable. Totally unacceptable, because as I stated, I was there. I lived through it.”

He later concluded his remarks saying. “When I got home I sat down in front of the TV… I couldn’t stop watching it. And that’s when I found out that building 7 came down. I was so surprised. And I’m saying to myself, why did that building come down? And, I knew why it came down, because of the explosions. And it was not no fuel oil tanks.. 

Jennings was very matter of fact in his testimony, as can be seen in his video interview with Avery, but apparently, after much duress, Mr. Jennings later changed his story somewhat, excluding any mention of stepping over any dead bodies in World Trade Center 7.

It would appear that someone had apparently gotten to Barry Jennings and coerced him to change his testimony.

Unfortunately for Jennings, according to reports, he met an untimely death on August 19th of 2008, just two days before the final NIST report on WTC 7 was released. The NIST report said there were no explosions in WTC 7 and no eyewitness testimony. Very strange that the eyewitness whose testimony contradicted the NIST report should mysteriously die just before its release.

There was never any official report released explaining the cause of Jennings' death.

A private investigator was retained by 9/11 researchers to look into the demise of Jennings, however the case took a strange turn when the private investigator abruptly quit before finishing the investigation. A note was sent stating, "Due to some of the information I have uncovered I have determined that this is a job for the police. I have refunded your credit card. Please do not contact me again concerning this individual." (Investigator name withheld.)

His untimely demise is still a mystery to this day.

Rooftop Building Drops First

A looming question regarding the explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 is... if this destruction truly started at the bottom with the base imploding first, then how did the rooftop building at the top of building 7 fall before it? That is indeed quite odd.

Watch the CBS Dan Rather video again and note the top structure on the roof of building 7. This small building drops first, before the bottom ever gives way.

If the bottom structure of the building is to blame for the building's destruction, how is it possible for the uttermost top structure, a small building on the roof, to drop first?

The Biggest Distinction Of All

The one notable distinction in the destruction of the twin towers and WTC 7 is in the way they fell. There was a difference.

WTC towers one and two both fell from the top down, but World Trade Center 7 imitated a controlled demolition in every aspect of its destruction. It started at the bottom and not the top, unlike towers one and two.

Compare the video (above) of the WTC 7 destruction with the following video of the twin towers falling.

Video: WTC 2 Tower Destruction

Video: WTC 1 Tower Destruction

How did nature decide to deal with towers 1 & 2 in a different manner than building 7? This is a very telling comparison in regards to the true nature of the buildings destruction.

Make no mistake about it, WTC 7 exhibits all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, just as Silverstein eluded to in his first PBS admission. It did not buckle. It imploded evenly, all the way down, but three large questions arise from that admission... 1) when was World Trade Center 7 actually wired and mined, 2) who was responsible for those orders and 3) who carried them out?

Make no mistake about it, Silverstein could not have ordered the buildings to be pulled that day as he claims, unless they were already pre-wired before that day.

The Silverstein Back-Pedal

It's easy to see that Silverstein's story of having building 7 "pulled" through controlled demolition on 9/11 had serious time constraints that hindered any immediate demolition work, on that day. His story had to change.

After the understandable litany of questions and the ensuing fallout from Silverstein's blockbuster admission on PBS, he indeed changed his story, saying now that having the building "pulled" in demolition terms was not what he meant at all.

Really?

Let's look at Larry's quote one more time.

"...and I said, ya know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is.. is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

It's interesting that Silverstein would even attempt to refute such a deliberate choice of words and the seemingly transparent inference that they paint in regards to the event as it happened.

Silverstein now would have people believe that he was referring to "pulling the existing firemen from the building to evacuate it."

His excuse and the feigned logic behind it is considered by many to certainly be strained, at the very least.

First off, his reasoning starts, "We've had such a terrible loss of life." Certainly not at WTC 7. It was evacuated much earlier that morning. So he must surely be making an analogy to the earlier destruction of towers one and two.

But if there are no people in tower seven, where is the danger of another terrible loss of life, as Silverstein described it?

The basic problem with Silverstein's story is that building seven was already evacuated by the time that Silverstein was referring to. The building occupants were evacuated early on that morning.

As for the firefighters that Silverstein alleges to have wanted to "pull" from the building... they were told to move away from WTC 7 for safety reasons at 11:30 that morning by Assistant Fire Chief Frank Fellini.

So who was possibly in the building that Larry was referring to?

Who are "they" that Silverstein alleges to have made the decision to pull the building? He infers it was the FDNY. Which chief made that assessment and the alleged order to pull the building?

There were no firemen to pull from the building. Reports claim the water to the area was cut-off when towers one and two fell, so they reportedly couldn't fight the fire and therefore weren't needed inside the building.

According to the FEMA report, "no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

After he says they made the decision to pull, Silverstein's very next immediate statement is, "And then we watched the building collapse."

How coincidental is that? He mentions a demolition term and then in his very next statement he gives the result for using such a term.

How is it that the building suddenly collapses, strangely enough, exactly according to the demolition term he mentioned?

No matter how Mr. Silverstein tries to paint it, the term "pull" is a demolition term for imploding a building. He says they made the decision to pull and then they watched the building collapse. In that order.

Examine Silverstein's comments and he says four basic things.

1. We've had such terrible loss of life.

2. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.

3. They made that decision to pull.

4. Then we watched the building collapse

How Larry can possibly try to say he meant anything different is beyond apparent reason, but the effort to try and recant such an incriminating admission as his can certainly be understood.

What Do Other Demolition Experts Say?

It's readily apparent to professional demolition experts what Mr. Silverstein was referring to when he used the term "pull." Watch the following video with demolition expert Danny Jawenko and his impressions from watching the destruction of WTC7.

Video: Demolition expert says WTC7 was imploded wmv

Video: Demolition expert says WTC7 was imploded YouTube

Video: Demolition detonation proof from WTC

Mr. Jawenko is on record as noting the difference in the way towers 1 & 2 came down and the way WTC 7 came down. Because of the bottom up demolition and the extremely controlled level implosion of Word Trade Center building 7, Jawenko said this was clearly a controlled demolition. (Jawenko is now dead from a car crash, driving home from church.)

View more on WTC 7, the Salomon Building

For coincidence sake once again, ask yourself this question...
How is Silverstein able to suggest that the building be "pulled" and then right after that, it gets pulled, as in a demolition?

The trillion-dollar question after Silverstein's admission is this...
When did they possibly have the time to actually wire the building?

"Lee Harvey" Silverstein

Why did Silverstein make such an admission a year after the fact? Why didn't he just let things go with the FEMA report and be done with it? Why come back a year later and say something that was never in the report? Was Silverstein encouraged to make those statements by someone else? And why back-pedal later on and then recant that admission of demolition?

It's almost as if Silverstein didn't know what he was getting himself into with the later admission of demolition charges. Once it became readily apparent that he was on the hook for a demolition that could not be explained, he quickly sang a different tune.

Silverstein is now in the unenviable position of being the fall guy for the New York end of the 9/11 attacks. If the media and others finally do wake up and start questioning the buildings destruction and how WTC 7 could possibly have been mined and wired with explosives, Larry Silverstein is clearly one man people will come to. God forbid that we should find Mr. Silverstein after an alleged suicide with a note of confession left behind detailing his remorse.

It's almost as if the corrupt powers that be have also planned for after the attacks with an excuse now that gives them exit from any blame surrounding the 9/11 event. Silverstein's payout was in the billions, so a case could easily be made for simple greed as the motive for 9/11. The case would probably state that he couldn't retrofit or clean the WTC towers of asbestos, so he had them heavily insured and then brought down to collect the insurance money.

None of this obviously explains the Washington attacks or the Pennsylvania crash, but then again, nothing the government has told us to this point makes sense, so why bother starting here?

The undeniable point to this is, after his PBS admission, Silverstein is now forever on the hook as possibly having implicit foreknowledge of the event, if not a direct hand in the destruction of his own newly leased WTC towers.

One would assume that Mr. Silverstein has possibly figured this out after the TV admission and that is why he is trying to now change his testimony regarding the destruction of building 7. Or once again, it could all just be another weird 9/11 coincidence. A very tidy one at that.

When Could The Buildings Have Been Mined For Demolition?

Many rightfully suggest the buildings had to have been mined in advance, perhaps months before when construction was taking place in towers 1, 2 and 7. A December 2000 NYC assessment had mandated that structural renovations be made to the buildings (even though WTC 7 was much newer). The company in charge of the work was Turner Construction, a resident of the WTC and one with close ties to Bush.

This provided a working window to rig the buildings. After all, if you go off Silverstein's initial "pull-it" statement, how was it humanly possible for anyone to wire the building in only a few short hours on 9/11?

There was also opportunity for some nefarious activity the weekend before. According to Scott Forbes, there was reportedly a "power down" condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower, when the building was reported to be undergoing late night cable retrofitting in the service corridors of the building.  This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from the 50th floor on up.

Audio: Witness testimony on WTC power down

Without any power there were of course no working security cameras and no security locks on the doors to prevent unwarranted access, allowing anyone much easier entry to many areas of the tower.

The possibility of a controlled demolition is not a pleasant question that one wants to ask regarding 9/11, let alone openly entertain, but on the other hand, the answers we've been given so far don't exactly inspire confidence in our government's official explanation of what happened on 9/11.

Why Destroy The World Trade Center?

Aside from creating a false terrorist attack that would provide an excuse for enacting an American police state, while allowing for unprovoked wars overseas, the World Trade Center was the perfect choice as a target for many other reasons. It was more than just a symbol of American financial power. There were other issues at hand that made it a target of convenience.

The primary two WTC towers were also said to be a huge loss leader for the Port Authority of New York and were said to be extremely costly to maintain, running in the millions per year for basic operating necessities.

Another possible reason for why the WTC towers may have been deliberately demolished is because they were constructed using literally tons of cancer causing asbestos as a fire retardant. The Port Authority was ordered to clean up the buildings. The cost to remove the asbestos from the buildings would have more than likely been more than the cost of the buildings.

Building 7 was much newer though. Built in 1985, it had no asbestos to remove, but it still had much sensitive evidence to get rid of, as previously outlined above.

From the testimony of Barry Jennings, the command center bunker was obviously in operation on 9/11. The presence of dead bodies after the building had been evacuated was another troubling situation that no doubt needed to be buried. WTC 7 was essentially a crime scene, so it had to go. There were too many questions that would be asked.

CNN, BBC Report WTC 7 Destruction Before It Happens

Another undeniably strange oddity from September 11th was the announcement from CNN and the BBC that the Salomon building, World Trade Center building 7, had collapsed, nearly 20 minutes before it actually fell. What a strange coincidence. Of all the buildings that were damaged that day, how did they get it right that WTC 7 was going to fall?

Both announced that World Trade Center 7, the Salomon building, had also collapsed just like towers 1 and 2. The only problem was, they actually announced it before it actually happened.

Watch the BBC video yourself and ask why WTC building 7 is clearly still standing in the background.

Video: BBC Prematurely Announces WTC 7 Destruction
 

Note: BBC Timestamp is 21:54 (GMT or WET?)

From what source did the BBC get this extremely prophetic report?

PHOTOS FROM BBC WTC 7 REPORT

Building over left shoulder is WTC 7 still standing.

Reporter is clueless on WTC 7 as she gives a better look.

Compare WTC 7 picture here with pictures above.

BBC Responds To The Charges

The BBC has offered a response to the charges that they reported the destruction of WTC 7 before it had actually fallen. It can be found at the following link below.

If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. -Richard Porter, BBC

Wow. They "coincidentally" seemed to have hit a huge event right on the head. To have a false report of this scope and nature that suddenly comes true is certainly news in itself, yet the BBC seems to blindly disregard the event as pure coincidence. Just another of the many wild coincidences in the incredibly tangled web of 9/11.

So here's another coincidence, just as the WTC was actually about to implode, the satellite footage of the U.S. report suddenly gets lost. Is anyone counting coincidences yet?

Screen break up as WTC 7 gets ready to finally fall.

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another." -Richard Porter, BBC

After repeated outcries from the 9/11 truth movement, fortunately enough someone did come up with a copy of the broadcast, apparently misfiled in the BBC archives. It has long since been posted it on the internet. ( see movie link above )

BBC Anchor Forgets Role On 9/11

As if the above BBC broadcast doesn't give one time to pause and reflect, perhaps the anchor's initial denial and later alleged poor recollection of the event itself offers yet a bit more intrigue to the BBC 9/11 story.

Video: BBC anchor forgets his role on 9/11

How do you forget the events on 9/11? How is something that was reported worldwide missed as news by this intrepid news anchor, especially when he and the BBC were the focus of that news story?

News Media Pawns

The anchors of these premature news events may very well have been nothing more than unwitting pawns during this entire event, but the fact that the story was given at all to the media before tower seven fell is striking on its own merit. No steel structure had ever collapsed from fire in the history of steel high-rise buildings. Who could have possibly conceived the impossible for this building as well, when it was never hit by any large airplanes?

Building 6

Another building with just as much importance is building six, which was destroyed early on in the day. It housed the El Dorado Task Force, an interagency money laundering watchdog group responsible for all money laundering investigations in the US.

What a coincidence.

Also, official photographer Kurt Sonnenfield took pictures of the US Customs vault under WTC 6… empty with the door left open. Just like in WTC 4. Sonnenfield is now said to be wanted by the US government, allegedly for knowing too much.

Use Your Head

Video: Controlled Demolition Example

Information such as this does not confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that the building fell due to fire and structural weakening.

They also added, "NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings." But in the next breath, they admit, "NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue."

How thorough of an investigation can the United States public expect when the National Institute for Standards and Technology admits something like this?

What we are being asked to swallow is an investigation heavy with assumption, rather than factual data with specific conclusions.

Disposal of Forensic Evidence

One of the most suspicious aspects from the aftermath of the event was the calculated and deliberate removal of evidence from the crime scene.

Why were the steel girders immediately removed and shipped overseas?

For what reason would the steel debris from the WTC be shipped out of the country so fast, without any further investigation?

Since when is forensic evidence disturbed at a crime scene, let alone physically removing it before it is thoroughly investigated?

Why was there no ongoing forensic or structural analysis performed on the steel girders?

Why ship the steel all the way out of the country when you have the world's leader in steel right next-door in Pennsylvania? What could China or some other nation do with the steel that we couldn't do in Pittsburgh, the steel capital of the world?

Why did they send the steel and all its forensic evidence away?

This is unheard of in a crime scene investigation, but for 9/11 it is just another of many firsts that have become exclusive to to this sordid criminal event.

The editor-in-chief of "Fire Engineering" magazine, William A.
Manning, called for a forensic investigation and asked for the steel to be saved so that fire and structural investigators could determine the cause of the destruction.

Manning stated at the time, "Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a
thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced
collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over ten stories tall. Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative."

As expected, months later, the Science Committee of the House of
Representatives said that the World Trade Center investigation was
greatly "hampered" by the destruction of the critical evidence.

Even the New York Times was unable to find out who called for the destruction of the WTC evidence. According to the times, "Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the
investigation."

Added to that, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)."I must say that the current investigation... some would argue that 'review' is the more appropriate word... seems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy. There are no clear lines of authority," he said. "No one is in
charge."

Before the fires were even contained, Mayor Giuliani and the city's Department of Design and Construction (DDC) Kenneth Holden, had contracted four major construction management companies to begin the removal of steel and the resulting debris from the WTC.

The Engineering And Clean Up Connections

When you examine the companies that were given clean up contracts, some intriguing relationships come to light. In all, four companies were contracted for the work. Strangely enough, two of the four contracted companies selected for the clean-up were primarily foreign owned corporations or subsidiaries.

• Controlled Demolition, Inc.
• AMEC Construction Management
• Turner Construction
• Tully Construction

Of significant note, one of the companies used to clean up after the Oklahoma City bombing disaster, Controlled Demolition Inc., was also asked to clean up as one of four crews contracted for the World Trade Center. Interesting that this company would be involved in the only two domestic attacks ever on American soil. The company was reported to receive $35 billion for the cleanup of the WTC site

From the CDI website: Controlled Demolition Inc., of Maryland was used at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, as well as the WTC destruction in New York.

Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive projects, domestically and internationally.

Another company, AMEC Construction Management, a London-based firm and subsidiary of the British engineering firm AMEC, ranked by "Engineering News Record" magazine as the world's largest firm. They were responsible for the new renovation at the Pentagon before 9-11. After their renovation was destroyed, they were then contracted to clean it up afterward. The company was paid from all phases of the project, the renovation, the subsequent clean up and also the rebuild.

AMEC was the only construction company that actually worked at both disaster sites, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

From their website: On September 11 2001, AMEC was in the final stages of a major renovation and hardening project at the Pentagon that included a portion of the building that was struck by the hijacked airplane.

In the renovation of the Pentagon’s Wedge 1, AMEC implemented a building hardening system that included floor-to-ceiling steel reinforcing beams and walls lined with strong fibrous Kevlar-like material similar to that found in bulletproof vests. Whilst, blast-resistant glass, nearly two inches thick, was also installed in the windows.

Had it not been for that, you would have had a much larger collapse and perhaps many more casualties,” Lee Evey, Manager of the Pentagon Renovation project, said at a Department of Defense news briefing days after Sept. 11. After the terrorist attacks, crews from AMEC worked around-the-clock, seven days a week, completing the demolition and the removal of the damaged structure in one month, half the time of initial expectations.

AMEC also played a leadership role in the Pentagon’s successful Phoenix Project, the primary goal of which was to re-build the Pentagon and have employees return to the offices destroyed by the anniversary of the attacks. This goal was met a month ahead of schedule.

In addition to its special role at the Pentagon, AMEC also had a leadership role in managing the rescue, recovery and cleanup activities at the World Trade Center.

AMEC had just finished the renovation at the Pentagon when it was
called to manage the removal of debris there and at the World
Trade Center.

The company managed the Hudson River barging operations, moving the rubble and debris from the WTC site to a landfill on Staten Island and then on to steel recycling operations in New Jersey.

AMEC was in charge of organizing and engineering the around-the-clock clean up operation in the northwest sector. This included the North Tower and WTC building 6 (U.S. Customs House). They also cleaned up the 47-story WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed late in the afternoon on 9/11.

AMEC Awarded Major Service Contracts by the US Department of Defense

Air Force Association to salute AMEC Chairman for company’s ‘outstanding leadership’ in Pentagon renovation and rebuilding 

It would appear that AMEC indeed has a very close relationship with the U.S. government and its military.

Army Engineering Veteran Joins AMEC As Senior Program Manager

Homeland Security Expert Joins AMEC

U.S. Government Selects AMEC As Worldwide Environmental Services Supplier to U.S. Air Force

Air Force Engineering Expert Joins AMEC

It is quite apparent that AMEC has enjoyed a very close and most lucrative association with the U.S. government.

A third company, Turner Construction, another foreign held entity, is a subsidiary of Hochtief AG, an international firm headquartered in Essen, Germany. (Turner merged with Hochtief AG in 1999.)

As mentioned previously in this article, they were contracted in 2000 for recommended structural renovations to WTC towers 1 and 2, and also building 7, even though WTC 7 was much a newer building.

During the renovation, they were also said to have done fireproofing work on the impacted floors in WTC towers 1 and 2.

As just one more added coincidence to the 9/11 event, CEO Tom C. Leppert had close personal ties to George Bush.

Turner Construction has since been unwilling to discuss its role at the World Trade Center site.

Another company involved in the WTC ground zero clean up was Tully Construction from Flushing, N.Y.

Peter Tully, president of the company had this to say about the company's work at the World Trade Center site:

"I was there every day. The mayor's office and DDC called us on Sept. 11 ... on the site we had at least three meetings a day with Ken Holden and Mike Burton."

Wow. With everything going on that day, Giuliani and company actually took the time to look for a clean up company, before all fires were put out or any search and rescue operations could be completed. This just seems like a weird priority on that day. (?)

The WTC site was initially divided into four quadrants and Tully
Construction was assigned to Quadrant 3.

Tully has said that his company also worked on the South Tower,
WTC 4 and 5, and the 425,000 square foot underground retail mall. He commented publicly on the destruction of the WTC:

"Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers -- I never saw one -- everything was pulverized. Everything that was above grade, above the 6th and 7th floor... disintegrated ... it was like an explosion."

Tully Construction just happens to specialize in concrete. Tully was asked if he had ever seen concrete pulverized as it was at the WTC.

"No -- never," he said.

Tully also stated that there were many hot spots where he observed "literally molten steel."

FEMA's Quick Response

While we're asking questions... ask yourself how clairvoyant our government was before 9/11? Allegedly not enough to stop the attacks, which they claim they could never have imagined, but apparently psychic enough to send FEMA to New York the night before.

FEMA rescue worker Tom Kenney told CBS' Dan Rather in an interview that FEMA arrived in New York late Monday night (before 9/11) and was deployed to support the city of New York for "this" disaster.

"We're currently, uh, one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York for this disaster. We arrived on, uh, late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site."

Audio: FEMA's Tom Kenney Talking To CBS' Dan Rather

After the interview, a spokesman at FEMA tried to claim that Kenney had misspoken. FEMA actually went out of its way to deny that they had any teams in New York before 9/11.

FEMA: No Prior Knowledge of 9/11

It's hard to believe the FEMA line after the fact because Mr. Kenney did two things in his admission. First off, he gave specific days, as in Monday and Tuesday. He did not say "the day before" or "the day after," which is certainly more non-specific.

Kenney also qualified those dates by referencing the chronology of those days. He says they came in Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. 9/11 did happen that Tuesday morning.

Secondly, Kenney says FEMA was deployed to, "support the city of New York for this disaster." He does not say they were there by coincidence for a later disaster drill. He says they were in town for "this" disaster.

But FEMA officials still tried to deny that they arrived in town the night before 9/11. They officially went on record to publicly deny the charge, saying Kenney had his days mixed up.

Really?

If FEMA came in Tuesday night as they later tried to claim, they would have immediately gone into action that night, no matter the time, to begin the act of disaster aid and search and rescue. It's very unlikely they would have waited to start helping until the next day. Not in the disaster aid business. Not for something like this. Not for 9/11.

When you're helping to combat a disaster, every precious second counts and is desperately needed. With lives in the balance and a national disaster such as 9/11, how strange would it be for FEMA to show up in New York City and then just check-in to their hotel and go to sleep for the night? Why wait to start rescue work the next morning for the worst disaster ever on American soil?

But wait... the story gets even murkier still.

Much like Larry Silverstein's one year later admission on the demolition of WTC 7, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani also stepped forward after the fact to testify that FEMA was there early after all! Only this time Giuliani tried to convince people that FEMA was coincidentally there the night before in order to set up on 9/11 for a reported biological warfare terror drill (Tripod II) on Pier 92 the next day.

Again, how extremely coincidental.

We are to believe that one branch of the government, NORAD, was involved in drills to stop hijacked airliners on 9/11, while another branch, FEMA, was also coincidentally getting ready for their own unrelated exercise against terrorism.

Why is it that FEMA couldn't get its own story straight? Why so many changes from the office of Emergency Management?

How Did OEM Know The Towers Were Coming Down?

Another disturbing aspect of the 9/11 event are the numerous reports that firefighters had warned people that the buildings were coming down. Mayor Giuliani admits being warned by the Office of Emergency Management that the building was about to come down.

“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse."

Video: Giuliani Interview

Video: Warning About Tower Two

PDF: Firemen Talks of Warning

The fact that no steel frame high-rise building had ever collapsed from fire makes this comment very interesting.

What basis did the Office of Emergency Management have for concluding that the buildings were going to come down when this had never happened before in the history of high-rise buildings?

How did OEM know the buildings were coming down before the firefighters knew? Why didn't the OEM then warn all the firefighters?

To date, no FDNY or NYPD 911 audio has been discovered that shows a warning was ever broadcast to rescue members that the buildings were coming down.

Rudy Flip-Flops On Warning

Very much like Larry Silverstein's "pull it" admission, Rudy Giuliani did a sudden about-face on his comments regarding the warning that the towers were going to fall. While Silverstein tried to change the intended inference of his admission on "pulling" building 7, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani went a step further by totally recanting that he ever said that he was warned or knew that the towers were going to fall.

Watch Giuliani get testy as he is asked who warned him, and also who, if anybody, that he personally warned himself. Giuliani was then asked how he sleeps at night. The exchange immediately turned sour.

Video: Giuliani Denies Warning On Towers Falling

If you need to watch his warning again, just look back to the video a few paragraphs back.

Why would Rudy admit this publicly on television, then later try to say that he never said this?

Because of this glaring error in judgment, Rudy has now unwittingly placed himself in a horribly bad position, as a possible patsy to be framed, much like Silverstein did. He becomes "Lee Harvey" # 2.

Rudy & Bernie

Another of the interesting coincidences of 911 is that Rudy Giuliani just happened to replace his police commissioner before 911 and put an arguably questionable character in charge of the city's security, Bernie Kerik. The appointment was not exactly unanimous as some described Mr. Kerik as a somewhat shady figure with allegations of possible criminal connections.

As 9/11 coincidence would have it, Giuliani put Kerik in place as New York police commissioner just one year before 9/11. The two then left immediately after 2001, when Rudy was replaced by new incoming mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Bernie Kerik interupts Giuliani during street press conference.

Video: Kerik on the street with Giuliani

Mr. Kerik can be seen in the following video, racing up the street during a Giuliani press interview where he impatiently grabbed Rudy's arm as he was starting to answer a question on what the current situation was. Kerik then peeled away, shaking his head no as he faded back into the street crowd.

After 9/11, Mr. Kerik was indicted six years later on 14 counts of criminal corruption and tax charges.

Run Rudy Run

Many New Yorkers tell a different story of Mr. Giuliani from what the national press has officially painted him out to be. New Yorkers have openly criticized Rudy for running through the streets in a near panic after the WTC towers destruction, with no clear cut plan for action.

Giuliani has also taken extensive heat for purchasing faulty radio equipment which is blamed as the reason for the firefighters not hearing the evacuation order before the towers imploded.

Since 2001, Giuliani and his PR people have used the 9/11 event as a springboard for a 2008 presidential bid, saying that Rudy was a leader, even going so far as to proclaim him "America's Mayor."

If Rudy did such an outstanding job on 9/11, then why is his official video testimony before the 911 Commission not listed with the official records in the National Archives? Could it possibly be due to all the fallen firefighter families who were screaming out at Rudy about the radios that didn't work, not to mention other unfavorable comments regarding his handling of 9/11?

The fact that Rudy is making a run for the White House and his critical video testimony before the 9/11 Commission is left out of the National Archives official records is a somewhat glaring omission. Hopefully that clerical error will soon be corrected at the oft heralded National Archives.

Rudy & Company

Last, but certainly not least, are the recently surfaced rumors of "Mr. 911" having ties to the man who let the mastermind of 9/11 escape. How ironic is that? The Village Voice has the story below.

Giuliani business contracts tie him to man who let 9/11 mastermind escape

After 9/11, many of Giuliani's New York officials from 9/11 have now joined him in a new venture known as Giuliani Partners. Among their many services are security, public safety, and emergency preparedness, to name but just a few.

The team includes these former key New York City officials:

• Former Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik

• Former Fire Commissioner, Thomas Von Essen

• Former OEM Commissioner, Richard Sheirer.

These are obviously some very key figures from 9/11.

By the way, OEM is the Office of Emergency Management, the agency credited with warning Rudy that the towers were actually going to fall.

Rudy and his new team later established a bio-hazard clean-up company called BioOne to disinfect anthrax contaminated buildings, allowing Rudy to actually profit from the terror attacks immediately following 9/11. BioOne cleaned up the last building to be disinfected after the anthrax attacks, the American Media building in Boca Raton, Florida. BioOne then took over the building.

The Flight 93 Lie

Another incongruity about the 9/11 story is what actually happened to Flight 93 that supposedly crashed over Pittsburgh? It was said that the brave passengers forced their way into the cockpit and struggled valiantly with the terrorists. That may very well be the case, but why are there so many reports out of Pennsylvania saying the wreckage was scattered for over six to eight miles?

Six to eight miles!

People reported finding airplane parts, seating, luggage and personal items, including body parts, strewn across their lawns. How is this possible if the plane crashed as they said it did? Do luggage and clothing actually bounce eight miles?

The fact is, there were multiple wreckage sights from the crash.

The only possible way that airplane remains could have been so broadly scattered is if the plane had exploded very high in the air. But why not tell us it exploded? Why not tell us of a justifiable air-strike from our fighters to prevent the hijacked plane from reaching its target?

Many eyewitnesses said they heard and saw a jet fighter plane fly into the vicinity and then back out again, just before they heard a loud explosion. One eyewitness, a woman named Val McClatchey heard the explosion and was able to grab her camera and catch a picture of a smoke cloud hanging in the air over Somerset County, rumored by many to be United Airlines Flight 93 after it allegedly exploded in the sky over Pennsylvania and then crashed into a field.

If the plane had crashed, as the official report states, what happened to all of that flammable jet fuel? Why wasn't there a raging fire with trees burning out of control at the alleged crash site?

An EPA investigation of the site was said to have found no jet fuel in the soil or water, even though the plane should have had a significant amount remaining in its tanks. Where did it go if the plane truly crashed and there was no raging fire on the ground?

Photo source: Pittsburgh Post Gazette Copyright Val McClatchey

There were many reports of the wreckage in the local papers. Those reports did not make it to the national news for some reason. A paper in Idaho of all places did pick up the story, but not the national media.

Idaho Observer article

Pittsburgh Tribune Review - story 1

Pittsburgh Tribune Review - story 2

Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Pittsburgh Post Gazette

WCPO TV in Cincinnati originally reported that Flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland, an hour after it was supposed to have crashed at 10:00 am.

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard

Reports from Cleveland afterwards refuted that report and claimed instead that it was a mistaken flight from Boston, flight 1989. It is interesting to note that even though flight 1989 was apparently not being hijacked, no one was able to identify and distinguish the plane from flight 93 while still in the air, even though flight 1989 would have had full radio contact and its transponders on and working.

So what is the real story of Flight 93? One thing certainly seems clear, whatever the flight number, the aircraft over Pennsylvania was blown up in the air, either by missile strike or an explosive device onboard the plane. It did not plow into the ground and explode on contact as the official report would have you believe.

Body parts and clothing do not bounce, nor explode outward, for over eight miles away from an airplane crash-site. The multiple locations of crash site debris, spread over eight miles, would seem to contradict the official story of the plane crashing into a field.

So why would the government possibly cover-up the legitimate shooting down of Flight 93 over Pennsylvania?

Maybe it's because then they would have to explain why they didn't shoot down Flight 77 over Washington, DC.

Flight 77 was reportedly tracked from well over 50 miles out, so there was clearly plenty of time to shoot that plane down too, yet for some strange reason, it still got through and somehow hit the Pentagon, killing many military and Pentagon personnel.

[ see Norman Mineta testimony to the 9/11 Commission ]

More Questions Than Answers

Emergency officials found and recovered an airplane engine three blocks from the World Trade center. The engine found was identified as a CFM56, but that flies in the face of the official story regarding the hijacked planes hitting the towers.

The CFM56 is used for 737 aircraft, not 767s as were alleged to have been flown into the WTC towers.

According to a Boeing 767 airline mechanic, "No 767 in existence uses CFM56s. Not enough power to lift a 67."
 

The CFM56 engine found three blocks from the WTC in NY is the primary engine of the Boeing 737, not the Boeing 767 alleged to have struck the South Tower.

WTC Jet Engine Confirmed Not To Be From A Boeing 767

If a 767 didn't hit the tower, what 737 did hit it? And what happened to the hijacked 767?

Pentagon Attack Questions

Strangely enough, a similar finding was discovered at the Pentagon as well, an engine that did not fit the description of what should have been attached to the airliner. What they found instead in Washington was an engine alleged to be different from the hijacked airliner.

Apparently Boeing offered two different engine options for customers of the 757-200. An airline could pick between the Rolls-Royce RB211 or the Pratt & Whitney PW2000.

John W. Brown, a spokesman for Rolls Royce of Indianapolis, said this about the engine part in the photo below, "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."

Some have speculated from these and other crash photos that the engine found at the Pentagon was very much like in New York, from a 737, not a 757 or a 767. That's a huge difference.

What aircraft hit the Pentagon using an engine this small?

How does a hollow aluminum skinned aircraft, traveling less than mach speed, manage to penetrate three rings of the Pentagon? Have you ever seriously stopped to think about that feat? That's like trying to push a pop can through a cement slab. How did that happen?

Each ring of the Pentagon is reported to be a foot and a half of steel reinforced concrete. That's literally over seven and a half feet of super-hardened concrete and brick, all of which is buffered by office infrastructure and dead courtyard space between the building rings. That's a lot to fly through!

How does an aluminum skinned plane go through all that, again at less than mach speed?

The Pentagon Knew It Was Coming

The sad fact is, even though they appeared to be caught with their pants down, the Pentagon had to know this attack was coming. DOT head Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney was tracking the Pentagon attack object from deep below the White House in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, from well over 50 miles out. That means that the Pentagon also had to be tracking the object as well. There is no reason to expect that the PEOC could monitor the object and the Pentagon couldn't. They both saw the attack coming. The big question is, why then didn't they evacuate the building? At least allow the non-military personnel to leave. Instead, 184 people died as a direct result of that attack.

Strangely enough, the attack marked the 60th anniversary of the official groundbreaking of the Pentagon, to the day. The Pentagon was started on September 11th, 1941. All in all, quite a remarkable birthday.

Where's The Pentagon Video?

There are a multitude of security cameras around the Pentagon that quite obviously recorded what actually hit the Pentagon. Make no mistake about it, tape does exist. There was also surveillance video from the roof of a neighboring hotel and another from a nearby gas station. There were even traffic video tapes from the DOT. All of those video tapes were confiscated by government officials.

The video of the hotel and the gas station were finally released, probably because they were too far away and really showed nothing except for the explosion. So why not release the DOT traffic videos if they released the other tapes? Those DOT videos have not been released or shown to this day.

Why?

We were all able to clearly see the planes fly into the WTC towers, many at very close angles. In none of the numerous videos and film taken do the planes fly so fast that we cannot see them in the footage. Why then can we not make out the object that hits the Pentagon? Why would they only allow a few frames to be seen?

What is most interesting in the few frames shown is that a white vapor trail can be made out just before impact. Since jet planes don't leave vapor trails at such a low altitude, could this be evidence of a missile impact instead?

It's very clear that the Pentagon has a number of outdoor video surveillance cameras that captured the event. They also had all the extra video footage from the DOT, the hotel and the gas station. The only footage they've released so far was too far away to see anything at all. What a coincidence.

Why not release the close up video from the rooftop cameras, or other Pentagon surveillance video?

They've already told us what happened, so they can't possibly claim a National Security concern. That argument has no apparent merit.

One claim is that they need to retain the evidence in case of further court proceedings.

How would releasing the attack footage possibly impinge upon any legal proceedings? Again, the government has already been on the record numerous times with accounts and transcripts that can already be called into a court of law. What about the video then is so sensitive that it cannot be shown before a possible criminal trial convenes?

Does this conversely mean that all video of the planes hitting the WTC cannot be shown in court, or are now tainted evidence due to their pre-trial release?

And just when is that trial going to begin, so we can finally have the full video release? Wasn't that trial originally just for Moussaoui?

The full footage would without a doubt show the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, so why not show it in its entirety and put the rumors to rest?

Even the latest Pentagon release was not sufficient in frames to show the public the entire event. If the aircraft that hits the Pentagon is actually traveling so fast that video cameras cannot record it as they did the WTC, then we need to seriously question how an object can do this when it was clearly reported to be traveling at less than mach speed.

If they can show us footage over and over again of planes hitting the World Trade Center towers, why won't they show us the video of the alleged airliner hitting the Pentagon?

Seize All Pentagon Video!

Our government seized any and all video of the Pentagon strike and has kept it hidden from the public to this day. They seized  private property, in the form of surveillance video from, the Sheraton Hotel rooftop camera, the Washington DC DOT highway cameras, and a gas station security camera across the street from the Pentagon.

Gas station attendant Jose Velasquez said, "I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." - National Geographic (12/11/01)

Of all the numerous cameras that the Pentagon has focused on its own exterior, the only video they will show of the attack is but just a few incomplete frames.

Why not the whole video?

Pentagon explosion shown from distant remote CCTV camera.

One can only conclude that there was something there that we were not supposed to see. Or perhaps just as importantly, maybe it was something that wasn't there.

The Pentagon Eyewitnesses

Many people have come forward to give firsthand accounts of as eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attacks in Washington, DC.

What about the report from CNN's Jamie McIntyre who says "From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

Audio: CNN Jamie McIntrye Says No Plane Seen At Pentagon

Video: CNN's Jamie McIntrye 'No Plane Seen At Pentagon'

Hard to say that a 757 actually hit the Pentagon from the testimony of McIntyre, but nevertheless, something did hit the building.

Mr. McIntyre will more than likely tell you to this day that he indeed believes that a plane did hit the Pentagon, however it is his very thorough on-sight visual scrutiny and testimony that is very telling in its description. It is his visual surveillance of the area that corroborates the absence of commonly found large airliner pieces at plane crash sights and calls into question of what really happened at the Pentagon.

The pristine lawn of the Pentagon. Where is the wreckage?

The trillion-dollar war question is, what was it that actually crashed into the Pentagon?

Where were the wing marks from the plane's impact on the building?

Where were the ground markings?

And why was there only minor scattered debris instead of the major wreckage from a 757? Large airliners have hit mountains, buildings and crashed into the ground many times before, but in every case they all let major identifiable debris.

What happened to the large titanium engines? Only one engine turbine was found and it clearly did not fit that of flight 77.

Official Attack Trajectory Is Wrong

A film called the PentaCon from Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke presents very credible eyewitnesses from the nearby CitGo gas station that are absolutely certain on which direction the plane came from. All were asked to independently draw a map showing the location and trajectory of the attack on the Pentagon. Every drawing was exactly the same, with all showing a clearly different trajectory than the officially stated flight path.

The following maps were drawn independently of each other, all with the same corroborating results. Each map shows the plane on the North side, to the left of the gas station, not the right, or the South side as the official story claims.

Map drawn by Citgo employee Robert Turcios

Map drawn by SGT Chadwick Brooks

Map drawn by SGT William Lagasse

This is very important because now you have to explain why the light poles were knocked down in a line on the south side of the gas station, as per the original reports, and not the north side.

Sergeant Lagasse has a different take on this, claiming the light poles to the south of the station were never knocked down at all. Lagasse states that the light poles were knocked down along the path from the north side of the gas station, not the south.

How did these light poles get reported in the press as being knocked down along a path on the south side of the gas station? Is Lagasse wrong, or was the light pole evidence purposefully planted, as suggested by some?

This author's take is, don't rule out planted evidence. In New York we have an engine not from a 767. We have a paper passport that supposedly survived the flaming fireball, from an alleged hijacker that was never on the flight and is still alive. In the Pentagon we have an engine rotor that is not from a 757. We also have small pieces of wreckage closely resembling an American Airlines plane, but with the wrong paint scheme, and no signs of charring.

Citgo gas station is circled in yellow.

More investigation is obviously needed here to clarify the Pentagon  issue. With but one far away CCTV video clip it is hard to see what actually hit the building. One thing that you can see in that footage is that there was a vapor trail. That is a huge key.

While it is near impossible to make out the shape of a 757 airliner, one thing that does appear quite noticeably is the white vapor trail just before impact. Jet airliners make vapor trails at high altitudes, not low altitudes, but missiles on the other hand do produce trails.

It has to be noted that the CCTV frames released from the Pentagon do not show a plane flying over the Pentagon, but at that speed and with CCTV technology it would be quite easy for anyone to edit the plane out, if someone wanted to hide the decoy. This possibility cannot be discounted out of hand because it is indeed possible.

Researcher Jim Fetzer claims that a man named Dave Ball saw a plane actually do a flyover of the Pentagon, but like so many 9/11 eyewitnesses, he is now dead.

Until new video is released from the multiple, surrounding video cameras, the lone Pentagon CCTV footage has to be considered with careful scrutiny.

Without further DC  video evidence, it is critical to carefully asses the gas station eyewitnesses whose testimony is in direct conflict with the official flight trajectory path. There is much disinformation that has been purposefully stirred into the 9/11 event. Could the testimony be an attempt to discredit the missile theory?

It is interesting to note that both police officers are certain they saw the plane logo, however Brooks says he saw "United" in blue letters on the side of the plane and Lagasse says he distinctly saw "American Airlines." For two trained professionals to have such a close-up view and yet both have distinctly different recollections of the airline name is interesting. One says A, the other says B. Again, that's an interesting dichotomy for trained professionals.

It is notable to mention that Lagasse actually claims to have reviewed many 9/11 websites on his own. He argues that the knocked down light poles were not where they were reported to be. He claims there were fallen light poles from the path of the plane, coming from the north side, not the side south of the gas station as reported.

Why not just release the numerous security camera videos from the roof of the Pentagon, or else release the DOT video from Washington DC? These videos would immediately show us what happened, but instead they have been withheld since 9/11.

Since when have 911 emergency tapes been off limits to the press or the public? So far, New York City and Washington D.C. both top the list, and all with audio from the same day and the same event.

Only some of the New York tapes have been released, while no audio has been released to this day on the D.C. 911 call tapes.

Why withhold any of the 911 emergency dispatch tapes?

Maybe it's because there are too many eyewitness descriptions that do not match up with the official story.

From The PentaCon - Click here for a larger image

So who's right? Watch the movie The PentaCon at the link below.

Video: Gas station eyewitnesses speak out

If the trajectory is indeed as these eyewitnesses claim, then the fallen light poles need to be explained, as they were nowhere near the actual flight path. Were there actual downed light poles on the South side of the gas station, or were they actually on the North side of the station, as officer Lagasse claims?

The theory of the PentaCon documentary is that there was no missile or plane strike. The movie's producers claim that the Pentagon explosion came from charges detonated in the wall of the building. This may or may not be true. What is most interesting from the film is the fact that there are four eyewitnesses who say the plane path was not from the South side of the gas station, but from the North. That is clearly contrary to initial reports on the DC flight path.

Is it tangible evidence, or calculated disinformation? One thing is for certain, with little evidence to go on, the jury is still out on DC.

Where is the plane?

The biggest mystery of the Pentagon attack is the obvious... where is the plane?

So far, all we have are a few highly questionable remnants that do not resemble anything from a 757. This is atypical for an aircraft crash scene. There are always obvious pieces left behind, such as the tail section, the engines, and the black box, the last two items having significant titanium construction involved, however, in the case of the Pentagon we have none of these to be found.

These crucial remains would not just disappear into thin air, yet we are left with none of this from flight 77, save for a questionable wheel hub and engine rotor that do not match up with a 757.

What we are being told is that this plane literally melted into nothing.

If that is the case, where are the solidified vestiges of once molten aluminum? Surely a plane as large as a 757, if it melted, would leave hardened metal remains after it cooled. We are being led to believe that the plane melted, and then the molten metal just vaporized into thin air, never cooling again to a solid form.

Despite the absurdity of this premise, those propagating this outlandish scenario would have us believe that human remains were somehow left behind for investigators to do DNA analysis on. These are two absolute absurdities in one very poorly conceived, unscientific explanation.

If the plane was supposedly vaporized in a fireball (an aviation first) and melted completely, then how were officials able to find enough body parts and human remains to allegedly identify the passengers on the plane?

Metal melts, but flesh and bone remain to be identified?

Yeah, right.

While we're at it, why isn't the hole in the building much larger? It clearly doesn't fit a 757 airliner.

There are unbroken windows all around the impact area. They were apparently special blast-proof windows, but collision-proof is an entirely different matter. That being the case, where did the wings and tail section impact? Surely they would have shattered some of those windows, no matter how blast proof they may have been. Why are there no discernable markings on the facade where these monsters of metal most surely collided?

So where are the wings and the tail section? There are no marks on the building and no entry holes where they could have been forced into the building. There is no physical possible way that they could have folded or collapsed neatly together to slide into a hole already too small for the body of a 757 to fit through. Look at the hole before the building collapsed at 10:10. It just isn't possible for these key remnants to be missing like that.

What happened to the mammoth titanium engines?

Where are any of the seats and plane parts inside the Pentagon?

What about the landing gear found that does not match a 757?

The official story is once again the one that strains all good reason and science, leaving the narrative to exist on naive credulity alone.

Pentagon Lawn Evidence Scrutinized

Remember the piece of wreckage that was found that had the alleged American Airlines markings on it? There were some pieces found, yet the photos appear to raise more questions than they answer.

The outer lawn showed none of this debris, as it should have. There were a few small pieces of metal that had questionable paint marks that resembled an American Airlines plane, however... a careful analysis of these few pieces on the lawn shows some visible discrepancies in the paint markings.

One oddity is that they had a light blue background which American Airlines planes do not possess. The plane itself is unpainted silver  aluminum, other than the striping and lettering.

Another notable oddity is that the pieces showed no charring whatsoever, despite the massive fireball that was shown in the Pentagon CCTV photos. No evidence of fire whatsoever.

A third anomaly is the white stroking around the lettering. If you zoom in on the picture in PhotoShop, you can clearly see the rivets in the metal. The problem is, the white stroke around the red American Airlines lettering is only three rivets wide, at best.

See a larger picture by clicking here.
Compared with this photo, the stroking here appears slightly larger

Click the link above for the larger picture and note the difference in the white stroking from the alleged wreckage found on the Pentagon lawn and an American Airlines 757. The difference is striking.

One rivet was copied and then pasted as many times as possible to measure the width of the white stroke in the American Airlines plane lettering. The stroke width was barely wide enough for three rivet heads. That's pretty small compared to what you actually see on the side of an American Airlines 757. (see larger graphic at link above.)

So the question is, is this an actual piece from an American Airlines jet or was it something else, painted with the markings of American Airlines?

Impossible Rookie Maneuver?

How does a rookie pilot who is described by flight instructors as inept at flying, possibly make the incredible maneuvers that flight 77 is alleged to have made? Veteran pilots say this is impossible in a 757 and most certainly would have caused a stall. DC Air traffic  controllers actually thought they were viewing a military plane due to its complex maneuvers.

Even if Hani Hanjour could miraculously survive that first stunt, how does he then perform another impossible feat by flying a commercial jetliner only mere feet off the ground at over 400 to 500 mph and still hit the Pentagon without tipping the wings into the ground or leaving a profound wake of turbulence?

To be clear, the official story would have us all believe that a rookie pilot was able to perform not one, but two complicated maneuvers, extraordinary feats that any seasoned, veteran commercial airline pilot would admit as being physically impossible to do in a 757.

And we're supposed to think the 9/11 truth movement are the ones propagating conspiracy theory?

Seriously?

Some people say that conspiracy theorists take liberty with their interpretation of the evidence. One could certainly argue that the Pentagon maneuver by a rookie pilot is closer to conspiracy theory than anything else.

Too Hot To Handle?

Why was radioactive dust found in the air after the Pentagon strike?

One of the most ignored aspects of the DC attack is the undeniable fact that the Pentagon lawn was hot with radiation after the crash. Radiation experts took readings following the Pentagon strike and were shocked to find elevated levels.

According to radiation expert Leuren Moret, "I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used."

Moret is not alone in her assessment and is backed up by retired Army Maj. Doug Rokke, a physics PhD and former top military expert who said, "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile. Also, if you look at the WTC and the disturbing flash hitting the tower right before the impact of the airplane, it also looks like a missile was used."

Moret states that on 9/11 she called a close friend, radiation expert Dr. Janette Sherman in Alexandria, VA. Already suspecting radiation, she asked Sherman to take some Geiger counter readings. Being downwind from the Pentagon, her Geiger counter readings displayed very high readings of radiation, well over eight to ten times higher than normal. On 9-11 Sherman's  readings were 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm). One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, a town 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil measurements in a local neighborhood displayed higher readings yet, hitting 75 to 83 cpm.

The pair contacted the FBI, as well as the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NIRS), and also the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Federal radiation experts corroborated the high radiation levels at the Pentagon crash.

What followed however was not what the two researchers expected. Their findings were completely ignored by the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission.  The story died an immediate death in the mainstream media, never to be repeated again.

Coincidentally enough the ground area around the Pentagon crash sight was totally covered over since the reconstruction. It's curiously interesting that the Pentagon lawn was buried and covered over after the 911 attack.

More Classified Dispatch Tapes?

Once again, coincidentally enough, as in New York, the audio from the 911 dispatch tapes was been clarified for Washington. What could emergency dispatchers possibly have said to first responders in both New York and Washington DC to be classified from the public?

One thought is because, like in New York, the audio provides a contrary record of witness testimony that does not support the official theory for the event.

Many witnesses reported seeing the plane come in from the north side of the Citgo station, not the south side where the light poles were knocked down.

If that's the case, then what knocked the light poles down?

Could a plane possibly have come from the north side of the Citgo gas station and a cruise missile from the south side?

Why classify the 911 emergency audio tapes, plus all of the public video tapes of the event, not to mention the countless Pentagon rooftop video camera surveillance footage?

Many argue that there is critical eyewitness testimony that is being suppressed, or else we would have already been shown definitive video by now, much like with the New York attacks.

Setting the Country Up?

Our government did two things just prior to September 11th that, whether intended or not, undeniably gave the hijackers a much better chance of success:

• June 1, 2001 - The airplane shoot-down order is changed. The Department of Defense (DOD) initiated new instructions for military assistance relating to aircraft hijackings which states that for all non-immediate responses, assistance from the DOD must get approval from the Secretary of Defense, or the President of the United States.

• July 2001 - The FAA bans guns in the cockpit just prior to 9/11. Armed pilots were banned just two months before 9/11. A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed airline pilots to be armed was dropped without explanation just two months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

It's easy to now see in retrospect how these two changes, whether intended or not, clearly gave the hijackers a much better chance to succeed with their plan.

Who Could Ever Suspect Airplanes As Weapons?

George Bush and many within his administration echoed one argument over and over after 9/11, "How could anyone have possibly suspected terrorists would use airplanes as weapons?"

Video: Bush - We could never have envisioned the 9-11 attacks

That comment has now been proven to be utterly false. The US government has on many occasions entertained just such a terrorist scenario.

USA Today: NORAD Had Drills With Jets As Weapons

CNN: Norad Plans For Terrorist Airplane Attacks

CNN: NORAD Exercise Had Jet Crashing Into Building

Video: ABC Reports On NORAD Airplane Attack Scenario
From InfoWars.com

Not only had they thought about it before, they were thinking about it that very day.

USA Today: Plane Attack Prepared For On 9/11

For anyone in high government to say this had never before been thought of, nor ever prepared for, it calls into question their total ignorance and/or strange absence from our country's security loop, or possibly their own personal disdain for the telling the truth.

Coincidental Confusing War Games

The uncanny fact that our government was conducting not one, but at least three terror drills in the air on 9/11 while the attacks were underway is disturbing for a number of reasons. First and foremost, many of the fighter pilots and flight controllers claim this is the number one reason why they were confused as to whether the hijackings were "real world" or simply part of a drill.

NORAD control room NEADS.

With at least three reported terrorist drills taking place during the 9/11 attacks, confusion was hard to avoid. If you wanted confusion in the skies that day, you couldn't have engineered it any better.

Flight Path of Four Planes

With that many government exercises running at once, are we to believe that no one in the government or military foresaw that there might be conflicts with real world traffic control?

What steps were taken by DOD and others to alleviate this possible security threatening scenario?

If no precautionary steps taken can be verified, a case could clearly be made for negligence in the planning of those mass exercises. Someone definitely should have lost their job for the unmistakable short sided planning and coordination of those military exercises. The precaution against confusion should quite obviously have been considered and should be noted somewhere in the planning of the exercise.

Fact: The U.S. government was running at least four or more major military exercises at the time of the 9/11 attacks. Some clain over a dozen exercises were in play. The four most noted were...

• Operation Northern Vigilance was a joint exercise being performed with Canada to monitor a Soviet exercise near Alaska.

• Operation Global Guardian was said to be an Armageddon exercise, conducted at Offutt AFB in Omaha, Nebraska and also Barksdale AFB in Shreveport, Louisiana. Coincidentally these two locations just happen to be the two bases Bush flew to when he left Florida aboard Air Force One. (Warren Buffet was also said to be at Offutt AFB).

• Operation Vigilant Guardian a week long exercise conducted by NORAD that simulated an attack on the U.S.

• The NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) was holding an exercise which depicted the scenario of an airplane as an attack weapon crashing into the building.

The coordination of all these events timed with the 9/11 attacks is eerily too coincidental, if not just unbelievable. The possibility of all these events happening concurrently is not random coincidence as some would have us believe. That in itself would be a good example of what "conspiracy theory" really is.

This is understandably what lends support to the inside job theory. Either a mole within our government intel, or factions within an intel group itself, exploited this perfect window of timing and the veiled guise and opportunity it presented to its perpetrators, or this is the wildest coincidence since the alleged "magic bullet" theory.

Could It Get Any Worse?

The list certainly doesn't stop there. Many other unexplainable "coincidences" which aided the alleged terrorists on 9/11 were...

• On September 6, a two week heightened security alert at the World Trade Center was conveniently lifted and all bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed from the premises.

• The morning of 9/11, video cameras positioned high atop the World Trade Center which were used to feed daily images to local television stations were for some strange reason suddenly not working.

It makes you wonder, who was running the security for the World Trade Center?

9/11 Security Connections

There are many questions regarding the security involved with entities involved with 9/11.

For instance, all 9/11 airports were serviced by one Israeli owned company. That is notable because of the alleged Mossad connection with 9/11. More on the Israeli connection further below.

There were also very curious and quite disturbing American security connections

As 9/11 coincidence would have it, there are a couple of interesting names involved with the WTC security; The first was none other than Marvin Bush, President Bush's brother, and the second was Wirt D. Walker III, cousin to the Bush brothers.

Wirt D. Walker was the company CEO of Securacom from 1999 until 2002, while Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for Securacom from 1993 until 2000. It is reported that they had a new security system installed in the World Trade Center between 1996 and 2000.

The glaring issue in all of this is that their security firm is reported to have run not only the World Trade Center security, but quite coincidentally enough, the electronic security for Dulles International Airport where terrorists were alleged to have boarded, and also the security for United Airlines, one of the hijacked airliners involved. (Securacom hanndled electronic security, while the Israeli firm ICTS screened passengers.)

Now that's truly a really weird coincidence. What on earth are the odds for that?

The company, now called Stratesec, is in Sterling, Virginia and was reportedly backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation, rumored to be linked for years to the Bush family.

Barry McDaniel, CEO for the company, said they had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

By any standard, that is just pretty damn weird timing.

Bush-Linked Firm Handled Security for WTC, Dulles and United

An interesting side-note: Marvin Bush's last year on the board at Stratesec coincided with his first year on the board of HCC Insurance, formerly Houston Casualty Co., one of the insurance carriers for the WTC. He later left the board in November 2002.

Seriously. How utterly convenient to go straight from the disaster to the insurance carrier covering the property affected in the disaster.

It's probably just another wild 9/11 coincidence.

Many try to say that HCC was not part of the nine companies that insured the WTC, but a check of New York City court documents clearly shows that they were part of the Silverstein lawsuit.

Evidence Of Prior Government Knowledge?

On September 10, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for a September 11 trip, apparently because of security concerns.  (MSNBC (09/24/01)

On September 10, then San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was reportedly called by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and warned not to fly on 9/11. (SF Chronicle)

SF Chronicle: Brown Warned Not To Fly

How did Rice know? Did her position as National Security Advisor allow her information that the rest of the public was not privy to?

Warnings To Stay Away From WTC

What about the warning to Odigo employees who were sent instant messaging saying that the WTC attacks would come in less than two hours?

Article: Odigo Workers Warned of Attacks

How did they possibly get this right?

Why has a story such as this been buried in the mainstream American media?

The Rumsfeld Reaction

At 8:44 in the morning on 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld was in his private dining room at the Pentagon talking about missile defense and the impending risk of terrorism. Rumsfeld predicted there would be a terrorist attack soon.

“Let me tell ya,” he said, “I’ve been around the block a few times. There will be another event.” - Fayetteville Observer/AP (09/16/01)

Two minutes later the first plane struck the WTC.

Later, for the second time that morning, Rumsfeld predicted another terrorist attack.

Rumsfeld was reported to be meeting that morning with Christopher Cox, the Defense Policy Committee Chairman of the House of Representatives.

Cox said, "Mr Rumsfeld watched the TV coverage from New York and said: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us." Moments later, the plane hit." - Telegraph UK (12/16/01)

Just seven minutes after Rumsfeld's comments, the second tower was struck.

Absolutely unbelievable. Sylvia Brown should be so psychic.

The Pentagon strike came soon thereafter, but at that point Rumsfeld made himself unavailable by abandoning his post and his sworn duty to protect the country from foreign attack. Instead of coordinating the defense of the country, Rumsfeld decided to go outside onto the Pentagon lawn to assist with rescue efforts, a task not part of his defense responsibilities.

What Rumsfeld did was to effectively remove himself from duty, until all hijacked planes had crashed. Why he was not helping coordinate this country's defense is unknown and most suspicious for the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Many have speculated that it was so he could remove himself from the chain of command long enough so that he did not have to give the shoot down order. (The same has been said for Bush.)

The important point to recognize is that Rumsfeld himself predicted that the Pentagon could be hit. When it was hit, he quickly raced outside, away from his sworn duties as the Secretary of Defense. He already knew after the first two New York attacks that this was considered by everyone to be an attack on the U.S., an act of war. How could he possibly have known that there weren't going to be more attacks on more U.S. cities?

The fact is, by running out onto the Pentagon lawn, he was shirking his official duties in directing a defense of the country.

The fact is, his presence helping attend to injured personnel on the lawn added nothing to that effort, however, his absence from his post adversely subtracted from an effective defense of the country.

One month later, Rumsfeld talked as if the 9/11 Pentagon strike was actually from a missile. On October 12, 2001 he gave an interview to Parade magazine in which he said the following.

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." - Parade Magazine (10/12/01)

Then, in December of 2004, he slipped again when he spoke as if the plane that crashed on 9/11 in Pennsylvania was actually shot down.

"And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would
face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York,
shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be." - CNN (12/24/04)

It's important to understand that a "slip of the tongue" generally occurs with already known information, something that is already understood but is meant to be hidden, yet is errantly blurted out. When you have a slip of the tongue, you do not invent new things to blurt out. That would be called just making stuff up, or basically, lying.

A slip of the tongue is generally an unwanted disclosure, most always at an inopportune time. Rumsfeld's slips are interesting because they just so happen to match the conventional wisdom
and truth that is suspected by so many 9/11 researchers.

The Cheney Reaction

Probably the most disturbing story of all from the attacks is Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta relayed an unsettling story from the Presidential Emergency Operating Center regarding Vice President Cheney on the morning of 9/11 as the plane approached the Pentagon. He recounted the story of a young man who kept coming into the room and giving Cheney a progress report on how far the plane was from the Pentagon.

The Pentagon attack was no surprise. Much like Pearl Harbor, they had advance warning that an attack was coming. They tracked the object from well over 50 miles out and yet did not shoot it down. Some say it was tracked from well over 80 miles out.

Norman Mineta testifying before 9/11 Commission

"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane 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 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?'"
Testimony of U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission. (5/23/03)

Video: The Plane is 10 miles out. Do the orders still stand?

This is truly a shocking revelation. Number one, it proves that they had a chance to shoot the object down, long before it slammed through three rings of the Pentagon.

Number two, it shows that a shoot-down order was finally in place, yet a particular order, apparently under the authority of Cheney, was being questioned at the time by the young man.

• What was the order being questioned by the young man?

• Why wasn't the plane shot down if there was indeed a shoot-down order in place?

If Mineta's account is true, one can derive two basic facts from his testimony and the events that unfolded on 9/11...

1) According to Cheney, "the order" was still intact.

2) The attack on the Pentagon was certainly no surprise.

From that far out, at least 50 miles, even antiquated 1960s ballistic missile technology could have easily taken that plane out of the air.

Why was it not shot down if a shoot down order was in place?

They watched the plane on radar for over 50 miles as it headed into the Pentagon and yet, mysteriously, they took no action. Why?

This is an easy hit for the military. Why didn't they shoot it down?

If the order was still standing, why was the plane not shot down?

So what was the order?

Why was Cheney annoyed with the questioning of that order?

Since there was no reported attempt to shoot the plane down, one could surmise that the order being questioned may have been contrary to the shoot-down order, allowing the alleged plane, or "object," to hit the Pentagon.

Eyewitness examines Pentagon right after attacks.

The looming question now is, did someone not follow orders, or... did someone follow orders?

Again, the plane was clearly not shot down, nor was there any acknowledged attempt made to actually do so.

Ask yourself, after the first two airline strikes on the World Trade Center, would anyone within the defense or military establishment actually be questioning a shoot-down order on a rogue airliner?

If they were watching the plane from well beyond 50 miles out, that means they clearly had plenty of time to target the plane and shoot it down, if they wanted to.

So why didn't they shoot it down? Is it possible that the order the young man was questioning was an order to not shoot?

With Cheney tracking the plane from well over 50 miles out, that means the Pentagon was no doubt tracking the object as well. With that thought in mind, why was there no evacuation of the Pentagon? You would think that at least the non-military personnel would be allowed to leave. There were 184 people killed as a direct result of this attack, yet not one news outlet has questioned Cheney's actions, nor the lack of a Pentagon evacuation.

After tracking the alleged plane for well over 50 miles, with all that time, whatever the object was, it was not shot down and was seemingly allowed to hit the Pentagon instead.

Once again, why?

There are numerous unanswered questions here.

Strange Target

The fact that this section of the Pentagon had undergone extensive retrofitting and was made to withstand this type of attack makes it another odd coincidence of 9/11. Why not come straight in and hit the area where Rumsfeld was? That was an easy hit.

Rumsfeld's office was the easiest hit. Why go around?

Why not hit the White House? That was also within the flight path.

This is quite a strange oddity if you take the time to think about it. Why not take the direct easiest approach with the most damage to our Defense Department? How reasonable is it to expect that a bad rookie pilot could pull a near impossible maneuver with the alleged aircraft in order to hit this special area?

How does a rookie pilot pull this maneuver?

And what of the people that were in this new section that was not yet supposed to be finished for another two days? While not at its intended capacity, there were still many stationed there that specific morning. One occupant of the new hardened section was Naval Intelligence and the Navy Command Center. This is a strategic post with the military's oldest tactical intelligence center, but they weren't the only valuable occupants.

What Was Important About The New Section?

The day before 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld spoke to the press, saying that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3 trillion dollars. Not billions, but TRILLIONS! That is an enormous amount of money that could very easily be used to finance covert and black operations, with no accountability to Congress.

You could also use money like that for a cover-up, for political and judicial bribes. You could also use it to hire operatives to do your dirty work. There are many unscrupulous people in the world that would do anything immoral just for the sake of money. Whoever was in control of this money had enormous power at their disposal.

When it comes to the newly renovated section of the Pentagon that was hit that day, the credibility for coincidence would be strained once again with the revelation that the Pentagon accounting service, responsible for tracking the missing trillions, was relocated to that very section. It was destroyed on 9/11 along with any paper trails leading to the missing money. A total of 125 people perished in the  Naval Operations, Naval Intelligence and Navy Command Center, including the accountants and budget analysts tracking the missing Pentagon money. The search for the missing $2.3 trillion died as well.

Add this hard to believe coincidence to the list of unbelievable oddities regarding 9/11. The missing trillions from the day before 9/11 is just another of the numerous coincidences that we have been expected to swallow.

April Gallop Survives to Sue

One of the surviving Pentagon employees was April Gallop. When she was able to get up, she crawled out through the hole in the Pentagon and testifies that she saw no remnants of an airplane crash.

Video: April Gallop interview about Pentagon attack

Video: April Gallop's Atorney  Pt 1  |  Pt 2  |  Pt 3

Gallop later sued the U.S. government for complicity in the attacks, specifically naming Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Richard Myers. Gallop filed her original first lawsuit on December 15th, 2008, but a New York District Court threw the case out. She then appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals whereupon it was cavalierly tossed out of court, with the reasoning that the suit was “not plausible” and was the “the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.”

To add insult to injury, a legal admonishment was made to the prosecuting attorney for bringing forth such a suit. One of the three sitting judges just coincidentally happened to be John Mercer Walker, Jr., the first cousin of former President George H.W. Bush and the first cousin once removed of George W. Bush.

How convenient.

Mineta 9/11 Commission Testimony Edited

Since the 9/11 Commission hearings, the transcripts and video documentation of the proceedings have been turned over to the National Archives. Someone there has decided that the American public does not have a right to see the entire testimony of Mineta before the 911 Commission. The video of Mineta has been edited to cut out the entire first half of Mineta's testimony regarding Cheney and the PEOC situation room on 9/11.

While the record of the testimony can still be found in the printed transcript, the video testimony has been edited to remove all the remarks regarding Cheney tracking the incoming object from over 50 miles out, as well as the young man's questioning of Cheney's acknowledged order.

Watch for yourself. Go to the following National Archives URL...

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/index.htm

Go to… Day Two: Friday, May 23, 2003

Click on…  Panel 1

It's surprising that they edited the video, yet left the written transcript as is. For whatever reason, Mineta's video testimony on Dick Cheney has been cut out of the 911 Commission files at the National Archives.

This very well could help explain why some in the government would possibly cover-up the legitimate shooting down of rogue Flight 93, because then they wouldn't have to explain why they didn't shoot down Flight 77 when they tracked it from well over 50 miles out and undeniably had plenty of time to shoot it down.

Conflicting Testimony

Now that you've seen Norman Mineta's 911 testimony, watch the 911 commission testimony of White House counsel Dana Hyde. Her testimony claims that Cheney hadn't quite made it to the PEOC and was in the hallway outside, allegedly making a call to President Bush, when the plane crashed into the Pentagon.

Video: Dana Hyde testimony regarding Cheney

How can this be? Two conflicting testimonies, under oath, before the 911 commission?

Who's telling the truth?

Cheney's PEOC arrival time is called into question when comparing the testimony of Mineta versus Hyde. Mineta's testimony is damning to Cheney. Hyde's testimony seems to cover Cheney's butt. According to Dana Hyde, Cheney wasn't in the PEOC at all, thus implying that Mineta's account never happened.

So who is lying and who's telling the truth?

Why didn't the 911 Commission catch this?

When Did Cheney Reach The PEOC?

The White House has gone on record as saying that Vice President Cheney was not in the PEOC until around 9:38 that morning. Dana Hyde corroborates that version of the story in her 911 commission testimony. (posted above)

An emotionless Dick Cheney watches as WTC south tower falls.

Many have speculated that the reason for this was to avoid calling into question why Bush was not rushed immediately to a command center at 9:06. Instead, Bush sat quietly in a Florida elementary school classroom, taking no action whatsoever during the entire event, even though he knew it was a direct unprovoked attack on the United States.

But Cheney himself seems to set the record straight in a CNN interview.

"It was a clear day, there were no weather problems, and then we saw the second airplane hit in real time," Cheney told CNN's John King in an interview in the vice president's office.

"At that moment, you knew this was a deliberate act. This was a terrorist act."

He called President Bush in Florida and spoke with top aides. Then his door burst open.

"My [Secret Service] agent all of a sudden materialized right beside me and said, 'Sir, we have to leave now.' He grabbed me and propelled me out of my office, down the hall, and into the underground shelter in the White House," Cheney said.

In White House terminology, The room is the PEOC, an acronym for the Presidential Emergency Operations Center.

CNN: Cheney Recalls Taking Charge From Bunker

So it appears that according to Cheney, he was indeed taken to the PEOC at 9:06am.

The bigger question now would be, why didn't Secret Service whisk Bush away also? Why was Bush allowed to remain in a classroom of children, despite standing protocol for him to be evacuated?

Mineta Stands By His Testimony

Norman Mineta stands by his testimony to the 911 Commission to this very day. See what he had to say regarding that morning in the following videos.

Video: Mineta Interview On 911

Video: Mineta Confirms Cheney

Mineta also brings up an interesting question as to when Cheney was taken to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. The looming question being, if Cheney was rushed by Secret Service early on (9:06am) to the PEOC, then why wasn't Bush taken early on as well? Why was Bush allowed to sit in the Florida classroom, despite already established Secret Service protocol to protect him during a national emergency?

The Bush Reaction

Arguably as bad as the Cheney story is the account of George W. Bush at Booker Elementary school in Florida. During an attack on the United States of America, President Bush, the Commander in Chief of our military, sat quietly in an elementary school classroom after being told that our country was under attack.

White House Chief of Staff Andy Card walked in the room and whispered in the Bush's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack!"

Andy Card informs Bush of second plane attack.

But Bush did and said nothing.

Card told Bush, "A second plane hit," so why wouldn't Bush presume that more jets were involved and more cities could soon be hit?

He also said, "America is under attack," yet Bush still did nothing.

As one of only three persons with the ability to use the new shoot-down orders for hijacked airliners, (Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney) Bush seems to have made himself unavailable at that critical time while America was under attack. Why didn't those around the president whisk him out of the room immediately? Why place the school and children at risk if the President was a potential target? Bush's location that morning was public record since September 7th, so it is conceivable that he too could have been a target, if we were indeed being attacked by foreign terrorists.

This is not normal security protocol for a national emergency.

How many lives could have been spared had the President of the United States / Commander in Chief reacted much quicker, instead of just sitting there in front of a class of elementary students with a book about a goat, upside down in his hands for all the world to see.

Watch the video and ask yourself why President Bush, again, the Commander in Chief, did not say one word in reply to Andy Card as he is told that the United States were under attack by terrorists. Despite not getting up and excusing himself as he should have, Bush clearly did not tell Card to go to high alert Defcon status, nor gave him any instructions whatsoever.

He said nothing.

Again, to punctuate the point... with America under attack, he said absolutely nothing.

More importantly, why? What possible reason could be good enough to be strangely mute while the United States of America is under attack from a foreign threat?

What is interesting is that Bush was extremely nervous, as evidenced by his facial expressions depicted in the Booker video from the event.

If Bush was genuinely worried, he should have stood up and excused himself to leave, yet his body mannerisms and the upside down book seem to suggest he was more nervous about something, rather than being worried about more possible attacks. So as the Commander in Chief, he just sat there, with no action whatsoever.

This strange lack of action is undeniably very alarming in its scope and is truly unprecedented behavior from this country's Commander in Chief during a time of crisis.

Video: Bush At Booker Elementary School

The excuse that was made, for Bush not getting up to leave, was officially that he did not want to scare the children.

America was under attack and yet the Commander in Chief was worried about how not to upset 16 elementary school children in a Florida classroom. What about the other 290-million Americans who were scared out of their minds while America was being attacked, all the while wondering where our government was to help protect us?

Ten years after the attacks, Bush has tried another tactic to explain his inaction on 9/11. This time Bush claims he was trying to project a sense of strength and calm to the American people during the attacks.

That new excuse is as ridiculous as his first excuse. First off, there was no live television feed going out from the classroom to the nation, so no one saw his actions except for those in that Florida classroom. Secondly, how does sitting on your ass project "strength" during an attack on the United States?

Video: Bush Inaction On 9/11

Bush had no basis for thinking there were no other attacks on other American cities, so why not at least "calmly" give his Chief of Staff some marching orders in the face of the first ever alleged attack on American soil, let alone the country's largest city? How did he know LA wouldn't be hit, or Chicago, St. Louis or Miami?

George Bush sits idly by in school classroom while America is under attack.

He cared more about babysitting and a photo-op rather than doing his job, protecting the country against attack. And again, he is the one with the brand new shoot-down orders for just such an event.

But he said and did NOTHING.

Why?

Administration Accountability

From the least case scenario for the administration, an argument could be made for criminal negligence. The worst case scenario is without a doubt the unfathomable, unless of course you're familiar with Operation Northwoods; government pre-knowledge of the event and complicity during its execution.

That may seem very far fetched to most, but do a Google search for Operation Northwoods (or also Gulf of Tonkin incident) and become horribly enlightened as to what men in tremendous positions of power are truly capable of within our own government.

ABC News Story

Operation Northwoods

Why did our self-proclaimed "War President" say nothing and do nothing once he knew we were under attack from a foreign nation?

Why did our Commander in Chief literally just sit there until the attacks were over?

By the time he finally left Emma Booker Elementary school, the attacks were over.

Once he made himself available to his staff, the person who had, two months prior to 9/11, coincidentally been given charge of civilian aircraft shoot down orders suddenly had no planes that needed to be shot down.

If only Bush hadn't sat in that school classroom so long, he would have been available to give that order to shoot down the airplanes.

The President chose instead to sit with the school children, to keep them calm he said. History will undeniably record that this was his utmost priority at the time of our nation's worst ever attack.

A Safe Haven

As just one more of the many assorted coincidences associated with 9/11, Bush was scheduled to be away from Washington that September day. Coincidentally enough, he was in the one state where the government was in the hands of another Bush, in Florida, away from the the violence of 9/11.

In Florida, coincidentally enough, his governor brother had strangely set into motion the procedure for martial law just days prior to September 11th by signing Executive Order 01-261, preparing for a martial law state.

Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.

Florida was then the very first state to declare a national state of emergency when Jeb bush signed into law Executive Order 01-262, essentially declaring martial law on the state of Florida, even though it had not been attacked by anyone.

Florida was apparently a very safe place to be.

The Overnight Guest

It is also an interesting coincidence to note that former President and ex-CIA Director George HW Bush just happened to fly in and spend the night at the White House the night before 9/11, even though his son was not there that night, but was instead in Florida for his Emma Booker school visit.

Who did the senior Bush meet with while at the White House that night? Did he meet with his buddy Dick Cheney?

It is certainly peculiar timing to show up when his son is gone, on the night before 9/11.

This is another 9/11 oddity that deserves a few questions.

Bush Claims To Witness The First Attack

After the attacks were over, Bush strangely enough tried to tell everyone that he actually saw the first plane hit WTC tower one, even though there was still no video footage yet of the first plane hitting the WTC until much later on, when the video was eventually released to the media.

Short of having his own remote live video feed via satellite, it is impossible for Bush to have witnessed what he said. But say it he did. Twice!

If Bush misspoke the first time, that's one thing, but to misspeak twice on a topic of such critical and sensitive importance is certainly intriguing. Why would anyone even say this once, let alone keep on saying it? Bush clearly said it twice, at two separate public events.

"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
"But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack." - President George W. Bush (12/04/01)

Audio: 1st Quote: Seeing 1st plane

"Well, I was sitting in a schoolhouse in Florida... I was sitting there and my Chief of Staff... well first of all, when we walked in the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building... there was a TV set on, and uh, you know I felt it was pilot error."

Audio: 2nd Quote: Seeing 1st plane

Bush, in an awkward use of the English language, may have meant to say that he saw an airplane HAD hit the tower. Needless to say, since he was aware of the first crash going into the classroom, it begs the question, why didn't he jump into action when Andy Card told him about the second plane hitting?

Bush said he didn't want to upset 16 elementary school kids. The parents must be extremely proud and very grateful that the U.S. Commander in Chief chose to personally look after their kids while the U.S. was under attack, rather than abandon them to that awful classroom so that he could attend to a national crisis to the nation.

Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain

As if the multiple quotes on seeing the first plane hit aren't enough, Bush later had this to say about conspiracy theories regarding the 9/11 attacks...

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."  - Nov 10, 2001, UN speech

Video: Bush - We must not entertain outrageous conspiracy theories

Why ever would the President worry himself over 9/11 conspiracy theories just two months after 9/11? Why even bring that up at all?

One thought would be that perhaps some of the rumors already out there were a little too close to reality. Remember, it takes an action to get a reaction, and Bush's comments only two months after 9/11 are an intriguing reaction, it seems, to something.

Bush Against An Independent Investigation

Last but not least, why did Bush and Cheney not want an independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks, arguably the single worst attack ever on domestic soil?

Seriously, what possible reason on this earth is there for not having an independent investigation into who was responsible for 9/11?

President Bush is on record and well documented as saying that he did not see the need for an independent investigation into 9/11.

Bush refused to hold a full investigation of the 9/11 attacks for over a year, 441 days. (Sept 12, 2001 to Nov 26, 2002) The Pearl Harbor investigation took only 11 days to begin.

• Shuttle Challenger Investigation - $75-million (LA Times)
• Reagan-Bush Sr. Iran-Contra investigation - $47.4-million. (CNN)
• Clinton Investigation - $80-million+ (CNN)
• Shuttle Columbia Investigation - $120-million (RedOrbit)

Initial 9/11 Investigation was set at a paltry $600-thousand.

9/11 Commission investigation eventually spent a meager $15-million for the worst crime ever committed on American soil.

It is very odd that anyone, let alone the President, would not want an official independent investigation of 9/11.

Very odd indeed.

Why Did Bush Refuse To Testify Alone Without Cheney?

Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify individually and under oath when the 9/11 Commission specifically subpoenaed each of them separate?

Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney demanded that they be allowed to be together when they testified, even though the 9/11 Commission specifically requested that they not be together.

Video: Bush Defends Having Cheney With Him For 9/11 Investigation

This is another example where suspicion is an easy client, due to the strange nature of the demands by both Bush and Cheney.

When do the police ever interrogate two parties in the same room at the same time when the impetus of their investigation is to look for facts as remembered by the individual being interviewed? They are also looking for corroboration of facts and incongruities in the story of either party, so why allow the demand from Bush and Cheney?

If there was truly nothing to hide, why didn't Bush and Cheney agree to be interviewed separately, as the 9/11 Commission specifically requested?

Why were so many restrictions placed on publicly disseminating their testimony once it was taken?

• No oath was allowed

• No Transcript was allowed

• No recording was allowed

• Bush's Chief Counsel, plus two other White House lawyers had to be present.

If they truly had nothing to hide, why did they demand that they not be put under oath?

Why were all of these restrictions put in place if they were truly cooperating and had nothing to hide?

The Government Reaction

It's interesting to note the reaction of the United States government during and after the the 9/11 attack.

Even though the hijacked airliners were missing from their designated flight path for as much as 40 minutes, no planes were scrambled in time to intercept the hijacked airliners, in part due to conflicting government terror drills going on at the time.

Rudy Giuliani says the only reason FEMA was in New York the night before 9/11 is because they were there to conduct their own separate terror drills.

How ironic and coincidental for our government to be holding drills to prevent terrorist attacks, while we're actually being attacked by the terrorists?

Larry, Moe and Curly, couldn't have pulled this one off any better for  strategically timed coincidence.

The Missing Black Boxes

How is it that all four back boxes, the flight recorders for the planes, could not be found? These boxes are made of titanium and are considered fireproof and indestructible, yet authorities claim they were unable to find them, even with electronic sweeping efforts.

Interestingly enough, ground zero rescue worker Mike Bellone claims to have seen one of the black boxes on his own. Investigative reporter Dave Lindorff went one further, saying that he was told off the record by an NTSA employee that all four black boxes were recovered. News anchor Dan Rather of CBS News also claimed that a black box had been found, yet strangely enough the network had technical difficulties when it went to show the video evidence of their recovery on the evening news.

Video: Dan Rather talks of a recovered black box

Donald Rumsfeld confirmed to ABC news that the back box from flight 77 was pinging, sending out its locator signal from inside the Pentagon wreckage. Why didn't they find it then?

BBC News reported that U.S. officials stated that the black box for flight 93 was found.

So where are these indestructible titanium black boxes?

The NTSB has a record of always finding the flight recorders in a crash. They were even able to find the black box from TWA 800 in the ocean, yet somehow they were not able to find four such units as they picked through the WTC rubble for months, piece by piece.

Just one more coincidence for the list.

FAA Destroys Interview Tapes

Immediately after the attacks, an FAA manager at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center gathered six controllers who had communicated with, or tracked the hijacked planes, and then interviewed each of them, recording a one-hour interview of their personal accounts of what happened that morning. The unnamed FAA manager said he wanted to provide quick information to federal officials investigating the attack.

Later on, a second manager at the New York center destroyed the tape by crushing it with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into separate trash cans around the building.

Why?

What was on that tape that was so bad that an FAA manager would destroy it and then go out of his way to disperse the evidence in separate trash cans?

This is a well documented fact.

Tape of Air Traffic Controllers From 9/11 is Destroyed by FAA Mgr

Perhaps that FAA official thought that Federal investigators and the US public would be too stupid to comprehend the tape's content, or was it that he thought somebody actually would understand.

What was on the tapes that was bad enough to cause an FAA official to destroy it?

How about this.

According to Karl W.B. Schwarz, former RNC insider...

"An air traffic controller in Boston says that American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 took off from Logan Airport and headed east, not west, and disappeared over the Atlantic Ocean in a single sweep of the radar.

There are only two ways to account for planes flying above 20,000 feet to disappear that quickly–they were shot down or blown up."

That's quite an extraordinary claim from Mr. Schwarz, but given the fact of the matter in the shredded air traffic controller interview tapes, it certainly begs for further investigation.

It makes you wonder if anyone has ever bothered to try and collect those flight controllers together again and recreate the interview tapes? That would seem to be a pretty logical and easy thing to do for an investigating body that was serious about getting the facts.

No Video Or Pictures Of Ground Zero Allowed!

On September 26, of 2001, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani banned all video and photography at ground zero of the World Trade Center.

"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by Giuliani's office.

All of a sudden ground zero is starting to sound like the "grassy knoll."

Why suddenly say, two weeks after the attacks on 9/11, that no more pictures of ground zero could be taken?

Story of NYC ground zero photography ban published on Boston.com

Even the Fresh Kills landfill, just offshore from NYC, banned all photos and video.

The feeble excuse given was that ground zero was a crime scene. Nice of them to figure that out two weeks after the fact. Why allow pictures right after the attacks, but two weeks later ban all cameras?

It could also be said that questionable pictures of the steel girders were beginning to pop up. Pictures that showed irregularities with the debris.

So what happened? The steel was picked up and shipped out immediately to be melted down overseas. This certainly ensured that there would be no more forensic evidence to have to deal with.

To add further insult, the Fresh Kills landfill was made off-limits and declared a crime scene. Well, if the debris was evidence from a crime scene, what was it doing at a landfill to be disposed of? They took it to a garbage dump to preserve the integrity of the evidence? Is that how a criminal investigation operates?

A Bank Heist, Wire Fraud, And An Investment Option?

Reportedly there were large gold bar and silver deposits in the WTC vaults, prior to 9/11. Rumors continue to swirl that a great deal of that wealth seems to have vanished.

Mayor Giuliani made it a specific priority to search for the buried $200-million in gold. He had New York firemen working very hard to find it. Once the gold was finally recovered, all firemen were then removed from the pile, all within hours. Why?

Giuliani was asked at the time by reporters about the gold rescue. At a press conference, with NYPD chief Bernie Kerik right behind him, Rudy says that "yes," they did find it. He then goes on to say, with a very large smile, "I think we have most of it, I'm not sure we have all of it."

Most of it huh? What happened to the rest of that very heavy precious metal? It was in the basement so it shouldn't be scattered. If anything, it should have all been buried in one spot, in its vault. Even if some of it melted, it would still be there.

There are stories that gold carts with gold bullion were found in the basement, abandoned, showing that someone was already in the process of transporting gold when the towers started to come down. Who would have been authorized to do this? Why would they do this when no one knew the towers would come down?

Missing gold and numerous electronic wire transfers before the implosions.

There were also reports of large electronic wire transfers of money taking place just before the attacks. Why worry about moving electronic assets during a crisis? That kind of financial data could surely be managed from terminals elsewhere. Why worry about making e-transfers when other matters of life and death were more important? Was someone hoping to use the disaster to hide a trail?

And probably most glaring of all, someone placed "Put Options" on American and United Airlines, hedging money that their stocks would make a rapid decline soon. What are the odds that someone would select both of those airlines just before 9/11?

The authorities had vowed to follow the money trail back to the buyers of the Put Options, an easy trace for our government, however, they have not released any names to this day.

Whoever was behind the demolition of the towers also tried to capitalize financially just prior to the attacks. This also clearly demonstrates obvious foreknowledge of the event.

Did the government honestly drop this lead, or just not like the trail that it led to?

More Unanswered Questions

After all of the above, you have to ask yourself, how do so many incongruities such as those described get over-looked in the official 9/11 investigation? How do you cover these glaring facts up and not question the circumstances of 9/11?

How is it that not one pilot from the four hijacked planes was not able to send a distress code that they were being hijacked?

Are we also to believe that terrorists, who witnesses said could not fly, were actually able to find New York from above the clouds, many miles away?

How is it that NORAD was able to scramble jets for 67 incidents of suspected terrorism or hijackings in the year previous to September 2001 (Sept 00 - June 01), but was not able to scramble jets in time on 9/11? They were able to get a jet up to check out deceased golfer Payne Stewart in just :21 minutes. Why couldn't we get any jets to New York on time? Some of those planes were AWOL over 40-minutes, yet no fighter jets were scrambled. Why?

And why oh why couldn't we defend the Pentagon after the first two New York attacks? What type of event does it actually take for them to go to a heightened state of defense readiness?

No planes in time for New York is one thing, but to be caught by surprise in Washington right after the New York attacks is simply not likely. At least, that's not the way the U.S. military defense system is supposed to work. Asleep at the wheel has never been an option in the U.S. military, and that does include Pearl Harbor. Many now believe our government was complicit in both events for what some administration officials believed was a "greater cause."

Audio: Interview with former Boston Air Traffic Controller

Confusion By Design?

What are the odds that the U.S. government would coincidentally be holding separate exercises on 9/11 to defend our skies, or prevent airliners from slamming into large buildings, all at a time when such an attack was actually taking place?

There were actually three such drills taking place that day, all of which served as the perfect guise to confuse our pilots, in one instance, sending them far out to sea away from the crime, until it was too late to stop the airliners from impacting with the WTC. How convenient is that?

What are the odds of these two events happening together, without someone common to both events who is coordinating an existing crucial pre-knowledge of each?

NORAD is known to have had at least four major exercises running.

It was undeniably convenient for the 9/11 terrorists to pull off the attacks on a day that we were running four separate air defense exercises to prevent such terrorist attacks. What a stroke of luck for them, huh? Did they have inside moles in US intelligence? Did they actually find out about all four planned defense exercises and then capitalize on the timing of them?

What are the odds that a hostile foreign enemy could actually get this kind of detailed intelligence, on all four exercises, without inside help?

Were the perpetrators actually foreign extremists as alleged, or was another unidentified faction responsible, one that went out of its way to blame the attacks on Muslim extremists, thus creating a new enemy for the American public to fear?

Conducting the 9/11 attacks on the very same day as the defense exercises was undeniably a key component in the success of whoever perpetrated this awful act.

Either the three 9/11 defense exercises were purposefully proposed and planned as part of a ruse from their inception, or someone else found out about the drills and exploited the information for their own heinous plan.

Capability And Opportunity

Ask yourself who could have masterminded and facilitated such an overwhelming and highly detailed plot; one that required security info from the military, the World Trade Center and the airlines?

One educated guess would be someone with military intelligence connections in order to capitalize on the three military training exercises that took place concurrently on September 11th.

Someone also had to be able to orchestrate, or capitalize on, the power-down situation in the World Trade center in order to wire and mine the building with hidden demolition charges in the cable access-areas.

Audio: Witness testimony on WTC power down

Who has the capability to exploit military intelligence and also freely orchestrate covert operations in three of the world trade center towers, without being caught?

Surely It Must Be Osama

Why did President Bush make such a big deal out of immediately blaming Osama for 9/11, yet now he doesn't seem interested at all in catching him?

FBI's Most Wanted, but not for 9/11.

On September 17, 2001 Bush declared to the world that Osama bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive".

Audio: Bush: Bin Laden Wanted Dead Or Alive

Article: Bush: Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive

So why then did Bush say the following, less than six months later on march 13, 2002, when asked about "public enemy number one"...

"I don't know where he is. Nor do... you know, I just don't spend that much time on him, really, to be honest with you." "Again, I don't know where he is. I uh, [laugh] I uh...   I Repeat what I said, I truly am not that concerned about him." -

Audio: "I have no idea whether we'll capture him."

Video: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

Audio: "Terrorism is more than one man."

Wow, so much for getting Osama "dead or alive."

And once again, why is Osama not noted on either of his FBI Most Wanted posters as being sought in connection for the 9/11 attacks?

Surely Osama Claims Victory?

This is a statement released immediately after 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden to Al Jazeera News.

"I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appropriate act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people."

-Osama Bin Laden
 September 28, 2001
 Ummat magazine interview

The Blame Game

Why did the US government immediately want to blame Osama Bin Laden for the crimes of 9/11? Why suspect Osama of such a highly complicated and technically precise plan? Why not Iran or North Korea, or even Russia or China? Why Osama?

To pull this type of event off, extremely detailed intelligence was needed to carry out the plan; the type of intel that is available only to nations or sovereign states. And why not include Pakistan, since their director of intelligence was alleged to have wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta just prior to 9/11.

Who in the government specifically wanted to blame Bin Laden?

Right after 9/11, Bin Laden sent a message saying he was not involved in the attacks, yet later, US intel produced a tape that they claimed was Osama Bin Laden confessing to the attacks of 9/11. The only problem is, the man in the video looks and acts nothing like the known and FBI documented Bin Laden.

The face alone ought to be enough to convince anyone that indeed this is a bad Halloween impersonation, however the purported Osama also uses his right hand the entire duration of the video, even though the FBI claims he is left handed.

Watch the video link below very closely; he eats, drinks, writes and gestures, all done with his right hand, not the left.

Pause the video at 32:44. Watch it again from 33:01 through 33:08. The guy in the video is clearly right-handed, not left.

Why then did the Bush administration try to pass off the man on the right as Bin Laden? He looks nothing like Bin Laden. How did the media buy this obvious farce?
 

Does the man on the right honestly look anything at all like the Bin Laden photos you've seen in the media before?

Now watch the video that some in the U.S. government are claiming is the smoking gun that ties Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. It features the alleged Bin Laden on the right. After watching it, ask yourself how the media bought this obvious con job? And how is it that Bin Laden is able to praise terrorists that were not involved, nor ever on the airplanes?

Video: How Did The Media Actually Believe That This Is Bin Laden?

FBI Most Wanted Terrorist Poster (Note Osama is listed as left handed)

FBI Most Wanted Fugitive Poster of Bin Laden

After looking at the FBI Most Wanted poster for Osama, did you notice that he is not wanted in connection with 9/11? The FBI only wants him for the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.

No 9/11 hijackings are mentioned, no World Trade Center attacks and no Pentagon attack charges. None whatsoever.

When asked, the FBI says point blank that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

FBI Holds No 9/11 Charges Against Osama

Many military analysts agree that the U.S. had Bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan. Many would argue that there is no way he should have escaped, yet they claim that he did. Some would argue he was allowed to slip through our fingers. Absurd as that is, why would anyone do that? Many contend that he was killed, silenced so that he could no longer deny involvement, but kept alive in myth so that the threat could be perpetuated.

According to one top Pakistani diplomat, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the U.S. is not even looking for Bin Laden at all.

US Not Looking For Bin Ladern In Pakistan

Pakistani President Musharraf stated long ago that Bin Laden was dead. Former Pakastani leader Banazir Bhutto said that Osama had been murdered. She was then silenced in an assassination that reeked to many of CIA/Mossad involvement. Many governments reported Osama's death. Bin Laden was thought to be dead in December of 2001.

Osama Bin Laden is dead since December 16, 2001

Osama obituary published

One undeniable truth is for certain, with the myth of Osama still at large, the "bogey-man" was alive and well to terrorize our fears. The ever pervasive "War on Terror" had its super-villain and could reign happily.

Update Note: Despite the numerous accounts of Bin Laden's death, the Obama administration tried to say it had him killed at the beginning of May 2011. Needless to say, few believed the political ploy.

Alleged Terrorists: Alive And Well

Is it possible that what we've been told about 9/11, isn't really as it happened, or what we truly understood it to be?

Is it really possible for nineteen terrorists to outsmart the CIA, FBI, US Air Force, NORAD, Boston Air Traffic Control, and both airline security checkpoints? All nineteen? Without anyone getting caught?

How was it that our intelligence services were able to immediately identify all of the middle-eastern hijackers when their names were not on the official passenger lists?

 United Passenger List  |  American Airlines Passenger List

And how do they know it was really nineteen terrorists, when at least five, and possibly as many as nine of the alleged terrorists, have already been found or reported to be alive by the media, apparently  living to this very day in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East? That's right, at least five of the hijackers have been confirmed to be alive and living in the Middle East. The men have already been found by the media to still be alive, with some media sources reporting up to nine alleged hijackers still alive.

Nine Alleged 9/11 Hijackers Still Alive?

These men quickly became the convenient patsies for 9/11.

Colonel Anthony Shaffer and Captain Scott Philpott testified on Operation Able Danger, an intelligence operation which identified Atta and others as being in the U.S. long before 9/11, but sadly that information was ignored by the 9/11 Commission.

So if these middle eastern men weren't responsible for the 9/11 event, why then did our government immediately claim it was radical Muslim terrorists? What evidence initially supported that theory?

Officials claimed early on that they had recovered an incriminating passport on the sidewalk, just below the twin towers. How is it that the paper passport book of one alleged terrorist somehow survived the gargantuan fireball (that they claim was hot enough to melt steel) and fell innocently to the ground below to be conveniently found in that massive pile of rubble?

And how is it that such a passport could be found when the person who it belonged to wasn't even there, a person who is still alive and well to this very day, living in the Middle East?

That passport story died down real quick after the alleged hijacker was found by the media to still be alive.

But what about the alleged passport? Who went out of their way to have an Arab passport made up and why target those particular identities?

The larger question in all this is, who had a vested interest in setting up Middle-Eastern Muslims as alleged hijackers?

The Israeli Connection

One of the more alarming events on 9/11 concerned the arrest of five Israeli men, three of whom were seen observing from the top of a white moving van, and then cheering wildly as the towers were hit and later collapsed.

The men were identified as Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari, and Yaron Shmuel. They admitted to be Israelis and all five worked for Urban Moving Systems company of New Jersey. Two of the men were said to be agents of Mossad. Two other employees, Roy Barak and Motti Butbul, were also arrested later. It was later reported that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted to the van as if they had detected explosives.

A different van was reported to be exploded in traffic that day, while another was stopped short of the George Washington bridge, loaded with explosives.

Urban Moving Systems was reported to be a Mossad front company. The FBI visited the company the day after 9/11 and investigated owner Dominick Suter who was said to be moving numerous boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. As suspicious as this had to look, for some reason he was not arrested. He quickly fled the country.

Why arrest five men from one company and then not arrest the owner who was caught red handed suspiciously removing data?

The men were detained but not charged. They were strangely enough released after 9/11, all the while many other innocent people have been held in indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay.

Once back in Israel, these men revealed in a television interview that they were there merely "to record the event."

Question one, how did they possibly know that these towers would be coming down, when steel framed buildings had never before collapsed in such a manner?

Question two, why did law enforcement ever release these people if they were there to record the event? Again, there are people rotting away in confinement at Guantanamo Bay for much less than that.

Oh yeah, they were Israelis.

Couple that connection with comments from former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, and told Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies.

From the Odigo warning to the celebrating Israelis on the white van, there was clearly an Israeli connection that screamed for more investigation regarding advance knowledge of the event, yet the 9/11 Commission refused to mention the connection, let alone follow up with more investigation.

Why?

There are other disturbing Israeli connections to 9/11.

For instance, all 9/11 airports were serviced by one Israeli owned company, a private security company called ICTS, owned by an Israeli, Ezra Harel. It screened passengers before they boarded US planes. Many of its employees are ex-Shin Bet officers. The company covered security at all of the airports from which the alleged hijacked planes took off from, including Boston's Logan airport.

Many have suggested that Mossad agents played a huge role in the 9/11 attacks, in an alliance with rogue CIA intelligence, yet we have never once questioned Israel, nor our other close ally, Saudi Arabia, where many of the alleged hijackers were said to be from.

We are so joined at the hip in a dysfunctional relationship with Israel that it often is hard to tell who is leading whom. Most would argue that the Israeli lobby is the one with the stronger political control here in the U.S.

Israel has been viewed as a huge beneficiary of the 9/11 attacks, due to the wars in the middle-east which leave Israel and Iran as the two dominant powers left.

The In-Flight Phone Calls

What is to be made of the controversial in-flight telephone calls, alleged to have been made from the hijacked airplanes on 9/11? Whether or not you question the unusual cell reception at such a high altitude or the long connect duration, one thing seems most intriguing, the language used by some in making those calls.

One caller was a son, Mark Bingham, who supposedly called his mom and for some strange reason identified himself with his first and last name. According to the alleged phone recordings, he says, "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." Why would he identify himself in this manner to his own mother?

Another person, Tom Burnett, allegedly called his wife Deena and said, "I'm on an airplane that has been hijacked." One would think that his wife would have already known if he was on an airline flight that morning, so why not simply just say, "Honey (or mom)... my flight has been hijacked."

While the signal reception of the calls is a highly questionable topic for many, the conversation content sparks just as much controversy.

The intrigue regarding possible in-flight calls gains the most traction with the alleged calls from Barbara Olson to husband and Solicitor General Ted Olson. Mrs. Olson was reported by husband Ted Olson to have made her calls using an airplane seatback phone. Olson stated on Hannity & Colmes on the FOX network that she had called collect and therefore must have been using the airplane phone, because, he said, “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”

Two months later, in a “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture” that he gave to the Federalist Society, Ted Olson said that his wife used “a telephone in the airplane to make those two telephone calls.” He repeated the claim again when he told the London Daily Telegraph that his wife “used the phone in the passengers’ seats.” He said she called collect because he claimed that “she didn’t have her purse.”

The planes require a credit card to use the phones. The process of making a call is not a quick one as described on the American Airlines website.

"When placing a call, put phone to ear and listen for instructions. Recorded instructions will prompt you to dial "1" to place a call or "2" to select a language."

"Slide your credit card through the side of the phone and then dial 00 + country code + area or city code + number followed by the # key."

"When calling the United States dial 00 and the country code 1 prior to the area code."

American Airlines Phone Info

If she didn't have her credit card, then how did Mrs. Olson make those alleged calls?

The 9/11 Commission had this to say further regarding the alleged calls from Barbara Olson to her husband, Solicitor General, Ted Olson on the morning of 9/11:

“The records available for the phone calls from American 77 do not allow for a determination of which of [these four calls] represent the two between Barbara and Ted Olson, although the FBI and DOJ believe that all four represent communications between Barbara Olson and her husband’s office.”

If Ted Olson says he only received two calls, how could the 9/11 Commission say he received four?

In stark contrast to the 9/11 Commission's comments regarding the calls, during the US government's trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the prosecution claimed that none of those four calls made on flight 77 were from Barbara Olson. The government prosecution stated that each of those calls were from an unknown caller. It's an interesting claim since one would assume they listened to the recorded tapes. The only call that was attributed to Mrs. Olson is at 9:18:58am and was said to have lasted zero seconds. The call obviously did not go through.

How credible is any of this testimony? The witness can't seem to recall when the calls were made and the investigating body can't seem to keep track of the witness testimony.

Most notable of all, American Airlines flight 77 was reported not to have seatback phones available on that particular flight. This is perhaps the reason why the FBI and the 9/11 Commission played down the in-flight calls in the final 9/11 Commission report.

Given the numerous discrepancies in the testimony, coupled with the available technology in 2001, many have taken pause to reflect and wonder regarding the actual authenticity of those alleged calls.

Article: When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing (Washington Post)

More investigation needs to be made into the phone calls on 9/11.

Why Would The Hijackers Risk The Mission?

And while we're on the topic of strange communications, what is to be made of the cockpit transmissions from the hijackers by the tower?

Have you wondered why terrorists that were making a surprise attack on the United States, terrorists who were alleged to have turned the transponders off so they could be untracked and sneak in unnoticed.... why would they then purposefully key the mic and broadcast to the FAA and the military that they had four planes?

Why jeopardize the mission by calling attention to the entire scope of the plan and thus invite a likely military shoot-down? Why say anything at all? Why not just continue with the stealth approach?

Also... if the intent is a flight of martyrdom and suicide, why tell the plane passengers that they were turning back to the airport? Why say anything at all? A simple sit down and shut up would have sufficed, so why lie on a suicide flight?

All in all, the phone calls and transmissions alleged to have been made from the airplanes that day still appear to deserve further scrutiny.

While we're asking the question of why the alleged hijackers would jeopardize their mission, ask yourself why they would fly around for over 40 minutes, just begging for a NORAD shoot down, rather than going straight for their targets immediately?

That clearly does not make sense, but then, neither does the rest of the "official" story.

And "story" is the key word in that phrase, because the government version reads like fiction.

Questionable Evidence

It's interesting to note that there are a few pieces of tangible, yet highly suspicious, wreckage from the Pentagon lawn, although the paint markings seem to be too small for a full-sized airliner. Is it possible that something else was painted to look like American Airlines flight 77?

Who was responsible for the casting, direction and final production of the fake Osama confession video? Who went to all the effort to have that piece made up, complete with built-in translated subtitles? Who translated this piece and added the subtitles; a piece that was originally checked out and deemed to be authentic by the CIA and officials from the Pentagon?

And for good measure, throw in the passport of one alleged hijacker, a paper book found at ground zero that allegedly survived the "metal melting" flaming-inferno of the airplane explosion. What an absolutely improbable stroke of luck for the official government story. They could find a paper passport that survived the fireball, but somehow they couldn't find a titanium black box recorder with an auto locator ping?

These are but only a few of the questions that beg to be asked with regards to September 11th. A considerable amount of the alleged evidence seems to come with many red-flags, calling into question its integrity and/or genuine authenticity.

The potential for deceptive or manufactured evidence needs to be carefully considered when weighing and evaluating the overall significance and importance of many of the recovered items from the 9/11 event.

As happened with the King and Kennedy assassinations, many have already questioned some of the available 9/11 evidence and its authenticity due to various suspicions and the fears of a concerted cover-up.

Planes Vs. No Planes

A debate currently rages over the video of the tower crash impacts. Some claim there were no planes at all. A compelling argument exists for the no-planes theory. For one, the airplane hitting tower two seems to literally pass into the steel and concrete structure with absolutely no resistance whatsoever. Watch the video yourself and see what all the fuss is about.

Video: Plane strike - video 1

The plane does not encounter resistance. Its momentum does not stop, as if it simply flies through open space.

There is no primary explosion upon impact when the fully loaded fuel tanks in the wings hit the buildings. There should have been an immediate explosion.

Why is there no immediate explosion, or damage to the building?

Why didn't the wings break off outside? This was yet another curious instance where, on the same day, the wings should have broken off outside, as they should have at the Pentagon.

The potential answer for the above photo is the hologram theory, however, there is a contradiction to a pure holographic effect being used. That is the video showing the apparent nose of the plane miraculously remaining intact and exiting the backside of tower two. If it was a full hologram, this would not happen, nor would it cast a shadow, as it does in the picture below.

So how can this be accounted for? The nose clearly juts out the backside of the tower, fully intact, after crashing into the building and traveling through the interior walls and structure of the tower. How is this possible for an aluminum skinned aircraft?

How does the frail aluminum nose stay intact after passing through the building?

One possible explanation could be holographic technology in conjunction with a missile. The hologram could have been used to cloak the missile. This theory accounts for the plane's apparent effortless pass-through into the building, while explaining the nose that protrudes out the opposite side.

A missile might also explain the extremely high speed for UA175, said to be as high as 560 to 590 mph, well above normal flight speed for a 767 aircraft.

All of this seems incredulous, but then, so does the notion of mere box-cutters posing a legitimate threat from a handful of small sized hijackers who were overwhelmingly outnumbered at least 10 to 1 by the passengers, as well as plane manifests with none of the alleged hijackers listed on them, not to mention that they couldn't capably fly, and many who are still very much alive to this day.

There are more contradictions in evidence that a 767 hit the towers:

How did a fully inflated tire found outside, on the street below, manage to survive the explosion and the huge searing fireball?

How could the engine that was found on the New York street not be from a 767?

While we're at it, why wasn't that protruding nose section found?

In looking more at the hologram theory, there are peculiarities that show up in looking at the videos in slow motion. For instance, how is it that portions of the plane suddenly become missing for a frame or two? See the picture below with the left wing missing. The horizontal line in the building is not the wing. Watch the video and stop it before the plane passes in front of the building. The line is there. The wing drops out momentarily as it passes in front of the building.

A high-tech military hologram, or a doctored photo?

Where did the left wing tip suddenly go? ( stop this video at the :07 mark )

The photo above becomes apparent through slow motion video analysis. For those intrigued enough that might want to look for more video contradictions, please see the following video.

Video: Plane strike - video 2

Was the video of the planes crashing into the towers doctored, to cover a missile strike, or was some of the video purposely doctored to create the illusion of no planes? In light of the conflict that has arisen, both would seem to be legitimate questions to ask.

This author cannot wholly embrace the no plane theory with absolute certainty, but it also cannot be dismissed out of hand so easily. The fact is, there are clearly anomalies with the video. The question is, are these anomalies real or are they manufactured after the event to discredit investigators? The video is certainly compelling and the issue deserves a harder look.

Video: Plane strike - video 3
Video: Plane strike - video 4

Those that don't think holographic technology exists should do a little research and see how far science has come. See these examples of holographic technology.

Example 1  |  Example 2  |  Example 3

If this type of technology is available commercially, imagine what our military has. They always have the better technology held back for themselves, as a military advantage.

Once again, it is entirely possible that the video discrepancies noted are aftereffects of a clandestine disinformation campaign, an effort to discredit those espousing their peculiar qualities. With an event as large as 9/11, anything is entirely possible. This author wishes to reserve total judgment until more information presents itself.

When dealing with the unexplained, it is many times best to entertain everything in order not to miss anything. Coldly dismissing possible explanations out of hand, because they are outside the realm of known understanding, might very well be as foolish as blindly accepting everything without merit. The key is to keep an open mind until absolute proof can be obtained.

The reality is, when you get right down to it, there are a number of questions that are valid to ask regarding the 9/11 attacks. There are so many irregularities and incongruities associated with the event that one could easily lose track of all the unanswered questions.

The truth of the matter is, while the 9/11 truth movement does not yet have the answers for these questions, they shouldn't worry about not having them. This is the reason that we need another investigation, this time with independent scientists and investigators. It is enough that we have troubling questions to ask. The answers will come.

The main questions aren't whether there was or wasn't planes, or if thermite was the cause or not. The main questions that beg for a new investigation are...

• How did the WTC buildings topple so quickly in ten seconds or less, through the path of most resistance?
   

• How could there be so little fire damage and still have both towers collapse; one in less than an hour, and another in roughly an hour and a half, with barely twenty minutes burn time and no lower floors affected?
   

• How could tower seven have collapsed in similar fashion when no plane hit it, plus there were no widespread fires to undermine the integrity of the entire structure. How could the building have collapsed so uniformly?
   

• How could an aluminum skinned 757 make the impossible maneuver that it did and still strike the Pentagon, unbelievably penetrating six 18-inch steel reinforced concrete walls?

These are but a few of the daunting questions that beg for an explanation.

The Planes

While on the subject of the involvement of the planes on 9/11, there is one very peculiar note of interest.

Two of the planes were still commissioned as being in active service years after 9/11.

Flight 93 was seen at Chicago's O'hare airport on April 10, 2003 by United Airlines employee David Friedman. The identifying tail number N591UA was listed for flight 1111. The distinctive tail number is like a license plate and is not shared between planes.

United Airlines flight 175, airplane N612UA was also noted to still be in service after 9/11.

How can this be? Surely United Airlines filed an insurance claim on those planes. There had to be records filed on their destruction.

Is the fact that two of these planes were still in service the proof that holograms or substituted planes were used?

As for flight 77, strangely enough this plane is somewhat of a mystery with a very hard to track activity record. Decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from NTSB also shows that the cockpit door remained locked for the entire flight.

Considering that the 9/11 attacks were a mass murder crime, no government agency ever bothered to verify the planes that were used in the attacks. Neither the NTSB, the FBI, nor the FAA were ever tasked to positively identify the aircraft. That is very odd for a criminal investigation.

In 2009 a Federal judge ruled that the airlines and other related aviation companies being sued by surviving 9/11 family members, were not allowed to question the FBI regarding 9/11.

How bizarre is that?

Writer Vincent Sammartino from the website WingTV.net wrote,

"As everyone who is involved in exposing the 9-11 cover-up knows, nothing concerning 9-11 is as it seems. Whether it's the magic jet that our government told us crashed into the Pentagon, the obvious missing jet at Shanksville (Flight 93), the three perfect demolitions of the World Trade Center towers, or the fact that Arab hijackers are still alive and their supposed ring leader Osama bin Laden has the ability to change his facial features at will. Nothing, I repeat, nothing about the government/controlled media version of 9-11 makes any sense."

Amen to that.

To anyone looking into the matter of 9/11, it seems clear which side of the story is the real conspiracy theory.

Keep Asking Questions

Why is Dana Hyde's testimony in direct conflict with DOT secretary Norman Mineta's testimony on Cheney's actions in the PEOC situation room involving the Pentagon strike?

Who would purposefully fake an Osama video, claiming to take credit for the 911 attacks? How did our vaunted intel miss that this was an obvious fake and then sell it to our media?

Speaking of false productions... the numerous simulations that have come out after 911 trying to show us why and how this was all possible are all very deceiving and lacking in their presentations.

The Purdue Pentagon simulation is void of the actual outside steel reinforced concrete walls. The plane's twin titanium engines appear to be missing also.

In the simulations showing the plane's crashing into the WTC towers, they leave out details there as well. The thick concrete flooring has been conveniently removed. Simple objects such as airplane and building contents are also left out to make their proposed scenario model fit.

In the simulations showing the pancake collapse theory they take out essentially one of the major supporting features of the buildings, the exterior exoskeleton frame! It supported over 40% of the load on those buildings. It's curious as to why someone felt it needed to be left out.

Video: Pancake simulation debunked

The interior core was said to be very solid and could not have been compromised by a simple plane crash, nor mere jet fuel (glorified kerosene). The NOVA tower collapse simulation is biased to show a collapse that could not have physically happened as it did on 9/11, at least not without leaving the exterior walls out.

The point to all of this is, someone is going to a lot of effort to go out of their way to manufacture an explanation that even their own  computer models do not want to contend with. They know that if those missing components are included into the animation calculations, then the official explanation for the WTC and Pentagon damage will not be supported by the results of their animation.

An Organized Cover-Up?

Why would the government classify the 911 emergency tapes from New York and Washington DC? What could possibly be so damaging or sensitive to our government that we can't listen to the recorded tape from dispatchers and first responders talking?

What was so bad about air traffic control conversations that the tapes had to be cut into pieces and taken to separate trash cans?

What is so bad about the Pentagon crash that they can't show us any of the video footage of the actual crash? With all of the numerous security cameras mounted around and on top of the Pentagon, our government, for some strange reason, still has not released clear close-up video of the attack to this day. It's apparent that they have plenty of video. Why they've chosen not to release it is the big question.

The White House resisted an independent public investigation right from the start and has ever since then tried to hide evidence and cover-up the real truth of what happened.

The dichotomous conflicting testimony of government witnesses, the refusal to release key evidence and the glaring omissions from the 9/11 Commission Report are enough in itself for anyone to ask if the public is being dealt with fairly on 9/11.

Polls Finds Americans Suspect Government

An early poll from Scripps Howard/Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspected that government operatives helped or were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Over 100-million Americans were already thinking that shady, unscrupulous factions within the U.S. government were somehow involved in 9/11.

1/3rd of Americans suspect US complicity in 9/11.

The reason cited, so that the United States could go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq for gas and oil.

Right from the start, over 16% of Americans wondered if secretly planted explosives were the real reason for the WTC destruction.

Twelve percent suspect that the Pentagon may have been struck by a military cruise missile instead of flight 77.

This suspicion of U.S. involvement in 9/11 is slightly higher (42%) than the 40 percent who suspect officials in the government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

Zogby Poll 2006
Scripps/ Howard Poll
World Public Opinion Poll

A Zogby poll found that 50% of all New Yorkers believe that unscrupulous factions within our government were complicit in the attacks of 9/11.

A CNN poll of 7,000 people found that 90% of those responding believed the US government was involved in a cover-up.

A more recent 2007 Zogby poll now finds that the number of Americans suspecting government complicity is much higher.

51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

2007 Zogby Poll (PDF file)

Perhaps the most telling poll came from a 2006 CBS/NY Times poll that found that 81% feel the Bush-Cheney administration is hiding the truth, or lying about it. Only 16% of those polled believe the official government story of 9/11.

This is a remarkable number of people who do not buy the lie.

As Americans continue to address the unpublicized facts of the September 11th attacks, those numbers will continue to grow.

But It's All Too Preposterous!

A large hurdle that the average American has to overcome is the fact that any nefarious organization or covert group within our own government would, or could, be complicit, or look the other way in such a plan, let alone actually conceive of such a heinous idea.

Would anyone in our government ever actually conceive of staging an event in order to further a political or military agenda?

Remember Operation Northwoods?

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

History does not always leave the best memories.

There have always been defense hawks on Capitol Hill who are constantly on the lookout for an event that they can use and manipulate in order to justify further defense spending, or advance specific geopolitical agendas. That is the unfortunate state of politics in Washington DC and big money defense contracts.

The Project For A New American Century

An uncomfortable and uncanny result of the 9/11 attacks just so happened to help further the agenda of a small, extremely far right, group of individuals who believed that America was at the height of its power and that it needed to assert itself in the world and take control while we are the lone super-power.

The PNAC three: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz.

In a PNAC manifesto titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," doubt was cast as to how fast these aims could be achieved by a right-wing administration, however, it was noted that the presence of a "new Pearl Harbor" would help the public to go along with their plan for imperialism and power.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

PNAC: Project For A New American Century

As coincidence would have it, less than one year after this select group of  neo-con Republicans were placed into offices of high power, they conveniently received their new Pearl Harbor on September the 11th, 2001. The gateway of opportunity for their brazen plan for US domination was suddenly now open for exploitation.

Who are some of the individuals that make up this infamous group of power? The list is a who's who of the Bush administration, many of whom helped lead us into the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq. (Those with an asterisk are alleged to hold dual-citizenship with Israel and the US. That's a huge red flag.)
 

It's quite easy to understand how a focused collective large group such as that, all sharing extremely influential positions of power and all with the same ideals, could use an event to lead this country in possibly the wrong direction, one that coincidentally coincides with the stated doctrine of their far right group.

Other influential PNAC members are conservative TV commentators William Kristol and William J. Bennett, presidential brother and governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, George HW Bush senior vice president Dan Quayle and former presidential hopeful Steve Forbes, to name but just a few.

It was the grand wisdom of this think-tank to see our nation begin the use of pre-emptive warfare, something which our country has never publicly stood for in the past.

With so many from this far-right group infiltrated and embedded into extremely high positions of power within the US government, it is somewhat understandable that so many have suspected and even openly accused this organization of, at the very least, either favoring complicity in the 9/11 attacks, or at the far worst, having a guiding hand in their fruition.

One other note about the PNAC, Richard Perle was reported to be responsible for writing Israel's "Clean Break" policy, along with Thomas Donnelly and Douglas Feith. It was written for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS). The "Clean Break" document is very similar to that of the PNAC's document "Rebuilding America's Defenses." The two plans go together.

The Clean Break initiative is all about destroying Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran. In short, total control of the middle east for Israel.

One thing appears to be quite clear, that the two documents, Rebuilding America's Defenses and Clean Break, are apparently dovetailed together as one plan, which would appear at first glance to benefit Israel and the US, however, there are some who believe that the crown is the real power that pulls the strings for both countries. There is much merit to that allegation.

With so many PNAC figures that were installed in high positions of power within the Bush-Cheney administration, one would think this organization and its members would be under investigation for the outrageous coincidence of 9/11 just so happening to meet all of their dreams for a new Pearl Harbor.

The Shock Doctrine

A clear undeniable leverage for war arose from the ashes of 9/11, quite possibly, as it very well may have been intended to. The CIA has done extensive social studies on the breaking points of both man and society. Disaster, along with its resulting emotions of pain, anger, sorrow and remorse, can be a ripe opportunity for those in positions of power and great wealth, one that, sadly enough for the common man, can easily be manipulated for corporate earnings and personal financial gain.

Through our world wars, our petty wars and our national disasters, the wealthy and powerful have always seemed to find a way to capitalize on these events and profit. Once people understand that horrible truth, they will eventually be more open to fundamental reason during times of war and national duress and will question and hold accountable those in positions of power who benefit and gain from our collective pain.

This concept, "Disaster Capitalism," has been understood by the powerful and elite all too well for centuries and is nothing new to politics or government.

New Yorkers flee in terror as one of the WTC towers crumbles to the ground.

Naomi Klein, author of No Logo, has written a new best selling book called, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Once you understand the ugly principles outlined by this book, you will better understand how the PNAC, or others within our government, can possibly entertain the sanctioning of such horror in the name of their own ideological concept of progress.

Video: The Shock Doctrine

Video: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Video: The Shock Doctrine Documentary

Video: Naomi Klein speech in Seattle on the Shock Doctrine

Again, the concept is not a new one. The only defense for such unbridled avarice and cut-throat opportunism from a government lacking in compassion and moral character is simple awareness, to understand what is actually taking place around you and not be fooled. Once a person or society reaches that level of awareness, they are much harder to manipulate by the powers that would try to control them

Video: Controlling the masses through terror

Video: The End of America

A scared state is the easiest sell for criminal authority. Promise the people security from a perceived evil and they will voluntarily offer their total allegiance, in return for the disingenuous promise of a manufactured sense of safety, all nicely packaged by the ruling elite.

The Selling of War

By all accounts, the attack on 9/11 was used to sell two wars to the American people, Afghanistan and Iraq, with a third war in Libya. More than anything though, it has been used to create a new enemy in the world.

The fanatical Muslim terrorist has become the new evil, the new red-menace to protect the United States people from. In particular, former CIA operative Osama Bin Laden, along with his once CIA backed and trained rebels, have been made the scapegoats for 911.

It was the United States who sent Osama and the Mujahideen to help us fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the late 70s and early 80s. They were trained and armed by the CIA. Once an ally, now an alleged enemy with no clear cut proof of involvement in 911.

There are no FBI charges against Osama for 9/11. The FBI says point blank, they have no proof of Osama's involvement.

Is Osama truly responsible, or merely an easy target to blame?

Many reports have accused President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld of using the 9/11 event as a pretext for selling the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Ask yourself, if all the 9/11 hijackers were primarily Saudis, then why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia?

Why did we go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq instead?

If they say because Osama was in Afghanistan, then ask why we let him get away after we had him cornered at Tora Bora?

Could the reason for war possibly have been because of the already drawn up plans for a Uno-Cal natural gas pipeline to run through Afghanistan, or possibly because Iraq holds the world's 2nd largest oil reserves? These would be but two pieces in their overall goal.

The point needs to be made... we did nothing to Saudi Arabia.

Feigning The Iraq Tie

Cheney did an interview with National Public Radio in January 2004, where he said there was “overwhelming evidence” that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with al-Qaeda.

A year before, in September of 2003 on Meet the Press, Cheney said it was at least an open question whether Saddam had played a role in plotting the 9/11 attacks.

Before that, in December 2001 in a Tim Russert interview, Cheney said it had been “pretty well confirmed” that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials before the attack."

The next thing you know, the U.S. is involved in an all-out war in Iraq, with all indications of possibly attacking Iran next.

After years of war, President Bush now admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Audio: Bush - ''No evidence Saddam Hussein was linked to September 11th''

Video: Bush says Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11

How gullible are we when our elected officials speak?

So what were the reasons for war with Iraq? Was it oil? Maintaining the dollar in the middle east? All of the above?

Watch what award winning journalist Greg Palast has to say about the Iraq war.

Video: The real motive for the Iraq war

Although we blamed Saudi Arabian hijackers for 911, Iraq and Afghanistan were apparently the targets all along for this PNAC vested administration.

The 911 Commission

The fact that Bush openly and vigorously opposed an independent investigation into 911 was all the more highlighted by his first appointment, upon acquiescing to a formal panel. Henry Kissinger was appointed to head the initial commission, however, when  confronted by 9/11 widows, "the Jersey girls," he was soon forced to resign when he wouldn't reveal his business contacts, specifically if any might have the name bin Laden. As it turned out, Kissinger and his legal firm had a close business relationship with the bin Laden family. That was red flag number one for the integrity of the 9/11 commission.

Bush then put together a commission of individuals who were questioned by many as being politically compromised or had the suspicion of possibly being less than forthright in furthering a true and honest investigation.

Former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean (R) and Lee Hamilton (D) were then named as co-chairs of the commission, but with major direction from Philip Zelikow, a man who single handedly steered the 9/11 Commission and its entire investigation. Al Felzenberg acted as the commission's spokesman.
 

Conflicts & Compromise

Co-Chairmain Lee Hamilton, was the chairman of the House select committee that investigated the Iran-contra cover-up. He was personally privy to to considerable evidence that implicated Reagan and (HW) Bush, but he looked the other way and chose instead not to investigate further. According to Hamilton, in an interview with PBS Frontline, he openly admitted that he didn't think it would be in the country's best interest to subject Americans to another embarrassing impeachment trial. Hamilton felt it was better to withhold incriminating evidence for the good of the nation.

So with a crime infinitely more serious than Iran-Contra, how do you suppose Lee Hamilton felt about exposing the Bush-Cheney administration, or the PNAC, for complicity and treason in the 9/11 attacks?

It was discovered that two of Thomas Kean's previous business partners were among those needing investigation for the 9/11 event, Khalid Bin Mahfouz and Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi. Both of these men were accused as alleged "financiers" of Al Qaeda.

Kean sat on the board of directors of a company having business dealings with financier Khalid bin Mahfouz. Kean was a director of Amerada Hess Corporation, which did business with a company that was owned in part by Mahfouz, Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia.

The real kicker was that Mahfouz's sister just so happened to be married to Osama bin Laden, so Mahfouz was Osama's brother in law! This is officially called "conflict of interest."

Zelikow, a high-level national security adviser to both of the Bush administrations, was appointed by President George W. Bush as the commission's Executive Director and he played a major role in what could and couldn't be seen by the other members of the commission. He set the entire commission agenda. He also picked the areas to investigate, chose which witnesses to speak with and also personally selected which evidence would be allowed. He controlled the entire investigation from start to finish.

More troubling about Zelikow is that he was the 1998 author of 'Catastrophic Terrorism - Imagining the Transformative Event.' Add to that the fact that his college thesis dealt with creating and exploiting public historical myths.

These are undeniably very disturbing conflicts, to qualify someone with such a background to head up an unbiased and objective investigative commission.

Zelikow also had personal conflicts of interest, with his very close ties to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, but also to key PNAC members Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.

The worst of it is, Zelikow had the outline for the 9/11 report already written even though the investigation was just getting underway! Since when does that happen in a criminal investigation? He was either psychic or he had a pre-arranged false story that he was told to peddle, independent of any facts or truth that might emerge from the investigation.

He also tried to insert false information into the final report about an Iraqi-9/11 connection. He said that the real threat from Iraq was to Israel. And we thought they were worried about protecting the U.S.

Zelikow told the Washington Post that he was concerned about the spread of “conspiracy theories” about the attacks, which he described as pathogens.

“Our worry is when things become infectious, as happened with the [John F. Kennedy] assassination,” Zelikow says. “Then this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body.”

According to Zelikow, the Kean Commission discussed many of the 9/11 theories, but did not address them in the final report. “When we wrote the report, we were also careful not to answer all the theories. It’s like playing Whack-A-Mole. You’re never going to whack them all.”

Zelikow, later told the Washington Post that there was no need to release the Washington DC CCTV surveillance footage that showed the Pentagon crash.

Why would he say this?

These security video tapes have never been shown to this day.

Phillip Zelikow indeed played an infamous roll in shaping the official narrative regarding the 9/11 event.

A Bogus Investigation Without Blame

One of the more ominous and troubling statements coming from the commission was from Lee Hamilton who said, “We’re not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission’s responsibility.”

Say what? Seriously? An investigation without assessing blame?

What kind of investigation was this?

Why no blame for 9/11?

Why withhold key evidence?

If all of that wasn't bad enough, President Bush then imposed a time restriction of only 18 months for the murders of 3,000 innocent people and perhaps the most serious investigation ever in United States history. Why?

If you're searching for the truth in an organized conspiracy, why would you purposefully limit and restrict the amount of time in which the authorities could investigate the crime?

The Bush administration actually did just that!

When Bush said he didn't want an independent investigation into the attacks of 9/11, he appears to have been very serious about that.

What type of legitimate murder investigation does not seek the identity of the murderers and their accomplices?

The 911 "omission" strangely enough missed all of the following major points in its alleged search for the truth.

• Missed conflicting testimony of Mineta & Hyde regarding Cheney.

• Never asked Rudy Giuliani who warned that buildings would fall.

• Never questioned the fall of World Trade Center 7.

• No mention of Sibel Edmonds testimony on government 911 knowledge.

• No testimony from William Rodriguez or Barry Jennings regarding bombs

Why did the 9/11 Commission mention absolutely nothing about the WTC 7 destruction? FEMA was able to acknowledge the event, yet the 9/11 Commission felt it unworthy to even mention in their report.

Why did Bush set limits on the number of commission members who could see the actual evidence or ask questions about it?

Wouldn't you want your entire investigative team to look at all the evidence together? Why limit the evidence to only a few select members and then restrict what they could say about it to other members, as well as the media?

Click on the link below and read the full report for yourself.

9/11 Commission Report

Why did others testifying have to be under oath, yet Bush and Cheney were both exempt from that?  Neither Bush nor Cheney appeared before the commission under oath.

Bush and Cheney also didn't have to appear separately before the 9/11 Commission, as they were specifically asked to, much like other witnesses were. They both refused to do so. Upon demands from the White House, they were both allowed to testify together, to which some have argued was nothing more than a concerted effort to keep their stories straight and facts together.

And yet Bush claims this was an investigation to get to the truth.

Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota differs harshly with that opinion.

Video: Senator Dayton of MN Sites 9/11 Fault

From all that went on, or didn't go on, the claim of a thorough investigation to seek the truth of September 11th is hard to qualify.

The Commission closed on August 21, 2004.

Members of the commission have now said they feel they were set up to fail.

The CFR Connection

The next affront to a proper investigation came with the naming of the commission members. Five of those ten members just happen to be members of the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as its Director, Phillip Zelikow. The commission co-chairs, Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, are also CFR. In all, six members of the 9/11 Commission are affiliated to the CFR.

This is something which concerns many, since the CFR is often linked to the new world order agenda, for which 9/11 has been a major catalyst. This is an interesting coincidence to say the least.
 

It should be noted that another CFR member also just happens to be Bob Graham himself. Just days before the ten year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks Graham began making public calls for a new 9/11 investigation. Very curious timing. It was coincidentally just three days before the ten year anniversary of 9/11. It also came at a time when arguably one of the most powerful bullets in the 9/11 truth arsenal had been fired with the release of the damning new documentary "Explosive Evidence: The Experts Speak Out," produced by the 1,500 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Again, the request from CFR member Bob Graham is curious for some.

Is another cover-up in the works?

The 9/11 Ommission

The preface alone to the 9/11 Report should tell you what a sham the investigation was.

"Our aim has not been to assign individual blame." -Preface, 9/11 Report

Since when do you not assess blame in a criminal investigation?

"Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission" by Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton. Chapter one is titled, "Set Up To Fail."

They write that the commission was frustrated with continual misstatements by officials from the Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration, so much so that they considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice for those officials.

"Our staff was exceedingly frustrated with their problems by the FAA and NORAD. Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."

"There was discussion within our staff about whether or not to investigate about how the inaccurate story became the official account presented by NORAD and the FAA. The issue was presented to the commission in May 2004, in an extended memo and presentation. At that time, we did not have enough time to launch a separate investigation into why the FAA and NORAD had presented inaccurate information in public, nor was that question clearly under the commission's mandate."

Apparently they didn't understand their job, because they were given a mandate, to find the truth. A separate investigation was not needed to find out why someone lied to them in an already existing investigation. That is an absurdly asinine remark to make.

John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission:

"The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11," by John Farmer

"At some level of the government, at some point in time, this book concludes, there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened."

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The (Norad) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years...."

"In the course of our investigation into the national response to the attacks, the 9/11 Commission staff discovered that the official version of what had occurred that morning--that is, what the government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

Lee Hamilton, 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman:

"So there are all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We got started late. We had a very short time frame. Indeed, we had to get it extended. We did not have enough money. They were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger."

"Building 7 was a very special problem. We do not claim in this report to have written the final truth. ...Is it the final truth? We'll have to see."

"You can’t answer every question when you conduct an investigation."

Thomas Kean, 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman:

"Lee and I write in our book that we think the commission in many ways was set up to fail, because we had not enough money, We didn't have enough time."

"We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

A 2006 Washington Post article reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said."

It should be clear to all by now that the 9/11 Commission was not a thorough criminal investigation.

A Real Search For The Truth?

Most large government investigations have historically begun within a week to ten days from the date of the actual disaster, but for 9/11 our government waited for well over a year, over 400 days to begin any sort of national investigation.

The U.S. government spent over $92-million dollars investigating President Clinton, yet initially spent only a mere $600-thousand dollars investigating the worst attack ever on American soil. The subsequent 9/11 Commission then spent a paltry $15-million for their follow-up report of the alleged facts, $77-million LESS than was spent on the Clinton investigations (for which the Clinton's were exonerated of all Whitewater charges by the Republican controlled Congress).

Nearly $100-million was spent to investigate President Clinton, and yet only a meager $15-million went to find out who attacked our country, killed over 3,000 innocent people, destroyed two national landmark skyscrapers and dramatically changed life, liberty and freedom as we knew it, all on one fateful September morning.

We spent $14-million investigating how the Waco disaster was handled. After the second shuttle explosion we immediately allocated $50-million to investigate the Columbia shuttle disaster, yet only authorized a mere $15-million to investigate the first ever successful major attack on American soil by alleged foreign terrorists.

Wasn't 9/11 worth more than that?

And again, why did Bush and Cheney not want an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks?

Apparently the Republican controlled Congress wanted to know more about a blue stained dress than the worst attack ever on American soil.

No Effort For Evidence?

If the government was truly serious about investigating the 9/11 attacks, why was the WTC evidence allowed to be destroyed immediately afterwards?

Why were the metal support beams shipped away to be melted down, before the investigation ever began? Is this something that happens at a normal crime scene? Why was it allowed for the biggest crime ever perpetrated on American soil?

Why weren't forensic investigators allowed to test the steel and building remains for crucial fire or explosives evidence? Again, why send it all the way overseas and not next door to Pennsylvania?

Why did no one test any of the metal from fallen World Trade Center tower 7, a building not hit by an airplane that day? Wouldn't you think for sure that government investigators would want to know a whole lot more on why that particular building fell?

Where was the instinctive and passionate curiosity to investigate the worst crime ever on American soil?

No Government Accountability

Who in the military or the government was held accountable for all the admitted lapses on 9/11? Where are the demotions and firings?

It seems to many of us that the only people held accountable were the citizens of the United States, who had their constitutional rights stripped away to protect us from something that we already had every measure in place to protect us from to begin with.

Those safeguards didn't work on ONE day because of numerous admitted government screw-ups that have never happened before and will certainly never happen again. So, because of this ONE day where government people screwed up horribly and were then not held accountable afterwards, "we the people" have to change our way of life of 200 years, because of their mistake??

We've been able to protect our country for two centuries quite well enough without giving up what it stands for. It's high time we start doing that again.

Demand the Truth

And so through all of this the trillion-dollar question remains...
"What really happened on 9/11?"

As a nation, are we all so angry and ready for vengeance over the attacks of 9/11 that we are ready to accept the incredulous in light of the impossible?

Have we lost sight of all reason and replaced it with hatred, ignorance, and a blind faith in unprecedented coincidence? Numerous times over?

Are we to accept wild, outlandish coincidences, that just so happen to coincidentally benefit and fulfill the agenda of the extreme far right and the PNAC to a "T", without any questions?

Is it also possible that perhaps we've blindly trusted our media and our government to tell us the whole truth, without holding them accountable for real facts? Are we so ready to maintain our normal routine in life that we are willing to credulously accept official explanations that strain not only the very laws of science, but sound reason as well?

How much "coincidence" are we willing to swallow until we finally choke dead the real truth regarding September 11th?

Myriad questions remain regarding the attacks of 9/11, yet the media refuses to develop a spine and ask the hard questions regarding the government's official story of what actually happened on September 11th, 2001. So far, most of the public is silent and unaware. They will remain that way until the media wakes up and begins to deal in earnest with the undeniable facts and the awful truth of 9/11.

For many, it is hard to come to grips with the facts as they actually unfolded on September 11th, 2001 and those people will resist any effort to be pushed from the false safety and comfortable paradigm that their perceived reality entails.

While some will argue the notion that a faction of our government would intentionally harm us for their own geo-political and capitalist gain is completely insane, others are not so quick to discount the possibility when intelligently assessing the substantial facts and numerous incongruities of the 9/11 event. The evidence, when taken as a whole, seems to paint a damning picture that is contrary to the official government record.

It Was A Conspiracy- Period

No matter what the talking heads or those that would try to cover this event up would say, the attacks of 9/11 were clearly a well planned concerted conspiracy. Period. For anyone to say anything less shows an overwhelming ignorance to the obvious meticulous planning involved by many in the plot. Any further argument is certainly untenable and might very well be questioned as outright complicity, because surely whoever perpetrated this awful event did "conspire" with a group of people and they did pull the event off.

No matter who pulled it off, it was a conspiracy. Understand that undeniable simple fact.

So why is it okay to be a conspiracy when it's foreigners involved, or "evil-doers," but not when it might be someone from within our very own country? The lack of intelligent reasoning regarding the use of the term "conspiracy" truly seems to highlight a mental void in any legitimate argument. If the term conspiracy threatens to shut down the mental synapses of some, then perhaps cabal or just simple criminal activity are easier concepts to understand for them.

If history has taught us anything, it's an undeniable fact that criminals do exist in positions of high political and corporate power.

The big question now is, who was involved in or knew of the 9/11 conspiracy?

Enemies Both Foreign And Domestic

The oath of office for our legislative officials says it best of all, "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Hopefully our governing body will awake to that astute thought some day soon in the near distant future.

Understand this... people in the middle east did not just wake up one day and say they hated the fact that Americans are free. To the contrary; what they hate is the freedom and luxuries that we take from them. What they truly hate is our corporations taking over their countries and raping their natural resources for our corporate gain.

Maybe when people understand that simple concept they can come to grips with the fact that America and George Bush are now the most protested against ever in recorded world history. That's quite a sad distinction for the champion of democracy to be labeled with.

To say that terrorists hate us for our freedom is absolutely the most contrived, irrational excuse in the history of warfare, with absolutely no regard for sane sentient reason. It is pathetically laughable and sadly says much about a perceived lack of intelligence by our elected officials regarding the general populace.

That anyone could or would ever offer up such an intellectually deficient excuse is truly shameful on many levels.

That people would ever buy such a lame excuse in the first place is even sorrier yet.

Make no mistake about it, terrorists have not taken our liberties. Our politicians have done that. If indeed their cerebrally challenged response to terrorism is to take away our constitutional rights, then it's time we elected some new politicians who can bring a more reasoned response to this clearly bogus War on Terror.

When your kids are in danger, you don't do away with them, you protect them. When our liberty is alleged to be at risk, we do not forsake it to save it. Quite frankly, that notion is insanely irrational, if not just blatant, outright stupidity. It brings to mind the old saying about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The rhetoric that we have to give up liberties to protect our freedom isn't even close to a rational, tenable argument, because quite obviously, we would then have no freedom left to protect.

A wise founding father once proclaimed, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."  Benjamin Franklin

Is this basic fundamental concept of liberty really that hard for some in Washington to understand?

The Vague Wars

It's truly hard to keep a straight face and say "evil-doers" without laughing at the intellectually starved nature of the term. Why not simply call this the "war on bad," or the "war on evil." The very nature of good versus evil has existed since the dawn of time. There can quite obviously be no timeline for a war on evil.

The term "War on Terror" is unarguably inept in description and is essentially insipid by its basic definition. It is dangerously open-ended and undeniably too vague in scope for any democracy with any implied notion of a moral center to it.

The "War on Terror" is not a tangible enemy nor a focused, sentient threat to our country. Those that harbor evil inside are the real threat, whether foreign or domestic.

The irony of our terror war name and our own resulting actions since 9/11 has sadly been missed by our esteemed Congress and many in our hallowed media. Needless to say, it hasn't been missed by the world at large.

This blind national ignorance is unarguably pathetic on all counts and has cost this country very dearly in international respect and trust, all of which has been painstakingly accrued through over 200 years as the champion of democracy.

The repercussions that have sprang forth from the 911 disaster have eroded not only our basic liberties, but also our good standing in the world community as well.

Media Culpability

For this many incongruities to exist in the official 911 record, yet remain off limits to the national press, is truly one of the larger tragedies of the War on Terror. For these truths to be hidden from the public en masse is a damning indictment of our media and their formerly revered news organizations. Our media has failed to ask the tough questions. Our media has been afraid to go against the government. A major ally of democracy has been lost in this so-called War on Terror.

The United States is the most over-saturated media market in the world. When 300-million Americans cannot come to a consensus opinion on a national disaster that threatens to usurp life and liberty as we know it, then our media has truly failed our democracy.

The truth is out there. All you have to do is look. Just don't expect to get it en masse from the corporate media though.

Big money protects big money. At that level there is no deferment to moral principles, but rather only to the principal of big money.

Who Benefited From 9/11?

The most common principle of all in the investigation of large crimes is to ask, who benefited? As Watergate informant "Deep Throat" once told Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward, "follow the money." That reasoning is most always still valid when it comes to high crimes, but not all nefarious endeavors are so easily tracked, especially in cases of state sponsored activity. Power and control are also an integral part of the equation.

So with these thoughts in mind, who truly benefited from 9/11?

• The U.S. (Strategic middle east foothold, with oil & gas)

• The military industrial complex (war profits)

• Department of Defense (budgets increased)

• U.S. intelligence services (budgets increased)

• PNAC (policies for U.S. dominance furthered)

• Larry Silverstein (Paid over $4-billion in insurance money)

• Bush family (Carlyle Group investments)

• Dick Cheney (Halliburton war profits)

• Put Option Investors (made fortune off 9/11)

• Israel (U.S. fights its enemies for them)

And who were the biggest losers from 9/11?

• Afghanistan people (citizens murdered, country ravaged)

• Iraqi people (citizens murdered, country ravaged)

• U.S. people (Constitutional rights taken with Patriot Act)

Those involved in the profit clearly have no moral scruples, nor any human integrity. Their avarice will eventually one day be their undoing.

How Could The Secret Be Kept?

Many opponents of the 9/11 truth movement say that thousands of people had to be involved for the 9/11 event to be an inside job. How could they all keep an inside job a secret?

First off, the 9/11 naysayers are the group claiming thousands were involved, not the 9/11 researchers. To be quite honest, you don't need a fraction of that number to pull off the 9/11 event. All you need is a small number of people to initiate the main event, allowing that to be the misguided catalyst for the rest to blindly follow in an act of defense and patriotism. All you need would be a small crew with enough time to set up the three affected WTC buildings, some people on the inside in air traffic control, as well as a few major figures in government and the military.

The key is to have top officials in the loop who possess the power to have people obey and follow them without question.

Larger events have been kept secret for far longer than 9/11.

The Manhattan Project employed thousands, but strict military compartmentalization kept everyone in the dark, allowing information on a need to know basis for each particular aspect of the project. Even Truman didn't know until the death of FDR.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident never happened, but it was the impetus for scaling up U.S. efforts in the Viet Nam war. Many had to know of the ruse, yet we have only learned recently that it was now fake.

The F-117 and B-2 stealth plane projects were kept secret for nearly twenty years, giving rise to countless UFO sightings that had nothing to do with extraterrestrial activity.

The Federal Reserve System has been kept from many Americans since 1913. Many are indeed aware that it is not owned by the U.S. government, but most people have no clue whatsoever.

Operation Mockingbird was a CIA endeavor for the sole purpose of controlling and manipulating the U.S. and world media. Very few, if any, know of its existence even now.

These are but just a few of the known instances where secrets were kept by many for a very long time. How many national secrets do you suppose still exist today that we know nothing about?

Many people in general only care about themselves and their own immediate needs. As a species, we are quite gullible and often far too trusting when it comes to our politicians and the government that we allow them to run on our behalf.

Those in positions of high power and our military surely laugh at the notion that secrets and clandestine events cannot be withheld from the greater public.

Secrets can be kept and are being kept to this very day.

Define "Patriotism"

Much has been done by the Bush administration to question our patriotism when it comes to asking for the truth regarding 9/11 or its resulting war for oil and profits in Iraq. The McCarthy-era red-scare communist finger pointing pales sorely in comparison to the clearly directed effort to undermine any inquiries into 9/11 or the Iraq war.

Remember the infamous line that sent shockwaves throughout the world, "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." That doesn't leave much room for public dissent and that's exactly why that master stroke of devious marketing was employed. That public stance was carefully crafted to squelch public outcry by implanting the fear of being labeled or branded a terrorist sympathizer.

Quite sadly enough, It worked.

Americans know better than that and need to stand up to that kind of bully rhetoric.

A real patriot doesn't turn a blind eye to injustice against the people. A real patriot expects more from their government and the media. A real patriot questions their government. A real patriot holds the government and its elected representatives accountable for their actions, while serving at our discretion. A real patriot seeks the unbiased truth, no matter which party it may favor.

It's time now it seems for many to examine their own definition of "patriot." It's time to stop being gullible and quit accepting ludicrous explanations not based in scientific fact or reason. It's time to start asking tough questions to get some honest answers, based with real facts, regarding 9/11.

Since 9/11 the government has tried to define who is a patriot and who is not.

Putting a political party or other organization before your country could be argued by many as treason. We exist together, as the United States of America, not the the Democratic National Caucus or the Grand Old Party, nor the PNAC. We are together, as Americans.

As the old saying goes, "United we stand, but divided we fall."

Taking Our Country Back

At this point, it's not a matter of losing our country anymore. it's a matter of winning it back. Too much has already been taken that we need to regain. Americans first need to understand the depth and scope of the coup that has taken hold in our country. A tremendous ideological struggle is currently raging in this nation, much to the dismay of many and sadly enough, the ignorance of even more.

Taking our country back means no more Patriot Act. We're not stupid. We don't have to give up our rights to protect our freedom. What is there to live for after that? With no civil rights, all we're doing at that point is preserving property and commercial interests. Is that our America? We want a congress that supports our constitution, as it was intended. Give us back our freedom. Give us back our liberty. Give us back our constitutional rights that our forefathers paid for with their own sweat and blood.

Americans need to look to alternative forms of news to get an honest perspective and clearer view of the real events happening in our country. Gone are the days of diverse ownership, propagating thoughtful insight and balanced political opinion, with many productive viewpoints.

When six large corporations now control the entire news media that we depend on as a watchful guardian for a successful democracy, the inherent danger becomes possible for only a half a dozen men to collectively shape the news and political views of an entire nation.

Americans need to become fully aware and then stand up and fight back for their constitutional rights and the country and principles that we were all raised to believe in, for liberty and justice for all.

Just Say NO

If you want the real America back, with all that it truly stands for, then say no to fascism and corporatism and say yes for the intents and efforts that our forefathers so painstakingly fought for, individual freedom and true democracy, of the people, by the people and for the people.

Say no to the Patriot Act for stealing our precious constitutional rights, for making a mockery of habeas corpus and allowing our government to squash human rights and kill individuals with no legal repercussions or political consequences.

Say no to political oppression and government tyranny and say yes instead for individual freedom and liberty and the constitutional rights to protect this most revered concept of a true democracy. Start questioning the ongoing civil and human rights violations by this administration.

Say no to HAVA and the mandatory electronic voting that has secretly stolen the most fundamental and sacred tool of our democratic process, fair and honest elections.

Say no to the corporate pillaging of foreign countries and their natural resources and the forcing of corporate will on their people. Say no to corporations who also bilk us for hundreds of millions in profits, yet go off-shore to avoid paying their fair share of tax back into the economic system they've just pillaged and exploited.

Say no to a court system that maintains the rights of corporations over the humanitarian rights of individuals, usurping the original intent of our founding forefathers and making a mockery of a true democracy.

Demand A New Investigation

With a new administration coming in for the first time since 9/11/2001, many Americans are demanding that the 9/11 investigation be re-opened, with all domestic leads and tie-ins investigated to the fullest. What the United States doesn't need is another cover-up for the sake of national security or to prevent U.S. shame and embarrassment among the international community. A full and thorough investigation needs to be completed, no matter which where it leads and no matter who it involves, US or foreign.

When a crime has been committed, the American judicial system doesn't say, "Well, we're just going to let this go and get on with the community recovery instead. It's too important for the city to heal right now, rather than bring up painful memories or hold accountable the culprits responsible for this terrible crime."

Our justice system clearly does not allow for that and we expect nothing less in the city of rats and scoundrels, Washington DC. We the people want and deserve a complete and thorough investigation.

It's Time To Make A Stand

It is time to unite as a nation and take a stand for our Constitution. It is time to start being a real patriot and seek the truth, no matter what your political affiliation may be or where the truth may lead.

It's time to win our country and our freedom back. It's time to stand up for the United States Constitution and our most cherished Bill of Rights.

It's time to stand up for America.

In the U.S. we all know what that means, deep down inside, and we all know what those values truly are.

Standing up for America means not being afraid to express your political opinion, to speak out in public, or talk openly with friends. Standing up for America means contacting your elected officials and our media to let them know how you feel on the issues before us, or to patriotically call them out when they are clearly out of line.

In this modern day, it's easy enough to pick up a phone or send an email with very little effort, so take advantage of this electronic convenience by calling or emailing to express your patriotic feelings. Shape your world. Be a part of the democratic process.

When weighing the events of 9/11, please do not let an apparent false flag operation, driven by a rogue group of neo-con politicians, redefine our moral compass as a nation, nor our cherished civil liberties for its citizens.

The call to action is now; stand up for America and the principles that America used to stand for. Stand up for America by taking our country back, while you still have the liberty to do so.

~

More 9/11 Info

For more information, please go to NewsFocus.org and visit...

http://www.newsfocus.org/911news.htm.

See also:

http://www.newsfocus.org/911_guide.htm

http://www.newsfocus.org/911_investigation.htm
 

Eyewitnesses & Experts Who Have Died Since 9/11

• John O'Neil - FBI agent who was tracking possible terrorists up to 9/11. Discharged and given job with WTC security. Killed on 9/11.

• Kenny Johannemann - North tower janitor spoke of large explosions.
  Alleged suicide.

• Barry Jennings - Housing Authority worker spoke of WTC7 explosions.
  Cause still unknown.

• Danny Jowenko - Dutch demolition expert who said building 7 was a controlled demolition. Car crashed into a tree.

See more here

United States Real Patriots & True Heroes
Supporters of 9/11 Truth

The following are to be recognized and commended as true American patriots and heroes for having the courage to speak out on 9/11:

• Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura

• Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney

• Former Congressman Curt Weldon

• Congressman Dennis Kucinich

• Congressman Ron Paul

• Norman Mineta (DOT)

• Coleen Rowley (FBI)

These notable figures have courageously lent a powerful voice for 9/11 truth. Former DOT head Norman Mineta bravely told the truth to the 9/11 Commission, raising serious questions regarding the events as they unfolded on 9/11. FBI agent Colleen Rowley stood her ground over alleged bureau stonewalling on particular terrorist investigations.

To save the contents of this entire article, in Windows Explorer, go to File and then select Save As. Select a folder to save in and then hit the Save button.

In 2004, 1,907 people were killed worldwide in terrorist related incidents, of which only 68 were Americans.

A look at mortality statistics reveals that twice as many people die from peanut allergies than they do from terrorism.

Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S., killing roughly 450,000, however, in 2007 the U.S. spent a mere $3-billion on research for heart disease, compared to 54% times that amount to fight the so-called "War on Terror."

For the record, heart disease kills 6,600 times more people per year than terrorism does.

The average person is more likely to die in a lightning strike than they are from a terrorist attack.

Despite the overwhelming statistics against the odds of dying from terrorism, an act that the U.S. and western nations clearly foment on their own, we have spent trillions to fight the so-called "War on Terror."

As for the open-ended and nebulous title, how do you conduct a war on "bad?" That's essentially what their insipid title connotes, a "War on Evil."

Seriously, when is that ever going to end? And that's exactly the point. They want this to go on forever, hence the ambiguous name.

 Source: Zeitgeist film

Click here for larger image

• Supreme Court appointed President George W. Bush was neglect in his duties on 9/11. He said he already knew that a plane had hit the World Trade Center before he went into the Florida classroom (Booker Elementary), yet he said and did nothing when Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him in certain words, "The second tower has been hit. America is under attack." He decided to stay seated in the classroom and kept reading "My Pet Goat" instead.

• The WTC fires were small and isolated and did not consume the buildings from top to bottom. They were reported as isolated and capable of being put out with only one or two hoses.

• The FDNY dispatch tapes were classified after 9/11 to hide firefighter accounts of no top to bottom burning in the WTC towers. The tapes prove there was no widespread top to bottom burning of either building.

• The first time ever that a steel high-rise building was alleged to collapse was on 9/11. Not only did we have the first ever steel high-rise destruction from fire, but three steel-high rise buildings all coincidentally fell for the first time ever. What are the odds?

• Over 1000 accredited architects & engineers openly refute the official story of the World Trade Center destruction. They claim that only explosives can explain it.

• Active Nano-thermite (thermate), an extremely high military-grade explosive, was found in many of the samples of the WTC dust and debris.

• Liquid steel was found in the WTC basement, still molten and red hot for five to six weeks after September 11th. ["As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." -Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer, WTC.]

• WTC 1 (hit at 8:46) burned for 102 minutes, yet WTC 2 (hit later at 9:02) burned only :56 minutes, but somehow WTC 2 fell first. How does this happen, especially when the fuel burned off immediately in the fireball and there was no top to bottom burning, of either building? 

• The Spain Windsor building burned hotter and for 21 hours straight (21 times longer than WTC 2), yet it did not collapse.

• The China CCTV tower also burned far hotter and also much longer than either WTC 1 or 2, over six hours, and yet, like the Madrid Windsor tower, it also did not collapse.

• No molten steel was ever found in either the Windsor tower, nor in the Beijing CCTV building, despite much longer burning and intensely hotter fires.

• All three WTC buildings dropped at near free fall speed, with very little or no resistance at all, as they passed directly through their own core structure.

• WTC 7 dropped symmetrically, just like WTC 1 and WTC 2, yet no plane hit it. There were never any reports of the emergency generator tanks exploding.

• Dead bodies were reported in building 7, even though it was evacuated before any of the other building collapses. (Testimony of Barry Jennings, emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority.)

• The 9/11 Commission made no mention of the WTC 7 destruction in their final report. Why omit details of a third building that fell like towers one and two?

• Debris and body parts were found on high-rise rooftops, hundreds of feet from the World Trade Center. If the buildings fell downward, how did the debris and body parts blow upwards and out, away from towers one and two?

• Officials mysteriously made it illegal for the public to photograph the WTC ground zero destruction after many questionable photos began to arise. The camera ban came by order of then mayor Rudy Giuliani. Taking pictures was no disrespect to the families who lost loved ones, as claimed by Giuliani.

• WTC crime scene material building evidence was shipped away to China and destroyed before any forensic investigation could take place, especially when the steel capitol of the world was next door in Pittsburgh. So why ship so far away? No real crime investigation gets rid of the forensic evidence, ever.

• Insiders placed stock 'put options' on American and United Airlines due to the 9/11 attacks. The FBI still won't divulge who made the stock calls or how they knew that these particular stocks (United Airlines and American Airlines) would be affected. Who were the investors who made these put options?

• Fake Osama tape released to the media and the public claiming responsibility for 9/11. Tape was sanctioned by US intelligence, even though the figure in the video looked nothing like Osama and was clearly right-handed. (FBI says he is left-handed on his wanted poster. They also do not implicate him for 9/11.) Who found the video? Why did US intelligence claim it was Osama when it was an obvious phony tape?

• None of the alleged hijacker names were on any of the airline passenger lists. United Passenger List  |  American Airlines Passenger List

• Many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers are still alive, calling into question who was actually involved in the attacks. How could some within the government falsely accuse these individuals? If their names weren't on the passenger lists, how did the FBI immediately come up with the names and the photos so quickly? How were the terrorist cars found so quickly if their names weren't on the airplane manifests? Nine of the alleged hijackers are said to be still alive.

• Newsweek published a report with an interview of Mohamed Atta's dad who said that he was called by his son the day after 9/11. He claims that his son was later killed by the Israeli Mossad.

• What about the reports that the alleged hijackers had purchased tickets for flights scheduled after September 11?

• No black boxes were ever produced from the 9/11 rubble, despite being nearly indestructible, made of titanium, fireproofed and all having electronic locators. (Some news accounts claim they were found, but those reports were then quickly refuted.)

• An airplane jet engine was found in the WTC debris that does not match the airliners that were alleged to have struck the buildings.

• An airplane wheel hub was found in the Pentagon debris that does not match the alleged airliner to strike the building. They also found a turbofan that does not match up with a 757.

• A few suspicious pieces of alleged fuselage found on the Pentagon lawn, however they had the wrong paint scheme for American Airlines. Their planes are silver based, not light blue. Also, the white stroking was not the correct size.

• Pentagon officials described the distinct odor of "cordite" lingering in the air. Cordite is a military explosive.

• Like Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was derelict in his duty on 9/11. Rather than carrying out his explicit duty to coordinate a strategic defense during an attack on American soil, he went outside to assist on the lawn. This was clearly not his duty in a national defense emergency.

• The Washington, DC emergency dispatch tapes are still being withheld from the public. Why?

• Washington, DC DOT video and numerous Pentagon CCTV videos are still being withheld. Why?

• Why were no wing marks left on the Pentagon front wall? No wing debris was found on the lawn, nor any wing markings on the face of the building. How did the windows stay intact around the impact hole?

• How does a hollow aluminum skinned aircraft, traveling at far less than mach speed, puncture three rings of the Pentagon, busting through five very thick steel reinforced concrete walls?

• Eyewitnesses, including two off-duty Pentagon Police officers, claim that the object that hit the Pentagon came from the left of the CitGo gas station, not the right, where the light poles were knocked over. Did two objects strike the Pentagon, possibly a smaller plane and also a missile?

• Numerous war game exercises (at least four) were coincidentally scheduled for 9/11, all of which served to confuse air traffic controllers. What are the odds?

• Military aircraft jets were not scrambled until after the attacks (9:35am) even though they had been launched at least 67 times, within :20 minutes or less, during scrambles from the last year.

• NORAD was defeated three times on 9/11. Suspiciously, NORAD missed defending the Pentagon also, after already knowing for quite some time of the two prior New York WTC attacks. Our air defenses are much better than this.

• What a coincidence that pilot guns were banned from the cockpit in July of 2001, a little over one month prior to the 9/11 event.

• What a coincidence that the commercial aircraft shoot down orders were changed in June of 2001.

• What a coincidence that the New York Port Authority sold the lease for the World Trade Center to Larry Silverstein just a little over one month prior to 9/11 (July 2001).

• What fire captain spoke with Larry Silverstein and made the decision to pull WTC building 7? Was this FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro?

• Who told Mayor Rudy Giulliani that the buildings were going to collapse?

• FEMA employee Tom Kenney told Dan Rather that the agency arrived in New York City on Monday evening, the day before the 9/11 attacks, specifically for that event. How did they know?

• Why was the Washington attack plane not shot down when Dick Cheney was tracking it for well over 50 miles out from the Pentagon? (DOT head Norman Mineta testified to this before the 9/11 Commission.) What were the orders that Cheney referred to?

• 184 people died at the Pentagon. Why didn't Cheney order an evacuation when he was tracking the attack object from over 50 miles out?

• Why were no large plane parts found anywhere at the Pennsylvania crash site?

• Why was the flight 93 debris scattered up to 6 to 8 miles in a circular pattern in Pennsylvania? How could clothing, luggage and body parts bounce that far?

• Why did an FAA investigator destroy all of the air traffic controller audio interview tapes from 9/11, going out of his way to deposit the recorded tapes into numerous garbage cans so that they couldn't be pieced together again?

• Why did Bush not want to have an official 9/11 investigation into the worst crime ever perpetrated on American soil, resisting for well over a year? (Waited 441 days)

• Why on earth did Bush ask Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle to limit any investigations into 9/11?

• Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify individually before the 9/11 Commission, even though they were specifically asked to do so?

• Why did Bush put enormous restrictions on the 9/11 Commission, such as how many Commissioners could be present and length of questioning?

• Why did Bush demand that he and Cheney not be put under oath when they testified before the 9/11 Commission?

• Why did Bush ignore over 50 warnings from foreign countries of an impending attack on the US, including the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US."

• Why did Bush sit in a Florida elementary classroom when the United States was clearly under attack? Why didn't the Secret Service remove Bush from the classroom, as they were supposed to do?

• Who gave the order to evacuate the White House if the Secret Service came to take Cheney away and Bush was still in a Florida classroom? Why would the Secret Service take Cheney and not take Bush? Who gave these orders?

• How much of a coincidence was it that George HW Bush spent the night before 9/11 in the White House?

• Who was flying in the E4B Presidential flying command post over Washington on 9/11?

• What a coincidence that Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss (part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan two weeks prior) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with Pakistani General Mahmood Ahmed, the alleged "money-man" for 9/11 who wired Mohamed Atta $100,000 just before 9/11. Were these men being set-up, or just foolish and careless to be seen together with Ahmad the morning of 9/11?

• Why were the bin Ladens allowed to fly out of the U.S. on private jets the day after the 9/11, especially when all other air traffic was grounded? Why the hurry? If Osama bin Laden was being blamed, why not ask questions, as happens with all investigations? They could have been protected well enough in Federal custody.

• Why was the Bin Laden Task Force dismissed months before 9/11? Why did Bush stop investigations into terrorist connections?

• Who was it that told FBI agent John O'Neill to stop investigating Al-Qaeda?

• How could our Echelon system possibly miss the communications needed to organize such a major foreign attack? The US denied having such a system in place for years, until the EU caught them red handed and exposed the entire operation. (see also: Executive Order 12333)

• What role did Able Danger play in 9/11? Is it a disinformation campaign to cover-up that Atta and others were our guys all along? Why was it dismissed? Did some capitalize on the convenience of terrorists ready to strike the US?

This is only a short list of oddities and strange coincidences regarding the 9/11 event.

The Experts Said...

Fire Engineering Magazine... "No steel building has ever been destroyed by fire. The (World Trade Center) investigation was a half baked farce."

Underwriters Laboratories... 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. ...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. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. --Kevin Ryan,

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) admitted... “the specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)... admitted that due to “the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section came down essentially in free fall.”

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)... asked by a reporter (Jennifer Abel of the Hartford Advocate) why they did not look for evidence of explosives. NIST stated: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayer’s money.”

Notable Quotes:

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty. --George W. Bush, US President

And I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ya know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is.. is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse.
--Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder

During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'The plane 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 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?'
--Norm Mineta, Secretary of Transportation

I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States.  --Osama bin Laden

Of Course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. --Colonel Steven Butler, Defense Language Institute, Monterey, CA, May 26, 2002  (BBC article)

Bush Had Plenty of Warning (including the Aug 6th PDB)
THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF 9/11
White House had at least 28 Advanced Intelligence Warnings Prior to 9/11
(Total warnings said to number over 50.)

• Britain warned US to expect 9/11
• Russia Warned US of 9/11 Attacks
• Germany Warned US of 9/11 Attack
• Israel Warned US Before 9/11
• Egypt Warned US on August 31
• Jordan Warned US in the Summer
• Iran Warned US of al-Qaida Attack
• Indonesia warned US before 9/11
• Afghanistan warned US about 9/11
• Morocco Warned US in August

It is said that the United States had over 50 warnings of impending terrorist attacks, yet the Bush administration sat idly by and did nothing to prevent them. Ask yourself, why?

Many now say the Bush administration did do something, they positioned themselves to manipulate and use the event to bring about more Federal power over the people and to neuter the Constitution through the use of...

• Patriot Act
• Patriot Act II
• Homeland Security

Out of these attacks they gained...

• More Federal and Presidential power
• War in Afghanistan
• War in Iraq
• Never ending nebulous War on Terror
• Trillion$ for the defense industry

And yet there are still the naive and ignorant who ask the foolish question, "Why would anyone or any group within our government possibly do this? What could they possibly have to gain from the 9/11 attacks?"
 

Bush Extends 9/11 National Emergency Yet Again

As he did in 2007, President Bush has again, on August 28, 2008, continued for another year the national emergency first officially proclaimed on September 14, 2001, along with “the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency:”

Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
 

George W. Bush

The White House

August 28, 2008

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10065

For the record, the Obama administration has also kept this unnecessary act in place, every year.
 

Video: This Is An Orange

The Solomon Asch Conformity Experiments

9/11 Questions

 

A September Coup

An interesting compilation of 9/11 related news video.
Download the :38 minute video here (82 MB)
(Right-click, then select 'Save Target As')
 

More 9/11 Insight
Movies & Documentaries

Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth: The Experts Speak Out
9/11 Blueprint For Truth: The Architecture of Destruction
Zero: An Investigation of 9/11  [ A must see film from the Italians ]
The Reflecting Pool  [ A 9/11 Docu-Drama ]   Trailers  |  Order the DVD
9/11: Press For Truth  |  Extra footage: 9/11 Families Speak Up
An American Coup (The final Loose Change series from Dylan Avery )
9/11: Loose Change III Final Cut  Flight 93 Extra | Misc footage  
9/11: Loose Change II  (This is a must see series! Watch all three.)
9/11: Loose Change I  (A few holes, but that's why II and III were made)
The PentaCon (Two objects reported at the Pentagon)
9/11 False Flag  (A German look at 9/11)
The Core of Corruption
Everybody's Got To Learn Sometime
9/11 Revisited 1  |  9/11 Revisited 2
Ex-Gov Ventura Speaks On 9/11
MN Senator Mark Dayton On 9/11
9/11 Mysteries | (Re-cut)
9/11: Fabled Enemies
Bush Inaction On 9/11
9/11 Secret Revealed
One Nation Under Siege
9/11: The Ultimate Con
9/11: The War On Truth
Kill The Messenger
9/11: Ripple Effect
Painful Deceptions
9/11: In Plane Site
Rethinking 9/11
Farenheit 9/11
Zeitgeist - 9/11
Truth Rising
The Red Pill
9/11 and the BBC
9/11 In 68 Minutes
Aaron Russo Claim
Who Killed John O'Neil
9/11 Pentagon Attack
9/11 The Road To Tyranny
The Truth & Lies of 9/11
9/11 Coincidence Theory
The Elephant In The Room
The 9/11 and 7/7 Connection
Controlled Demolitions of 9/11
The Underlying Politics of 9/11
9/11: Attack On The Pentagon
CBC: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
9/11 The Greatest Lie Ever Sold
Compilation Exposing 9/11 Truth
9/11 The Great Illusion  Part 1  |  Part 2
The Fifth Estate: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
9/11: The Filmmaker's Edition  (Naudet Bros. Film)
National Security Alert: 9/11 Pentagon Attack
April Gallop Recounts The Attack On The Pentagon
pentagon 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions & Distortions
Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (download file)
9/11: Aftermath  ( Panel Discussion | Extra Interviews )
Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11  |  More Video
The 9/11 Chronicles: Truth Rising [ A very brash presentation ]
Bill Moyers on 9/11  Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3 | Pt 4 | Pt 5 | Pt 6 | Pt 7 | Pt 8 | Pt 9 | Pt 10
The Pawz Bears Discuss The 9/11 Story (text-to-speech animation)
A September Coup [ A media compilation on 9/11 ] 
9/11 Questions  [ A short film with major questions ]
9/11 Foreknowledge of WTC collapse:  Rudy Giuliani  |  Larry Silverstein
Luke Rudkowski Nails: Larry Silverstein  |  Lee Hamilton
More 9/11 Documentaries [ A separate page for this collection ]

Notable People Speak Out
Dignitaries & Eyewitnesses
 

The Shock Doctrine
M u s t   S e e   T   V  !

Video: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Click here for more from Naomi Klein
 

Newspaper Stories On 9/11

Robert Steinback's article in the Miami Herald:

9/11 Attacks: Avoiding the hard questions

Also reprinted in Common Dreams

Michael Powell's article in the Washington Post

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Multiply
Many Americans Suspect US Government Involvement Or Complicity
 

More Reading

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting

9/11 And The Manipulation Of The USA

Six Years of 9/11 as a License To Kill

The Village Voice

Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11
 

Could Anyone Possibly Fake Parts of 9/11?
Seeing & Hearing Aren't Always Believing With Today's Technology

Editors note: I am not a supporter of the hologram or no-planes theory. This information is simply presented to show technological capabilities, more in reference to the disturbing alleged cell phone calls made. It is presented as merely food for thought.

The After Effects of 9/11

Video: 9/11 Dust

Video: 9/11 Air Quality

Video: SICKO: 9/11 Environment

Video: Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11

For  more info on the lies about the environment since 9/11:
http://www.911dust.org

More 9/11 Links

WTC Fires: Where's the Inferno?

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

George Washington's Blogspot on 9/11

The 9/11 WTC Destruction: An Audio-Video Analysis

Underwriters' Labs Slam WTC Collapse As Fairy Tale

For more information, see the NewsFocus 9/11 page

CNN 9/11 Timeline
 

More 911 Investigative Video Productions
Every person should make it a point to view these films.

911 Documentary Movies
Left-click on the link
 

Movie Marquee Webpage

Many free documentary films to view and learn from.

Including A Vast Selection of 9/11 Material
 

The real problem is our overly entertained society of lemmings;
People who accept the tube as gospel and the truth.
Video: From the classic movie  Network

The Definition of Conspiracy:

Con.spir.a.cy  n., pl. -cies.  1. The act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. (see conspire)
conspirative, conspiratorial, conspiratory, conspiratorially.

• Sinking of the Lusitania
• Pearl Harbor
• Gulf of Tonkin
• 9/11 Attacks

Every one of these events would have required more than one person to execute the complex planning that was needed to carry out each attack. This would undeniably be, by definition, an outright conspiracy.

The Gulf of Tonkin, which led the U.S. into the Vietnam war, has now been said to have been staged, or not to have happened at all, according to Robert McNamara who was intimately involved.

Why is it okay for the government to cry conspiracy when they want, yet at the same time negate the theories of others when they claim there could be a government conspiracy?

The point here is, conspiracy, by its definition, is okay when it is assigned by official sources, but clearly it is not considered tenable when suggested by those that are not in a position of power.

This clearly appears to be a double-standard which can only weigh heavily against "we the people" when dealing with government.
 

For More 9/11 Information:

The Absurdity of the Conspiracy Theory Fallacy

The Truth About "Conspiracy Theory"

The Nature of a Conspiracy

9/11 Truth

Per section 802 of the Patriot Act: The author is indeed an American patriot who supports our Constitution and the United States of America. The opinions expressed in this article are wholly the author's interpretation of the evidence and should not be construed as anti-government, nor anti-American. Terrorism is not condoned by the author in any form, whether it be radical extremism or state sponsored terrorism.