| "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger." — Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II |
|||
| Much earlier version in German |
|
 |
|
| Recent version in Russian | |||
| Related Documents on this Website | Relevant Web Pages |
This web page (as at 2003-03-18), together with all the local web pages which it links to, may be downloaded as a ZIP file for offline reading or for mirroring on your own website. Details are at Mirroring the "The World Trade Center Demolition" Files.
1. Introduction
On September 11th, 2001, the 28th anniversary of the CIA-directed military coup d'etat in Chile, terrorists (but not Arab terrorists) took control of four planes and (according to the official story) crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers, causing fires within. Again according to the official story (pre-written and rushed into print in the mainstream media immediately after the events, together with the identity of the alleged culprit) the fires then caused the steel girders to melt and the towers to collapse.But, as will be shown below, the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts and the fires. The most likely explanation is that explosives were placed besides their structural supports at numerous levels in the towers, explosives which were detonated 56 and 104 minutes after the planes hit, bringing the towers down in controlled implosions, killing several thousand American citizens and others.
The Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, which in weight, size and speed is similar to a Boeing 767 (the kind of jet which hit the South Tower). Had one of the towers collapsed, that would have been amazing. That both of them collapsed, quickly, neatly and symmetrically (without falling over onto the surrounding buildings in Manhattan's financial district), collapsed completely into fragments, ash and huge clouds of dust — with no remains of their central massive vertical steel columns left standing — solely as a result of the plane impacts and the resulting fires, is, upon examination, unbelievable, despite what the so-called "experts" say.
Due to the astuteness of some Americans, who thought hard about the U.S. government's explanation of the events of September 11th, the official story quickly began to unravel. The big lie has been revealed for what it is (but word of this has not yet reached most people). And the reason for it. If you don't already know, this page will inform you as to what really happened and what's really going on. As in the "War on Drugs", in the "War on Terrorism" just say 'Know'.
An early version of this web page (to mid-October 2001) supported the thesis that the terrorist attacks of September 11th were carried out by Arab hijackers but that the operation was actually an inside job (that is, so-called Americans planned and directed it). There were always problems with the "Arab hijackers" theory, but since only those ready to die for their cause would deliberately kill themselves by flying planes into the Twin Towers there seemed no alternative. New evidence, however, emerged, and it now seems that it was entirely an inside job, the only Arabs involved being those set up to take the blame. Hard to believe, perhaps (especially because of the constant repetition in the mainstream media, in the weeks following the event, of the term "suicide attack"). Shocking, yes. But if one looks at the evidence, and thinks about it, this is what emerges.
Until February 2002 the author of this page believed that part of the official story which asserted that the four "hijacked" Boeings all crashed as stated (two into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and one in a field in Pennsylvania). New evidence suggests that in fact only one of these Boeings crashed — the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. (What happened to the other three planes, and their passengers, will be revealed below.) In the light of this new evidence this web page underwent a major revision in early April 2002. Evidence which has come to light since then strongly suggests that, as is common in coups, generals were involved, and the possibility has emerged that the Twin Towers were wired for demolition well in advance of September 11th. Accordingly this web page underwent a major revision in late August 2002.
The implications of this analysis are disturbing, but to ignore them (or the evidence itself) would be an attempt at denial which would constitute a surrender to evil. In this matter anyone with any degree of moral awareness will want to know the truth, however unpalatable or unflattering to national leaders. Continued willful ignorance on the part of the American people may result in slavery for all people everywhere, following death and destruction of a magnitude far greater than that of World War II.
2. The Official Story: The Twin Towers
The official story is:
- On the morning of September 11th four Boeing passenger jets were hijacked within an hour by nineteen Arab terrorists armed with boxcutters.
- Pilots among these terrorists took control of the Boeings and changed course toward targets in New York City and Washington D.C.
- Two of the Boeings were deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers, causing raging fires within which melted the steel supporting structures, thereby causing the buildings to collapse completely.
- A third Boeing was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon.
- Passengers on the fourth plane overpowered the hijackers and caused the plane to crash in Pennsylvania.
- This was an attack on America and it was planned and directed by Usama bin Laden as the leader of Al-Qa'idah, a previously obscure anti-U.S. international terrorist organization composed mainly of Arabs.
This cries out for further explanations, but the official story provides almost nothing more. We are simply expected to believe it without question.
A nation (and world) in shock largely accepted this story, since it did appear to provide some explanation. Even those who considered this explanation hard to believe were inclined to believe it because on September 11th there seemed no other explanation — and the President of the United States and all mainstream news sources in the U.S. were telling the world that this is how it was.
But the official story does not withstand critical examination. It is, in fact, full of holes. It's not just full of holes, it's a deliberate lie, designed to fool the American people and the rest of the world.
According to the official story the four jetliners were hijacked by nineteen Arab terrorists. It is certainly possible to find Arabs who are willing to die for their cause (freedom of their people from ongoing American interference and domination and brutal Israeli aggression) — although finding nineteen of them for a single mission could be difficult — but where do you find such Arabs who also know how to fly Boeing 757s and Boeing 767s? (None of the alleged Arab hijackers had ever worked as professional pilots.) At least four highly trained pilots are needed. Alleged hijacker-pilots Mohammed Atta, Marwanal Al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour had received pilot training (courtesy of the CIA?) but were considered by their flying instructors to be incompetent to fly even light single-engined planes.
Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport. ... Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo ... — The Prince George's Journal (Maryland), 2001-09-18, as quoted in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
The official story expects us to believe that these alleged nineteen on-board hijackers (acting with military coordination and precision) overpowered the flight attendants (with nothing more than boxcutters and shouted commands), forced their way into the cabin (were all eight official pilots absorbed in contemplation of the clouds?), overpowered the pilots (apparently none of them, some ex-military, could offer any resistance to hijackers armed only with boxcutters), took command of the planes, having acquired the necessary flying skills from training courses and flight manuals, flew them expertly to their targets (good navigators, those Arabs; and flying with the skill of a trained military pilot in the case of the jet which, allegedly, hit the Pentagon), met absolutely no opposition from the U.S. authorities (including the U.S. Air Force) responsible for safeguarding America's airspace (despite the fact that the Pentagon jet was in the air for nearly an hour after the first impact), hit those targets and killed themselves. Sure. And pigs can fly. — Anyone who would believe this story (after thinking about it) obviously has nothing between their ears.
|
Clearly the towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts alone, because both towers stood for 45 to 90 minutes after impact. The official explanation, parroted faithfully by the mainstream media, is that the towers collapsed because burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. Let us examine this hypothesis as to its credibility. Much (perhaps, in the case of the second impact, as much as two-thirds) of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. Furthermore, according to one FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett), most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes. The Twin Towers were giving off a lot of black sooty smoke, but there was little fire visible. But to melt steel you need the high temperature produced by, e.g., an oxy-acetylene torch. Jet fuel burning in air (especially in an enclosed space within a building, where there is much smoke and little available oxygen) just won't do it. And if the steel columns had melted, would this have produced the implosive collapse observed? If the columns had melted it is unlikely that the resulting structural weakness would be completely symmetrical (as required when a building collapses upon itself in a controlled demolition). Irregularity in an uncontrolled collapse would have produced the kind of collapse in which concrete and steel girders would have rained down over a wide area (causing huge damage to the surrounding buildings in lower Manhattan and many fatalities among their occupants). This did not happen. These considerations (and others, given below, concerning the probable maximum temperature of the fire) show that the claim that thousands of liters of burning jet fuel produced a raging inferno and caused the steel columns to melt is extremely dubious, and does not account for the collapse of the towers. |
|
Examination of the times of the events of September 11th provides further evidence that it was not the fires that caused the Twin Towers to collapse. The North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m. The plane (or some object, not necessarily a large passenger jet) hit the tower directly, in the center, and a huge explosion immediately followed the impact. Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but whoever was controlling the plane did not manage a direct hit; rather the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most being consumed in the fireball (click on the image at left for further photographic evidence).
Since the plane and its fuel initially shared a common trajectory, after impact the metallic components of the plane followed much the same path as the jet fuel. This path was through one corner of the South Tower. The steel beams bearing most of the load were located in the center of the tower, and thus most of the metal from the plane would not have hit the central steel beams, which would thus have remained largely undamaged by the impact.
|
|
Thus neither the plane impact nor the fire damaged the South Tower sufficiently to account for its collapse, so the South Tower collapsed from some other cause.
The fire in the South Tower was thus less intense than that in the North Tower. But the South Tower collapsed first, at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. Had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the North Tower, with its more intense fire, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the South Tower, hit after the North Tower, and subjected to a less intense fire, would have collapsed after (not before) the North Tower collapsed.
... Exposing the WTC Bomb Plot ...
Note: This page assumes that an on-board hijacker was piloting the plane, but its argument concerning the cause of the collapse remains valid if the plane was actually being controlled remotely (see below).
A convincing case (with numerous web references supporting his argument) that the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the fires has been given by J. McMichael:
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. ... Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.... heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. ... Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature [1538°C, not 800°C as was reported]? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel [the amount of steel in one of the Twin Towers] were heated molten — on one plane load of jet fuel? ...
— Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I
In a sequel to this article J. McMichael writes:
... the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires [in the U.K., Japan, the U.S. and Australia] was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F). ... I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers. — Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part II
In fact all of the so-called experts who claim to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers as a result of the plane impacts and the fires are merely guessing, due mainly to the destruction of the evidence, and are simply offering reasons (insufficient as they are) to believe the official story (as many people want to do). For some examples of these so-called experts' ignorance of what they are talking about, as well as a lack of consensus in their "explanations", see Eric Hufschmid's When nobody knows nothing, Everybody is an expert.
The "official report" on the collapse of the Twin Towers was released in mid-2002 by a group conducting its "inquiry" under the direction of FEMA. This report is convincing only to those who wish to believe what it says, but is quite unconvincing to anyone who reads it critically. Chapter 2 of this report, along with reasoned objections, is available at The WTC Report: WTC 1 and WTC 2:
... it is well known that the maximum temperature that can be reached by a non-stoichiometric hydrocarbon burn (that is, hydrocarbons like jet-fuel, burning in air) is 825 degrees Centigrade (1520 degrees Fahrenheit). ... [The] WTC fires were fuel rich (as evidenced by the thick black smoke) and thus did not reach anywhere near this upper limit of 825 degrees. In fact, the WTC fires would have burnt at, or below, temperatures typical in office fires.
The official story has it that the towers collapsed because (a) the only connection between the outer perimeter wall and the central core were flimsy lightweight trusses, (b) the plane impact weakened these trusses and the heat of the fires caused them to buckle until (c) the trusses at the impact floors gave way and (d) the floors above lost their support and fell upon the lower floors causing all floors to pancake.
That this "truss theory" is false has been demonstrated in The World Trade Center Demolition.
Firstly, there must have been strong connections between the perimeter wall and the central core so that the wind load on the towers could be transmitted to the central core. If this wind load were not transmitted then the perimeter wall would move several feet in a strong wind and the central core would not have moved, so the floors would have buckled, which never happened. Thus there must have been strong steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core, not merely trusses. These girders would not have suffered catastrophic failure as a result either of the impact or the fires.
Secondly, the assumption that there were only lightweight trusses connecting the perimeter walls with the central core leads to a calculation of the amount of steel in the towers which is only 2/3rds of the amount known to have gone into their construction, leaving 32,000 tons of steel unaccounted for. Thus the assumption is false. Those 32,000 tons are accounted for by steel girders connecting the perimeter wall to the central core.
Thirdly, there is photographic evidence of these, officially non-existent, horizontal beams.
This truss theory is a fabrication which has been spread about to give an appearance of plausibility to the official story as to how the towers collapsed. There have even been a couple of made-for-TV "documentaries", complete with "experts", promoting the truss theory, and suggesting that, because of the trusses, the design of the Twin Towers was fatally flawed, and that the trusses were not properly fire-proofed. The refutation of the truss theory is a refutation of the official "explanation" as to "how the towers fell".
Another problem with the official story is the fact that both the Twin Towers collapsed evenly and smoothly.
If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over ... How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel? ...When the platters [the floors] fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.
— Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I
Whatever damage the fires did would not have been evenly distributed (especially in the case of the South Tower, where the jet struck a corner of the building). If the collapse was due to the fires then it too would be irregular, with parts of the Twin Towers remaining intact and connected while other parts fell. But both towers collapsed completely symmetrically, with the floors pancaking upon themselves, exactly as we have seen in other cases of controlled demolition of tall buildings.
It is interesting to note that the
contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene — to cart away the rubble that remains — is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! — The Blockbuster
Could there be more of a connection between these two building collapses than the identity of the contractor who supervised the removal of the debris?
3. The Official Story: The Pentagon
According to the official story, as reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), the Boeing 757, AA Flight 77, which struck the Pentagon executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph. It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory (so as to maximize the damage to the building) so low that it clipped the power lines across the street (but somehow managed to squeeze between two poles which were separated by less than the wingspan of a Boeing 757).We were told (and, of course, expected to believe) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo. (Is there something fishy here?)
In contrast to the attention given to the collapse of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon received little attention until in February 2002 a French website appeared which reproduced images obtained from U.S. Army websites:
 |
| Spot the Boeing 757 in this picture |
And here's a nice one (at right). What happened to the wings of the Boeing? Presumably the wings, with their engines attached, would have sheared off when they hit the sections of the building (to the left and right of the hole in the side of the building) which are obviously still standing, with many wing and tail fragments ending up on the lawn in front of the Pentagon. See any remnants of wings in the picture above (or in any of the other pictures on the French website)? How about an engine or two?
No? Curious ... Could it be that in fact no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?
Note that the French website does not say that no aircraft hit the Pentagon. It could be taken to suggest that the damage was caused by a truck bomb, or that no aircraft struck the Pentagon, but a careful inspection will reveal that the website suggests only that the damage was not caused by a Boeing 757. What, then, caused the damage?
The picture below on the left is the impact site before the outer wall "collapsed" (click on it for the full picture). The picture on the right is a close-up of the impact site.
 |
 |
See the huge hole produced when the Boeing 757 (allegedly) smashed through and disappeared inside the building (leaving nothing of itself for investigators to find)? ... No? ... Could it be that it was actually a missile which struck the Pentagon? A missile which penetrated the outer wall leaving only a small hole — which disappeared when the wall (conveniently) "collapsed" a couple of hours later (I guess they figured they couldn't just leave it as it was since hardly anyone would believe that a Boeing 757 jet could slip through a hole just 2 or 3 meters wide).
And another question: AA Flight 77 had between 56 and 64 passengers and crew members aboard. If it was flown into the Pentagon then what happened to the bodies? And the passengers' luggage? No trace of either has ever turned up. In every aircraft crash there are always corpses (however badly burned). Were any remains of passengers on AA Flight 77 ever returned to their relatives for burial? No? Could that be because the passengers on AA Flight 77 did not die in the attack on the Pentagon? Did they, perhaps, die somewhere else, such as Pennsylvania?
A more detailed examination of the question of what hit the Pentagon is available at American Airlines Flight 77.
As for the story which appeared in Newsweek, etc., about plucky passengers on UA Flight 93 jumping the hijackers ("OK, let's roll!") — this was almost entirely fictitious, fabricated by some psy-war operative with training as a two-bit Hollywood scriptwriter and disseminated with the help of some willing media whore.
The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.
But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess has people, not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air ...
She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."
But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things.
— Tall Tales of the Wag Movie
It is possible, however, that the part about the passengers calling on their cell phones has some truth (they were told to call so as to provide support for the soon-to-be-released official story; see below in Section 5) — but not the part which has one of the passengers, Mark Bingham, calling his mother, saying "Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham." Note also that in none of the alleged phone calls is there any mention of hijackers of Middle Eastern origin; no-one said "Arabs have hijacked the plane". Why not? Because there were no Arab hijackers.
In fact there is no evidence, except anecdotal, that any of the doomed passengers made any cellphone call. For the view that the alleged call by Barbara Olson (who was on Flight AA 77) to her husband (Ted Olson, the US Solicitor General) was a fabrication, as were the other stories, see Joe Viall's Mother of All Lies About 9/11.
4. What Actually Happened
In October 2001 two articles appeared on the web which provided the first clues to what really happened. One was Carol Valentine's "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS". This article drew attention to the possibility of remote control of a large jet aircraft. That this technology exists is public knowledge. It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet with the wingspan of a Boeing 737. (For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.) Since it is possible to control a Boeing 757 or 767 by means of remote control, might not the jets which hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (assuming that more than one did) have been remotely controlled? In which case there would be no need to maintain the improbable hypothesis that the four jets were simultaneously hijacked by nineteen on-board Arab terrorists.The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing aircraft was Joe Vialls' "Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft".
In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft. [This technology] ... allowed specialist ground controllers to ... take absolute control of [a hijacked plane's] computerized flight control system by remote means. From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane. ... [This was] the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001. — Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
But there's a problem with this theory: Although the technology for the remote control of a Boeing jetliner certainly exists, and could be installed (if it is not already standard) on four Boeings, getting all four remotely controllable planes to take off within an hour of each other would not be easy, and would require more people with insider knowledge than is advisable (the more people involved the more chance there is of a mistake, or of information being leaked). Not only would United Airlines and American Airlines personnel be needed to coordinate the plane assignments but also four different teams of remote controllers would be necessary, one for each remotely hijacked plane.
Considering the stakes involved in an operation which was intended to kill thousands of U.S. citizens, there could be no room for error. What was needed was a fool-proof plan, and the remote hijacking of four planes is a scenario with too many possibilities for something to go wrong.
The actual plan which was implemented is amazingly simple when it is finally understood, and it was carried out almost (but not completely) without a hitch. It was revealed to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes).
To put it briefly, a plot was hatched, not by Arabs, but by so-called Americans (agents of the civilian "state security and intelligence" agencies and bureaus such as the CIA, top-ranking officers within the U.S. Air Force and high-level officials within the U.S. Administration), perhaps with Israeli involvement:
- to take control of four civilian airliners
- to carry out attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon causing huge loss of life
- to make it appear that these airliners were used to carry out the attacks
- to eliminate the passengers on the airliners who would not be involved in the operation except as reluctant witnesses
- to blame these attacks on "Arab terrorists" and to use this as a pretext to launch military campaigns against "enemies of America" in the Middle East and in Asia, the real aim being to get control of their oil and mineral resources.
This plot, of course, was not hatched in a day. In September 2002 a congressional report
cited no less than 12 examples of intelligence information on the possible use of airliners as weapons. They stretch from 1994 to August 2001, when word came of a plot by Osama bin Laden to fly a plane into the US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. — America had 12 warnings of aircraft attack
Sometime during the late 90s the U.S. state security agencies realized that certain foreign terrorists were thinking of hijacking planes and crashing them into significant buildings (naturally the Twin Towers would come first to mind). They might even have recruited these would-be terrorists. In any case, they helped them along (covertly, of course), providing money (transmitted via Pakistani ISI operatives), U.S. visas, introductions to U.S. flying schools and useful tips. The plan was not for these would-be terrorists to do the job (since their predecessors had demonstrated their limitations by botching the 1993 attack on the WTC) but rather to be "useful idiots" who could plausibly be blamed (just as Timothy McVeigh was the "useful idiot" blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing). The actual operation was far more elaborate than the would-be hijackers were capable of carrying out, and required equipment which they did not have and prior access to the Twin Towers which was not possible for them.
What happened on September 11th was very likely something close to this (there are variations, as noted below):
- Three planes had been made ready by U.S. military personnel (possibly from NORAD), capable of being controlled remotely, with no-one on board:
- A military jet either loaded with high explosives or carrying missiles or both.
- An F-16 jet fighter armed with a missile.
- A Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet (call this "Pseudo Flight 175").
In the alternative theory the F-16 is replaced by an AGM-86C cruise missile capable of being fired from a B-52 and of flying to its target under GPS-guidance, and able upon impact to generate heat of over 2,000°C.
- Early on the morning of September 11th Mohammad Atta and some other Arabs board American Airlines and United Airlines planes under instructions from their CIA or FBI handlers. Atta and others, some recorded by airport security cameras, will later be declared to be "the hijackers".
- The four civilian jet airliners take off:
- AA Flight 11, a Boeing 767, leaves Logan Airport, Boston, at 7:59 a.m. headed for Los Angeles, with between 76 and 81 passengers (about 39% of capacity) and 11 crew members aboard. (This is the jet which, according to the official story, hit the North Tower.)
- AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, takes off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m bound for Los Angeles, with between 50 and 58 passengers (about 27% of capacity) and six crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon.)
- UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767, departs from Logan Airport, Boston, at 8:13 a.m. for Los Angeles with between 47 and 56 passengers (about 26% of capacity) and nine crew members aboard. (This is the jet which allegedly hit the South Tower.)
- UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757, scheduled to leave Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco, is late and does not depart until 8:41 a.m., taking off with between 26 and 38 passengers (about 16% of capacity) and seven crew members on board. (This is the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania.)
- Pseudo Flight 175 takes off from its military base, flying under remote control, and flies so as to intercept the flight path of UA Flight 175. Radar operators tracking UA Flight 175 see the two blips merge.
- A half-hour or so after taking off the pilots of the four civilian airliners are informed by radio that the U.S. is under attack by terrorists and that they are to shut down their transponders and land their planes at a military base in some north-eastern U.S. state (directions to the base are given).
- The pilots obey this order and change course accordingly.
- Pseudo Flight 175 changes course toward New York. To radar operators it appears as if UA Flight 175 is now flying toward Manhattan.
- The passengers on UA Flight 93 are led to believe that the plane has been hijacked, and are instructed to use their cell phones to tell this to their relatives (thus planting fake evidence which will later be used to support the official story).
- The military jet takes off under remote control and (perhaps after intercepting the flight path of AA Flight 11 to confuse the radar operators) approaches the North Tower at 8:45 a.m., fires missiles into it then crashes into it, detonating explosives already planted in the building. (George W. Bush watches the impact on closed circuit television at a school in Florida.)
- Pseudo Flight 175 approaches Manhattan under remote control and crashes into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. Its controllers, not used to remotely controlling the 100 tons of a Boeing 767, almost miss the tower, but manage to hit it at an angle, toward one corner. Most of the jet fuel passes through the corner of the tower and explodes in a huge fireball outside the building. (The approach of the Boeing 767 and the impact and fireball are recorded by many cameras.)
- George W. Bush announces to the nation that he has made some phone calls and then goes into hiding for eight hours. He fails to order defensive action by ordering U.S. Air Force jets from bases near Washington to scramble to intercept the other two (allegedly hijacked) planes still in the air. No other Air Force officer orders jets to intercept the planes. Interceptors are finally scrambled an hour after the first of the commercial jets has gone off course and 45 minutes after the impact at the North Tower.
- The F-16 jet fighter (see 1. above), under remote control, flies at high speed toward Washington D.C. (perhaps after crossing the flight path of AA Flight 77), descends to near ground level, makes a horizontal approach to the Pentagon, fires a missile which produces a huge explosion at the outer wall of the Pentagon, then itself crashes into the building (at 9:38 a.m.), its engine penetrating several rings of the Pentagon.
In the alternative theory it is an AGM-86C cruise missile which strikes the Pentagon.
It crossed several of the building rings of the Pentagon, creating in each wall it pierced a progressively bigger hole. ... When traversing the first ring of the Pentagon, the object set off a fire, as gigantic as it was sudden. — Who was Behind the September 11th Attacks?
- Meanwhile (by sometime between 9:15 a.m. and 9:45 a.m.) all four AA and UA jets have landed at the military base to which they were directed. The 199 (later listed) passengers and crew from AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 are herded onto UA Flight 93, where they join the 33 (later listed) passengers and crew, for a total of 232 people. Explosives are loaded on board.
- The South Tower collapses (at 9:59 a.m.) in a controlled demolition, 56 minutes after impact.
- Sometime around 10:00 or 10:15 a.m. UA Flight 93 takes off from the military base (either under remote control or under the control of a military pilot unaware of his fate) and flies toward Washington in a fake "terrorist attack".
- The North Tower collapses (at 10:29 a.m.) also in a controlled demolition, 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.
- Either explosives on board UA Flight 93 are detonated, or the jet is blown apart by a missile fired by a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet, over Pennsylvania (at 10:37 a.m., almost two hours after it took off from Newark Airport).
Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area [this was the F-16] and burning debris falling from the sky. — Reuters, Sept. 13, as quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes, perhaps or perhaps not including those 34 (later unlisted) passengers (including Mohammad Atta) who are part of the operation, are in this way eliminated.
- The outer wall of the impact site at the Pentagon is caused to collapse (so that the small size of the hole in the wall caused by the impacting object would no longer be visible).
- Around midday the media whores begin to disseminate the story that this "terrorist attack" was masterminded by Usama bin Laden.
- Around 5 p.m.the building known as WTC 7 collapses in a controlled demolition.
- Misled by the mainstream media a shocked and outraged American public demands revenge against the perpetrators, whom they assume to be Arab Muslim fundamentalists.
- George W. Bush announces his "War on Terrorism" and the Pentagon swings into action to implement its previously-prepared plans to bomb Afghanistan (into submission to U.S. oil interests).
Of course, some of the details of this account may turn out to be wrong, but overall it appears to be the most likely explanation of the events of September 11th and (in contrast to the official story) is consistent with all the evidence and is contradicted by none. Only a full and impartial investigation of what happened on September 11th will reveal the truth, but the Bush administration (fearing the consequences when the American people find out what actually happened and who was behind it) has done everything it can to prevent such an inquiry from taking place.
The CIA has always maintained as a matter of historical record that it has never murdered an American citizen on American soil. If, as a result of Eric Olson's persistence in trying to uncover what really happened to his father [Dr Frank Olson, a U.S. Army scientist], and the investigating skills of public prosecutor Saracco, this turns out to be a lie, it could well be the beginning of the end of the Agency.
Similarly if the CIA can be shown to have been involved in the murder of the 200 or so passengers (most of them American citizens) on the four Boeing jets, who died when UA Flight 93 exploded in the sky over Pennsylvania, then the Agency will be finished (and none too soon either).
On the side the plotters purchased put options for companies whose stocks were sure to be adversely affected by these events, such as the parent companies of the airlines whose planes are believed to have been hijacked. Their intention was to make a killing, so to speak, by purchasing the right to sell stocks in these companies at a price which they knew would be considerably higher than the price they could buy them at on the open market (after the September 11th attack had driven the prices down).
September 6-7, 2001 — 4,744 put options (a speculation that the stock will go down) are purchased on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up). This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options. Many of the UAL puts are purchased through Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current Executive Director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. — Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks
Despite an SEC investigation, the identity of those who purchased these put options has so far not been revealed.
5. Evidence for Explosives in the Twin Towers
Millions of people around the world watched the WTC events unfold live on CNN on September 11th, 2001, in near-disbelief. They saw huge clouds of smoke billowing over Manhattan and saw the towers collapse ... in a curious way. They did not fall over; they imploded, in the way that most people have seen when a building is destroyed in a controlled demolition: the building does not collapse in a chaotic way, hurling debris over a wide area; rather it collapses upon itself. This was how the WTC towers collapsed.That the towers were demolished in a controlled manner was noted immediately by some astute observers:
From: "David Rostcheck" <davidr@davidr.ne.mediaone.net>This message was posted to the internet on September 11th, within hours of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Right from the beginning, some people were not deceived.
To: USAttacked@topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: WTC bombingOk, is it just me, or did anyone else recognize that it wasn't the airplane impacts that blew up the World Trade Center? To me, this is the most frightening part of this morning. ...
If you watch the time sequence, you'll see that it happens like this:
- A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up. The expected things then happen:
- The building stays up. A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong. Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. ...
- The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster. It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still looks quite solid.
- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.
- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*. It is still smouldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame. ...
- The fire in the second building goes out.
- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed. The debris falls primarily inward. The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. ... The crumbling comes from the top (above the damage). It moves at a uniform rate. All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton. The damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.
In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition — because that's what it is.
- The first tower collapses in a similar demolition wave.
There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But look at the footage — those buildings were *demolished*. To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. ...
— davidr
(Full text of this message is here.)
Initially the explosives theory suffered from the problem that the mainstream media did not report that anyone heard explosions just prior to the WTC collapse. But in the last year reports have surfaced, and there is now even video evidence available to anyone which shows that explosions actually did occur within the Twin Towers prior to their collapse.
Television viewers watching the horrific events of Sept. 11 saw evidence of explosions before the towers collapsed. Televised images show what appears to be a huge explosion occurring near ground level, in the vicinity of the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, prior to the collapse of the first tower.A Danish website offers a 4-hour video containing visual evidence of what happened on September 11th which has been suppressed or ignored by the mainstream media:... One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns.
One of the first firefighters in the stricken second tower, Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."
Kim White, 32, an employee on the 80th floor, also reported hearing an explosion. "All of a sudden the building shook, then it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on," she told People. "We got all our people on the floor into the stairwell ... at that time we all thought it was a fire ... We got down as far as the 74th floor ... then there was another explosion."
— Eyewitness Reports Persist Of Bombs At WTC Collapse
Video Clips of the falling Towers were often edited in a manner that prevented the TV viewers in getting the "Full picture" of the entire tower collapse. ... During my 1000 hours of video investigation I have found only very few of such "Full picture long distance shots" which showed the entire tower (from top to bottom). Most of the video-clips we saw on Sept. 11 (and in the weeks that followed) would be edited versions ... [which] did not give any evidence of the numerous "clouds" from EXPLODING Bombs "popping out of the windows" of the WTC facade far below the crash level of the collapsing tower. ... Someone in the "editing rooms" did not want to give us the "Full Picture"!But some crucial BOMB video evidence did in fact get out! In my video I will show you 5 significant "DUST CLOUDS" from Demolition Bombs exploding INSIDE the WTC Towers. These "Bomb Clouds" were located circa 20 and 40 levels BELOW the "Crash level" of the falling Towers. ... [T]hey give full evidence of a Distinct Demolition Bomb being exploded FAR BELOW the "Crash-Point-level".
— Bombs Inside the World Trade Center
And it was not only the Twin Towers which were demolished deliberately but also the building known as WTC Seven.
Not detailed in the monopoly press, some fire-fighters who survived Black Tuesday, contend there were explosions in the buildings, in a portion of the twin World Trade Center towers, separate and apart from the impact of the planes hitting the buildings. ... Were within-the-buildings explosives remotely triggered off to collapse the towers like done with old buildings? And there are good reasons to believe that within-the-building explosives caused the mysterious collapse, late on the evening of Black Tuesday, of World Trade Center Building 7. — Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 14
The Twin Towers collapsed in a very strange manner, leaving almost nothing but metal fragments from the outer shell and huge quantities of fine ash and dust, without the central steel columns from the lower sixty floors either standing or fallen. This is very strange. Look at all that dust (click on the image for an enlargement and for two further pictures of the clouds of dust). It is as if some high-energy disintegration beam had been focused on the tower, pulverizing every concrete slab into minute particles of ash and dust.
But although some kind of "black" technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:
 |
| A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph. |
During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage — but not causing significant ground shaking. — Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research, as quoted in Earth Institute News
| Christopher Bollyn: Seismic Evidence Points to Underground Explosions Causing WTC Collapse |
This, together with numerous small explosives detonated at every ten or so levels of the supporting steel columns, would explain one observation which the official story does not explain: Why were the lower parts of the massive supporting steel columns not left standing after the collapse? If the official story is true, that the damage was caused by the impacts and fires, which occurred only in the upper floors, and that the floors then pancaked, one would expect the massive steel columns in the central core, for, say, the lowest 20 or 30 floors, to have remained standing, which they did not. But this is understandable if the bases of the steel columns were destroyed by explosions at the level of the bedrock. With those bases obliterated, and the supporting steel columns shattered by explosions at various levels in the Twin Towers, the upper floors lost all support and collapsed to ground level in about ten seconds.
Further evidence for explosives is provided by video evidence of the way in which the South Tower collapsed: The top thirty or so floors keeled over at the beginning of the collapse. If the floors had pancaked in the way that the official story has it then these top floors should have fallen straight down. But if explosives somewhere in the region of the impact level had blasted the steel supporting columns in the core then it is understandable that the top floors tilted over (probably in the direction of the damaged corner where the plane hit).
The explosive devices could have been encased in heat-resistant material so that any of them which were exposed to fire would not detonate. If timing was critical then they could be detonated by remote control (a radio or microwave signal) at the right time. Even if the fires disabled the bombs on the levels where the planes hit, they would not disable the bombs on the floors below the fires. No wires, CPUs or timing devices are needed, just some way for each explosive device to respond to the unique signal causing it to explode. Even a timing sequence may not have been needed — simultaneous detonation of each device in the above-ground levels may have been sufficient to produce the intended result.
The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers collapsed in 10 - 15 seconds, close to free fall. Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only a second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is strong evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.
For a week after the collapse of the Twin Towers there were areas beneath the surface which remained intensely hot.
AVIRIS data collected on September 16, 2001, revealed a number of thermal hot spots in the region where the WTC buildings collapsed. Analysis of the data indicated temperatures greater than 800oF in these hot spots (some over 1300oF). — U. S. Geological Survey ReportWhat was the source of this heat? Could it have been residual heat from underground nuclear explosions?
The Twin Towers were not the only buildings in the WTC complex about which questions can be asked. There were other WTC building "collapses".
A way to prove that the supporting steel columns of the Twin Towers had been blasted by explosives would be to examine fragments from them among the debris for evidence of what metallurgists call "twinning". But the WTC debris was removed as fast as possible and no forensic examination of the debris was permitted by the FBI or any other government agency. Almost all the 300,000 tons of steel from the Twin Towers was sold to New York scrap dealers and exported to places like China and Korea as quickly as it could be loaded onto the ships, thereby removing the evidence. See Debris Mountain Starts to Shrink, an article which shows that Controlled Demolition Inc. (a world leader in the demolition of tall buildings) was apparently keen to have the debris removed and disposed of as soon as possible and was able to come up with a detailed plan for doing so within eleven days of the collapse of the Twin Towers, suggesting that this company had detailed knowledge of the Twin Towers and the entire WTC complex prior to September 11th.
It might be objected that the WTC employed hundreds of security guards and had hundreds of surveillance cameras (supposedly) operating. With this kind of security it might be possible to plant a few bombs but planting many (and especially bombs powerful enough to destroy the foundations of the supporting steel columns) would seem infeasible. However, the ownership of the World Trade Center changed hands eleven weeks before the attack. The new owner was Larry Silverstein. The destruction of the WTC and George W. Bush's declaration of a "War on Terrorism" has proven to be (and could have been foreseen to be) of major benefit to Israel in its brutal repression of the Palestinian people, its efforts to destroy the Palestinian Authority, which it labels as "terrorist-controlled", and its attempts to dominate all its Arab neighbors. The new owners of the WTC might well have been persuaded to cooperate in a scheme of such obvious benefit to Israel. But if eleven weeks is considered insufficient time to plant explosives then how about several years? This possibility will be considered in the next section.
6. Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?
When considering the possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives there is an interesting variation which is worth considering: What if the Twin Towers were designed — or re-engineered — so that they could be destroyed in a controlled demolition if circumstances required?What circumstances might lead to an order to demolish the Twin Towers? A situation in which it was believed that they were in danger of collapsing in an uncontrolled manner and falling onto the buildings surrounding them in Manhattan's financial district. In such a case, it might be held, better to demolish one or both of the towers in a controlled manner so as to minimize death and destruction in the surrounding area.
A self-destruct mechanism might not have been designed into the Twin Towers originally, but it might have been added later, especially after the 1993 bombing of the WTC alerted all of America (an in particular, the people working in the surrounding office buildings) to the possibility that there might be another attack on the WTC which would succeed in destroying the towers. It would not be particularly difficult to engineer this possibility. One simply has to engage the services of a controlled demolition company (such as Controlled Demolition Inc. to set things up. (This is the company that hauled away the rubble from the Murrah Building in Okalahoma City after its demolition and provided a detailed plan to do the same for the WTC eleven days after September 11th.) Naturally they would be told (if they wondered at the purpose) that this was a "fail-safe" mechanism, not intended to be used except to minimize damage in the event of an attack.
So such a company specializing in controlled demolition of large buildings could study the problem and, with the approval of the owners (the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey prior to July 2001), place explosives at just those points which would destroy the structural integrity of the building (if and when detonated) so as to bring the Twin Towers down precisely in the way the world witnessed on CNN on September 11th.
It has even been suggested that such a self-destruct mechanism was required in order to prevent companies with offices in the buildings in the vicinity of the Twin Towers from moving out (fearing for the safety of their premises and their employees), and was also required to persuade new companies to rent office space in Lower Manhattan. It has been suggested that the company directors of large companies with, or considering buying or renting, office space in the financial district would not agree to keep or to obtain that office space unless they could be given an assurance that in the event of a major attack on the WTC, sufficient to destroy the Twin Towers, their offices would not be damaged significantly and their employees would not be put in mortal danger. Whether this is true or not is known only by a few, including the past and present owners of the WTC (and some of their employees) and the directors of large companies with offices in Lower Manhattan.
According to this theory, then, the plane (and possibily missile) attacks on the WTC triggered this fail-safe mechanism, and one or more engineers were obliged (in consultation with the owners of the WTC — or perhaps the owners acted alone) to decide whether the damage to one or both of the towers was sufficient that there was a significant danger that they would collapse in an uncontrolled manner upon the surrounding areas, and that it was thus necessary to push the button which would detonate the charges and bring the towers down, which they did.
[Testifying before a congressional inquiry] Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority [of New York and New Jersey] refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers — crucial for evaluating the wreckage — until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency [that is, against FEMA]. — New York Daily News, 2002-03-07
Was this because a close examination of the blueprints might reveal clues that the Twin Towers had been engineered to make possible a controlled demolition? And that FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) was aware of this?
Since it was this very same FEMA which took charge of the "investigation" into the WTC collapse (and is about to release a report claiming that the fires caused the collapse) one might be forgiven for suspecting that their "investigation" has been something less than an unbiased attempt to discover the truth of what happened.
Assume now, for the sake of argument, that a "fail-safe" mechanism as described above was actually engineered into the Twin Towers (probably in the mid-1990s). The explanation given above, of the collapse of the Twin Towers, still leaves open one important question: Did those who demolished the Twin Towers on the morning of September 11th plan in advance to do so? Did they have prior knowledge of the plan to strike the towers and was the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers (and the deaths of thousands of people in the buildings) already planned by the perpetrators of the attacks and those who assisted them?
Given the existence of the fail-safe mechanism, a small number of people would have known about it, including officials at FEMA and possibly including the most senior members of the Manhattan business community (especially if such a mechanism was there to persuade them to remain in Manhattan). Even though this mechanism was presumably built in to the Twin Towers hoping it would never be used, some people would know that it was there and that it could be used — provided one had the authority to initiate the demolition procedure and an arguably sufficient reason to exercise that authority.
Who had such authority? Presumably the owners of the World Trade Center (though perhaps they could not have pushed the button without first obtaining permission from FEMA).
Most of the World Trade Center changed hands in a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance covering buildings and rents — payable to new beneficiaries. — The Blockbuster
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the 26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and [Larry] Silverstein the office portion.The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July — just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy.
Silverstein was ecstatic at that time. "This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect.
— The Blockbuster
The "arguably sufficient reason" was provided by the impacts and the subsequent structural damage and fire. According to this scenario, then, the purpose of the impacts was not themselves to destroy the Twin Towers but rather to provide the "justification" for detonating the explosives which brought them down in a controlled demolition.
It is interesting, in considering this idea, to look at the actual times that the Twin Towers stood after the impacts. As noted above, the North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m., in a direct hit and most of the plane's fuel entered the building, causing a huge fire. Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most burning up outside. In both cases the fires within the buildings died down after awhile, giving off only black, sooty smoke. If the Twin Towers were deliberately demolished, and the intention was to blame the collapse on the fires (as the official story has it) then the latest time at which the towers could be collapsed would be just as the fires were dying down. Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel than the fire in the North Tower, the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier than the fire in the North Tower. Those controlling the demolition thus had to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower. And in fact the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact. These times are consistent with the hypothesis that the progress of the fires was being monitored by whoever was handling the demolition, and that they collapsed the towers at the last possible time, just as the fires were dying down.
| FEMA —The Secret Government |
We arrived on, uh, late Monday night [September 10th] and went into action on Tuesday morning [September 11th]; and not until today did we get a full opportunity to work, uh, the entire site. —Tom Kenny (FEMA), speaking to CBS anchor Dan Rather on September 12th.
7. The Perpetrators
The person who, shortly after the attacks on the WTC, was announced as "the prime suspect" (without any evidence), and quickly promoted to "the mastermind behind the attacks", was Usama bin Laden, who has made no secret of his animosity toward the U.S. for its support and funding of Israel's brutality toward the Palestinians, for what he sees as the Americans' defilement of Saudi Arabia (the location of two of the three holiest Islamic sites), the continued bombing of Iraq and the Americans' support of the (as he sees them) apostate regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The contempt with which the U.S. is regarded by many Arab organizations (not to mention many non-Arab organizations), and the involvement of Arabs in the ineffective bombing of the WTC in 1993, means that Arabs are automatically suspected in any terrorist attack against the U.S. (as they were in the Oklahoma City Bombing until the government announced that Timothy McVeigh was the culprit).Within hours of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon Dan Rather and other mainstream media whores were quoting unidentified "government sources" as stating that Usama bin Laden was the culprit. As the WTC bombers intended, most Americans immediately believed this claim and continue to regard him as the perpetrator of this atrocity and the entire Arab world as their enemy (a reaction welcomed by many in Israel). Many people in Arab countries also believe he did it because for them Usama bin Laden personifies the resentment against American exploitation of the Third World which they themselves feel. But Usama bin Laden has never said that he was behind the September 11th attack, and, indeed, has explicitly denied this.
I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September 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 humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people ... — Usama bin Laden, Interview with Pakistani newspaper Ummat (Karachi), September 28, 2001. Full text here.
After one of the video broadcasts from the Al-Jazeera TV station in Qatar (which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, may have been a Western-concocted forgery, since Usama bin Laden, or someone impersonating him, is shown wearing a U.S. Army jacket — much as if Churchill had delivered his wartime speeches wearing a swastika armband and the uniform of a Luftwaffe colonel) Condoleeza Rice declared that this was an "admission" by Usama bin Laden of responsibility for the September 11th attack. It was not, but by claiming it was she maintains the official line of blaming "Arab terrorists" and draws attention away from the true perpetrators of this atrocity.
Since the Twin Towers could be brought down by the use of explosives, why bother to crash commercial jets into them? The reason is that the demolition expertise required is certainly beyond the capabilities of any Arab terrorists (especially if nuclear devices were used). Had the Twin Towers simply been demolished in the way that they were then many questions would have been asked as to how this happened. A story that Arab terrorists detonated explosives which completely destroyed the buildings would not withstand criticism, so some other "plausible" explanation for the collapse of the towers had to be provided and this was done in the form of the plane impacts and subsequent fires. This "explanation" had an initial plausibility, and it was immediately broadcast by the mainstream media, and immediately accepted by a public in a state of shock. Only a careful examination of this story, such as has been done in J. McMichael's article, reveals that it is full of holes.
The aim all along was to place the blame on "Arab terrorists". It would have been difficult to explain how a band of men "of Middle-Eastern appearance" had gained the necessary access to many levels of the Twin Towers to plant the required explosives and had acquired the demolition expertise to demolish the Twin Towers in a professional manner. But many people would readily believe a story that Arab "terrorists" had hijacked commercial jetliners and flown them into the Twin Towers on a "suicide mission". So that was the story that was put out, with the help of the many "journalists" in the mainstream media who are tools of the CIA, lying to the American people whenever requested to do so.
The attacks against the WTC and the Pentagon were brought to us by the same group of people (though "human" may not be the correct term for them) who gave us the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and the Oklahoma City Bombing.
There is evidence that the former was actually planned and directed, not by Arab terrorists (who were merely the operatives), but by the FBI.
The mastermind [of the 1993 WTC bombing] is the government of the United States. It was a phony, government-engineered conspiracy to begin with. It would never have amounted to anything had the government not planned it. — Ron Kuby, defense attorney, quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
In the Oklahoma City Bombing explosives were placed by the structural supports of the Murrah Federal Building, demolishing it and killing hundreds of people. The psy-war propaganda experts then succeeded in convincing the more gullible among the American people that this was the work of one or two men using a truck full of ammonium nitrate. (Some of the high-explosive devices planted within the building did not explode, were seen by four witnesses after the attack, and were removed by the FBI but were never officially mentioned.) Within a few days of the bombing the Counter-Terrorism Bill was passed by Congress, a piece of legislation which provided for secret trials and seizure of assets without due process of law, and which foreshadowed the so-called Patriot Act passed by Congress one month after the events of September 11th.
An examination of the evidence, as above and as done in other websites, shows that (i) the Twin Towers were not brought down by the plane impacts and the fires but rather by massive explosions and (ii) what caused the damage to the Pentagon was certainly not a Boeing 757 but more likely an F-16 jet or a cruise missile. This excludes "Arab terrorists" as the perpetrators because (i) only a small number of American demolition companies have the expertise to demolish tall buildings in the way that the Twin Towers collapsed and (ii) only the American military has and can use F-16s and cruise missiles (at least, within U.S. airspace). The perpetrators of these atrocities were Americans, and they must have occupied (and continue to occupy) high positions within the U.S. government and the U.S. military to have been able to do what they did and (so far) get away with it.
| The Enemy is Very Much Within (168 KB) |
But just as the attempt by the predecessors of these traitors to establish a "Thousand-Year Reich" resulted in complete and ignominious defeat, their plans also may yet come to naught, though at what cost to the American people and the rest of the world remains to be seen.
The situation may actually be much worse than this. The evil which has been perpetrated by these traitors, acting through the U.S. government, its military and its multinationals, the IMF and other institutions, over many years, is sufficiently great that one has to wonder whether the instigators have any concern at all for the welfare and dignity of the human species. The ultimate instigators of this atrocity (and of the larger drive to enslave, or perhaps exterminate, the entire population of the planet) may actually not be human at all. If so, we have a real problem.
8. The "War on Terrorism"
We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile. — George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000
In a speech to a joint session of Congress on September 17th, 2001, Bush announced that America was embarked upon a "War on Terrorism" (in that speech he used the words "terror", "terrorist" and "terrorism" at total of 32 times, and "war" twelve times, so no-one would fail to get the message). But before the U.S. retaliated by bombing Afghanistan day and night for weeks it should first have established exactly who instigated, planned and directed the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Despite the attempt to blame nineteen Arabs, allegedly the hijackers of the four planes, this was not done. Such evidence, if it were ever produced (and, of course, it will never be produced), must be such as to convince third parties such as the Europeans, and the evidence must be made public (not every last detail, but enough to establish the case). Insiders such as the U.S. President, the British Prime Minister and the NATO Secretary-General declaring themselves "convinced" is insufficient. Such declarations will fool some people, but these officials are literally warmongers and will do anything to justify their waging of war, including lying to the public about the convincingness of the alleged evidence. Only when convincing evidence has been made public, and the identity of the attackers established, would it be possible to declare "war" without misuse of language. Until then the "War on Terrorism" will be a propaganda campaign like the "War on Drugs" — a way of disguising the true aims and motivations of those waging this "war", which in this case is that age-old motivation: territorial and economic conquest.
But, of course, the U.S. government will never reveal who exactly planned and directed these attacks, firstly because it was an inside job, and secondly because blame must be laid upon "Arab terrorists" in order to "justify" the "War on Terrorism" and the military assaults upon Arab countries (recently and, as the U.S. and Britain plan at least, for years to come; indeed, in the words of one Pentagon official, possibly "for the rest of our lives").
The "War on Terrorism" has three major components:
(1) A propaganda war waged firstly against the American people and secondly against the rest of the people on this planet who have access to TV and newspapers.
(2) A large increase in the powers of surveillance and control exercised by the U.S. federal government over U.S. citizens and residents and in the ability of the government to impose censorship.
(3) The use of American military force (with help mainly from the British), to whatever extent necessary, to gain control of the oil reserves of the Caspian Basin, the mineral wealth of Central Asia and whatever other economic resources in other parts of Asia that the U.S. wishes to control.
The purpose of (1) is to disguise the true nature of (3) by presenting it as the use of military force to protect Americans against future terrorist attacks. The purpose of (2) is to stifle any protest and dissent from those Americans who are not fooled by (1) and who object to (3). Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft & Co. know from the 1960s demonstrations against the Vietnam War that domestic opposition to military aggression abroad can bring that aggression to an end, and they wish to make sure in advance that the same thing will not happen this time.
The American government says that America is "at war" (as if that justifies anything the government wishes to do). But a war requires an identifiable enemy. A war is a war between two or more opposing sides. A "war" in which one side is invisible is a fantasy — a pretext to restrict civil liberties, to impose censorship and to deny rights guaranteed to American citizens under the U.S. Constitution. It is a tool for psychological operations directed against both domestic and foreign populations, for deceiving the American people and others and persuading them to submit willingly to violations of their human rights. (Though one might say that if they do submit then they deserve the enslavement that will come to them.) And in this case, as noted above, the purpose is to suppress any domestic opposition to U.S. military action abroad. And at home; remember that the U.S. military has been used against American citizens before — at Waco.
What is too shocking for many Americans to contemplate is that the terrorist attacks, from which the people of the U.S. are supposed to be protected by the "War on Terrorism", are themselves part of the propaganda war. In order to "justify" to the American people the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan and the deaths of Afghan civilians, the violent overthrow of the (admittedly reprehensible) Taleban government, the deployment of U.S. ground troops to sieze territory in Afghanistan and in other countries, and the use of whatever weapons of death the Pentagon plans to use (including "low yield" nuclear weapons), the U.S. must present its actions as being morally good and noble (as in World War II), specifically, as motivated by the desire to protect decent, innocent American citizens from the evil of terrorist attacks.
Thus the American people are presented with staged photo ops such as that of the firemen raising the American flag (this was filmed by the NYPD video team), which most people would (subconsciously at least) associate with the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima in World War II in the noble fight against the evil fascist forces of Imperialist Japan.
Without terrorist attacks there is no justification for the military action, so terrorist attacks there must be (or at least, the perpetual fear of such). The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were the first (unless we count the Waco Massacre and the Oklahoma City Bombing), brought to you by those people who are directing the propaganda campaign and, indeed, scripting this entire "War on Terrorism". And (as the CIA informed members of Congress in early October 2001) it is certain that there will be more terrorist attacks (how did they know?) — most of them far less spectacular than the destruction of the Twin Towers, but sufficient (such as the controlled release of anthrax bacteria, probably by the CIA itself) to induce in the American public a state of constant fear — made worse by their not knowing who is really behind these attacks.
Does the WTC attack feel like a movie? It does? Well of course it does! It has been specifically written as a movie script. ... This entire sequence of: hijack; first plane; second plane; Pentagon ;WTC collapse; phone calls from the planes; copy of the Koran; more attempted hijackings; arrests; plucky passengers; etc., etc., has been scripted by a crew of cynical planners who could care less that REAL people died in the Twin Towers. — Tall Tales of the Wag Movie
In March 2002 U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney toured the Middle East trying to drum up Arab support for a second American-led war against Iraq. He was politely informed by Arab leaders to crawl back into his hole. So the Bush administration now needs another Big Catastrophe on American soil to justify the war they want to wage against Iraq.
"I think that the prospects of a future [terrorist] attack on the U.S. are almost a certainty." — Dick Cheney, speaking on Fox News, 2002-05-19
Look for something like a low-yield nuclear explosion in the vicinity of Washington D.C. (downwind from the White House and far enough away from Langley that the spooks won't have to evacuate), sufficient to scare the congresscritters into going into the underground bunkers that have been prepared for them, after which America will be entirely in the hands of George W. Bush's "shadow government".
In the meantime, and just in time for the mid-term Congressional elections, we have the 2002-10-12 terrorist bombing at Kuta in Bali. It seems likely that this was the work of the same people who carried out the attacks of September 11th. It was a psychological operation directed mainly against the people of Australia, most of whom are opposed to their government's support of America's plans to wage war on Iraq. For a fuller consideration of this matter see:
Wars end when one of the opposing sides is beaten into submission and can no longer fight. But if one side is invisible then the war can never end, because there is no way to know that the opposing side has been defeated. Indeed, if the American people begin to believe that perhaps the "terrorist threat" has begun to recede you can be sure that another "terrorist attack" will occur, courtesy of those scripting the "War on Terrorism", which will return them to their former state of fear and dread, which is just where the perpetrators want them to be. The "enemy" will remain an invisible, diabolical presence, unseen except for its evil effects when "the terrorists" attack again. The American people have entered what may be a long, drawn-out, nightmare, in which nothing will be what it seems. It is The Towering Inferno, Armageddon and The X-Files suddenly emerging into daily life.
The "War on Terrorism" is the psy-war successor to the "War on Drugs". It has been clear to almost everyone for quite some time that the "War on Drugs" is totally discredited, and those who are informed know that it is basically a component in a huge and long-running scam whereby the U.S. government finances its covert operations and (in part) its military by means of its profits from its international drug trafficking (see Prohibition: The So-Called War on Drugs for details). It became clear to the U.S. government, especially in view of the tolerance and regulation of drug use adopted in recent years in many European countries, that it can no longer maintain its "War on Drugs" with any degree of credibility. Thus the people of the U.S. had to be hoodwinked into supporting a new "War", and the bogeyman of "militant Arab fundamentalists" (helped greatly by a Jewish-dominated mainstream media and terrorist attacks on the WTC in 1993, probably provoked by the FBI, and on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which US Army explosives had reportedly been used) provided a useful target.
This "War on Terrorism", like the "War on Drugs", will involve the usual propaganda techniques such as lies, deception, misrepresentation of opposition viewpoints, disinformation, fake opposition and media emphasis on what is irrelevant (for example, that Mohammed Atta may have contacted an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague — of only minor interest since there were no on-board hijackers and he and the other Arabs on board were set up to take the blame). The propaganda campaign will continue until the instigators and scripters of this "War" believe they have finally gained domination over all countries and have attained control of the entire planet and all its economic resources — or until they themselves have been defeated.
9. Wars for Oil
If we neglect the fact that in the 19th Century the U.S. stole what has become the continental United States from its original inhabitants, the Native American Indians (killing millions of them in the process), we have to say that the U.S. began its imperialist program in 1898 when it annexed the Philippines to benefit American companies wanting to exploit the land and the people. Since then it has maintained the same predatory attitude to the rest of the world.Skipping over a long history of U.S. imperialist aggression against other countries, we may note that the U.S. did not go to war in the Persian Gulf in 1991 to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi aggression (to which its ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, had given a green light) but rather to move military forces into the area and to establish military bases so as to exercise greater control over the area's oil. Talk of removing "that evil dictator Saddam Hussein" is simple obfuscation. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are lying to the American people when they pretend to be outraged at the actions of the Iraqi dictator (whom the U.S. supported right up until 1991, including Saddam's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds). In fact it is control of Middle Eastern oil which is the primary motivation for U.S. military plans for that area.
Even before assuming the office of President it was announced by George W. Bush that war was planned.
And so one of Secretary [of Defense] Rumsfeld's first tasks will be ... to develop a strategy necessary to have a force equipped for warfare of the 21st century. — George W. Bush, Washington DC, December 28, 2000
And, conveniently enough, the attacks of September 11th provided just the excuse needed for a yet greater military build up (and justification for Bush's $344 billion war budget) — in particular the already-planned development of "defensive" missiles, allegedly to foil attacks by "international terrorists" (even though they neither possess nor need intercontinental nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles), but which might also prove quite useful in defending the U.S. from retaliation by any nation which it chooses to attack.
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind ... — Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations
As a member of the United Nations the U.S. has committed itself to the principles expressed in the Charter. Since 1980, however, the U.S. has consistently flouted these principles, abrogating treaties and attacking other nations without international consent.
Indeed, the U.S. government, in violation of the United Nations charter and international law, has now given itself permission — in the form of a congressional resolution — to attack whoever it wants to, to engage openly in political assassinations in the manner of Israel, and generally to wage war upon whoever it chooses to label as its enemy. Already the number of innocent civilians who have died as a result of U.S. military action (in Afghanistan) is greater than the number of those who died in the WTC attack. But, of course, since those killed were not Americans, British or Australians, this is of no concern, except insofar as it might result in international condemnation, making it difficult to maintain the "international coalition" that the U.S. seeks to provide a fig-leaf for its planned military aggression against those countries which decline to accede to its demands. And, by the way, such aggression and the collateral regional wars that it will cause in various parts of Asia will, of course, be good for U.S. arms manufacturers, and other American companies with friends in the U.S. government, which profit from war.
Not only did Bush announce a "War on Terrorism", he even spoke stupidly of a "crusade", invoking memories of the medieval Christian crusades against Islam to recover "the Holy Land" (conveniently forgetting that the Crusaders held Palestine for a comparatively brief period before they were defeated by Muslim forces under Saladin on July 4th, 1187, and subsequently driven into the sea). These days, for some people, oil is the holy grail, and recovery of the Holy Land means gaining control of the oil fields, the primary reason why America has given itself permission to invade whatever countries it chooses to.
And it's not just Middle Eastern oil — there are huge oil deposits in the Caspian Basin (larger than in Saudia Arabia). In 1998 Unocal testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that a pipeline across Afghanistan was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to the Indian Ocean. Bush and the American oil companies would dearly like to lay such a pipeline across Afghanistan but they could not do so while the Taleban ruled Afghanistan because the Taleban demanded
too large a per centage as their cut for allowing the pipeline project to proceed. Hence, the oil monopoly needs to overthrow the Kabul government, install their own government, and proceed with the pipeline project. — Sherman H. Skolnick, The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 2
| George Monbiot: America's Pipe Dream |
And, sure enough, in September 2002 plans for this pipeline were being implemented.
Oil ministers from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan [were] to meet in the Afghan capital Kabul Monday [2002-09-16] to review progress on the 1,500-kilometer, $2billion Afghan-Pakistan-Turkmenistan gas pipeline, officials said. ... The pipeline is to carry gas from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad-Donmez field to Afghanistan and Multan, Pakistan. It is supported by the United States. — Islamic Republic News Agency
And in December 2002 the deal was signed.
Turkmen President Sapamurat Niyazov, Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali and Afghan President Hamid Karzai finalised a vital gas pipeline agreement here on Thursday [2002-12-26]. The leaders of the three countries would sign the framework agreement to build the 1,500-kilometre Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) gas pipeline project from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields across Afghanistan to Pakistan on Friday. — HiPakistan.com
As is obvious, the modern West (and those countries which have followed its lead) have been built on a ruthless exploitation of the Earth's resources, particularly oil. For these countries oil is an addiction, and there is no political will to break the habit. The hyperactivity of the global economy during the last century is like the hyperactivity of a speed freak, and in the end both will crash. If the dominance of the oil industry over government is not broken then in the near future of the human race global famine and disease are a certainty (and don't think Americans, Europeans or Australians will be spared).
The System may or may not understand that it's only buying time. And that time is an artificial resource to begin with, of no value to anyone other than the System, which must sooner or later crash to its death, when its addiction to energy has become more than the rest of the World can supply, dragging with it innocent souls all along the chain of life. — Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow
And, by the way, there's something in Central Asia that's a lot more profitable than oil. This region has the main transit routes for Afghani heroin being smuggled to Western countries. When one recalls that American military cargo planes were returning from Central America in the 1980s loaded with cocaine for distribution in the U.S. by the CIA and the Mafia one has to wonder what might be in American military cargo planes currently flying out of recently-established U.S. bases and airports in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.
10. The Demise of Liberty
Immediately after the events of September 11th there were calls for greatly increased security at airports and on planes, and many millions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars were spent on this. Troops with automatic rifles stand around at airports, waiting for the next gang of Arab terrorists to burst into the departure lounge shouting "God is great!" in Arabic and threatening everyone with box cutters. Airport check-in now takes hours, passengers are subjected to invasive searches before boarding planes, women are fondled under the pretext of searching for weapons hidden in bras, and if you look Middle Eastern then you may not be allowed to fly at all. Indeed, you do not even have to look Middle Eastern; numerous people have been prevented from boarding their domestic flights because they are on a "watch list" of political or environomental activists suspected of holding views opposed to those of the U.S. government (a way to prevent them from visiting friends and colleagues and from travelling to conferences).All this is insulting, offensive, useless, irrelevant and in some cases illegal, and is a major disruption in the lives of ordinary Americans, because, as noted above, there were no suicide pilots. No hijackers boarded the four doomed planes carrying knives and box cutters, so installing expensive security equipment at airports and treating every passenger as a potential hijacker is not only an insult but is also a complete waste of time and money (though it is sure to make a lot of money for the manufacturers of airport security equipment).
Those who planned the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon would have realized that, although it was possible to crash planes into the Twin Towers under remote control, this would in itself have produced only huge damage, with perhaps hundreds of lives lost, which was not enough. What they needed was the destruction of both towers completely, for maximum psychological effect upon the people of the U.S. and the world and for the provocation of a hysterical reaction from the American people directed against Arabs and the Islamic world. Thus they needed to arrange for the demolition and total collapse of the Twin Towers following the plane impacts. This was accomplished by the use of explosives, as discussed in Section 5.
The demolition of the WTC was part of an ongoing plan (in effect since the Kennedy assassination if not before) to destroy the American Republic (what's left of it anyway) and replace it by a de facto dictatorship (as part of the drive toward a global dictatorship in the form of a world government).
Just as the Oklahoma City Bombing created a situation conducive to the government's rushing through "anti-terrorist" legislation this "Attack on America" provided a further nice justification for eliminating whatever civil liberties the American people had up to now managed to hold on to. In the name of "safety" and "security" the "authorities" now have a "legal" right (the appropriate legislation has already been passed by a compliant and corrupt Congress under the guise of "an emergency anti-terrorist package") to do whatever they want to monitor and control the entire population. Anyone accused of being "a threat to the safety and security of the American people" (in reality, to the state and those who control it) will find themselves imprisoned without benefit of trial (if they do not "disappear" completely as did many of the victims of Chile's DINA secret police). Already in mid-October 2001 the FBI announced the arrest of more than 600 people, "refusing to identify most of the detainees and offering few details about why the government wanted them behind bars." (International Herald Tribune, October 15, 2001) By December the number had grown to over 1,200, with only about a dozen of those persons charged with a crime, and with only one of them, Zacharias Moussaoui, charged with a crime related to the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Torture was being considered for those who are "uncooperative". (Let's hope no-one in your family gets arrested, by mistake, and information is demanded from them which they don't have.)
| David Cole: A Matter of Rights |
The Patriot Act is a blatant denial of the Bill of Rights and as such is grossly unconstitutional and therefore illegal. According to this disgraceful legislation:
- The FBI can now spy on your email, fax and telephone communications without even bothering to get a court order, and can demand access to your medical, employment, travel, library and bank and credit card records, simply on the grounds that you are a "suspected terrorist".
- Police may obtain a warrant to search your home (if you live on U.S. territory) on the grounds that you are a "suspected terrorist" and they may then enter your home when you are away and search through your papers and copy your computer files, and they are not obliged to inform you for another 90 days (if then).
- The Attorney General can strip any U.S. citizen of all his constitutional rights simply by declaring him or her to be a "suspected terrorist" or "enemy combatant"; no evidence is required and there is no appeal or recourse to a court of law.
- A person so designated (whether or not a U.S. citizen), or a person who provides aid (even food or shelter) to such a person, may be imprisoned without trial indefinitely.
Ashcroft announced in August 2002 plans to open camps for the incarceration of "suspected terrorists". Anyone who opposes the policies of the U.S. government may now be designated a "suspected terrorist" and may be stripped of their constitutional rights and locked up indefinitely. Clearly Ashcroft is following the example of the Nazis who lost no time after coming to power in 1933 in establishing the Dachau concentration camp for the incarceration of anyone suspected of opposing the Nazi government.
The Patriot Act is such a blatant contradiction of the Bill of Rights that all senators who voted for it are unworthy of their office, since either they read it and understood it (in which case they are guilty of treason) or they did not (in which case they failed to fulfill their responsibility as elected representatives of the people).
Moreover, the Patriot Act was not drafted in response to the events of September 11th — it was drafted well before that date, and the events of September 11th were the excuse for its introduction.
U.S. government officials would have us believe that this 342-page, complexly nuanced document was allegedly crafted after September 11 in the time span of a little over a month. To accomplish this feat would have required the in-depth study [within a month] of fifteen other lengthy acts and statutes which it modifies and amends. — Doreen Miller: High Treason in the U.S. Government
The instigators and scripters of the "War on Terrorism", who place their trust in modern technology (and propaganda), believe themselves invincible in their drive to enslave everyone, American and non-American alike. But they overlook the fact that those Americans who have not prostituted themselves to the national security state and who, as true Americans, hold liberty among their highest values (and there are a lot of them) are unlikely to submit without a fight when they understand what is really going on.
11. The U.S.A: a Terrorist State
Many still believe that the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were the work of Arab terrorists who hate America. George W. Bush has even suggested in his usual idiotic fashion that they hate America because "America is free", "America is a democracy", etc. No. America used to be admired for these qualities. Where America is now hated it is because of its long-standing and intolerable interference and domination of other countries and its impoverishment of the people of those countries.
The initiators of the attacks decided to implement their plan after America has provoked immense hatred throughout the world. Not because of its might, but because of the way it uses its might. It is hated by the enemies of globalization, who blame it for the terrible gap between rich and poor in the world. It is hated by millions of Arabs, because of its support for the Israeli occupation and the suffering of the Palestinian people. It is hated by multitudes of Muslims, because of what looks like its support for the Jewish domination of the Islamic holy shrines in Jerusalem. And there are many more angry peoples who believe that America supports their tormentors.Until September 11, 2001 ... Americans could entertain the illusion that all this concerns only others, in far-away places beyond the seas, that it does not touch their sheltered lives at home. No more.
— Uri Avnery: Twin Towers
Americans are largely unaware of the enormity of the crimes committed by their politicians. But in a representative democracy, such as allegedly exists in the U.S.A., can the people deny responsibility for the actions and policies of their government? How long can they allow their government, whose leaders they elect, to commit one atrocity after another and at the same time pretend that they themselves are innocent of any wrong-doing?
Like the Four Riders of the Apocalypse, the unknown kamikaze rode their giant crafts into the two visible symbols of American world domination, Wall Street and the Pentagon. ... They could be practically anybody: ... anybody who rejects the twin gods of the dollar and the M-16, who hates the stock market and interventions overseas, who dreams of America for Americans, who does not want to support the drive for world domination. ... Germans can remember the fiery holocaust of Dresden with its hundreds of thousands of peaceful refugees incinerated by the US Air Force. Japanese will not forget the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima. the Arab world still feels the creeping holocaust of Iraq and Palestine. Russians and East Europeans feel the shame of Belgrade avenged. ... Asians count their dead of Vietnam war, Cambodia bombings, Laos CIA operations in millions. ...The Riders could be anybody who lost his house to the bank, who was squeezed from his work and made permanently unemployed, who was declared an Untermensch by the new Herrenvolk. ...
America could see this painful strike at her Wall Street and her Pentagon, as the last call to repent. She should change her advisers, and build her relations with the world afresh, on equal footing. Probably she should rein in the domination-obsessed Jewish supremacist elites of Wall Street and media, part company with Israeli apartheid. She could become again the universally loved, rather parochial America of Walt Whitman and Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Abe Lincoln.
— Israel Shamir: Orient Express
"Repent" is an apt term. Today the United States of America is morally bankrupt. During the coming months, or while there is still time, America (and to some extent Europe) must engage in some deep self-examination. Americans have willfully ignored the reality that exists beyond their borders (other than sporting events and vacation destinations), often preferring to "create their own" so as to avoid acknowledging what they don't wish to see. Americans have been completely self-absorbed, not knowing and not wanting to know the effects of their government's policies and actions on billions of people who live outside the U.S. Those policies and actions have resulted in millions of deaths through widespread malnutrition and the persistence of eradicable diseases (such as malaria); in economic, social and educational impoverishment for the majority of the world's population; and in the denial of human rights for all those who live under tyrannical regimes supported by the U.S. That is why the U.S.A. is so hated. (And insofar as other governments — in particular, the British government — have supported, and continue to support, U.S. policies they too deserve moral condemnation.)
| Sherri Muzher: Racism: When will We Face the Facts? |
Another thing which many people find galling is the shocking hypocrisy and double standards characteristic of the American attitude to the rest of the world. Why is it "terrorism" when Palestinians defend themselves against Israeli brutality but what Israel does is not "terrorism"? How can the U.S. call for the trial of the Khmer Rouge leaders while denying the right of the recently-established International Criminal Court to try Americans?
Less visible are the many ways in which U.S. multinational corporations conspire with the U.S. government (which does its best to coerce other governments to follow it), the IMF, the World Bank and other organizations whose undeclared purpose is to make the rich richer and to maximize their profits regardless of the widespread impoverishment this brings to many people not only in developing countries but also to those people in modern industrial societies who do not belong to the moneyed and ruling class.
The facts have long been available to any U.S. resident who cares to read The Nation, Z Magazine, or the thirty or so books of Noam Chomsky (rarely mentioned in the mainstream media).
I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system. — Noam Chomsky, Language and Responsibility
Or any of the many audiotapes, videos, CD-ROMS, books and magazine articles exposing the immoralities of the CIA (a terrorist organization which richly deserves to be eliminated as soon as possible, preferably by an act of Congress, with its headquarters at Langley demolished and the land ploughed over). But no — most Americans couldn't care less about the sufferings of people outside America, being too busy either trying to survive as wage-slaves in a corporate capitalist society or (for the more fortunate) constantly scanning their immediate environment for ways to "enrich" their lives. Now they know what death, destruction, fear and dread are, what people in other countries have long known (over long periods) as a result of the actions and policies of the U.S. government and those of the corrupt regimes it has installed to serve its purposes.
So how have they responded to this revelation? Mostly with mindless demands on their government to seek revenge and further death and destruction, and George W. Bush has pandered to this desire for revenge, declaring that he wants the alleged culprit Usama bin Laden "dead or alive". Seems he's changed his views on revenge since the 2000 Presidential campaign:
... you cannot lead America to a positive tomorrow with revenge on one's mind. Revenge is so incredibly negative. — George W. Bush, Interview with the Washington Post, March 23, 2000
The attack on the Twin Towers was not the work of Arab terrorists but rather was the work of terrorists within the U.S. government itself who seek to gain control of Central Asian and Middle Eastern oil and to impose a fascist dictatorship not only upon the United States but also upon the entire world. What is to be done? The answer is that those traitors (prominent among whom is the Bush crime family) must be exposed, their crimes revealed, and they themselves removed from the positions of power they presently hold. Furthermore, government in the U.S. must be cleansed of corruption and restored to conformity with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: a restoration of the American Republic. The "anti-terrorist" legislation of October 2001 (and that of April 1995 and Britain's Terrorism Act of 2000), intended to facilitate government surveillance and control of the people so as to stifle free speech and dissent, must be repealed.
The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have a right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.— Harry Browne: Harry Browne on Anti-terrorist Proposals
America must also end its long history of the practice of genocide, honor the principles expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and cease its ruthless exploitation (mainly for the benefit of a capitalist ruling class) of the world's economic resources and the world's people. This means that better-off Americans will have to give up some of the luxuries they've taken for granted, but perhaps they can make the sacrifice more readily if they remind themselves that nearly half the people on this planet (2.8 billion) currently live (if you can call it living) on less than US$2 a day.
Examples of genocide within U.S. history are common enough not to be considered remarkable or even genocide. Among historic crimes which are not commonly called genocide: the destruction of North American Indian peoples, the liquidation of six million Brazilian Indians through the policies of multi-national corporations, effects of U.S. economic and military policies on the poor throughout the Americas, the Euro-American slave trade and subsequent treatment of black Americans, and the fate of the American poor. ...Corporate capitalism may simply be legitimized genocide by economic means. ... Those without ethics no longer sell beads to the indians, but rockets and missiles to "underdeveloped countries," where the arms kill off as many poor people as possible.
— J. B. Gerald: Is the U.S. Really a Signatory to the U.N. Convention on Genocide?
If the people of the United States do not themselves cleanse their government of its current corruption, and return the nation to conformity with the principles of a republic, upon which it was founded, then disaster will ensue: Either a global fascist dictatorship will result or the U.S. government will be destroyed by the cooperation of the other countries of the world (using whatever means necessary, military and non-military). Either of these possibilities could produce such damage on a global scale that the survival of the human species would be in doubt.
Those who think that the description of the U.S.A. as "a terrorist state" is too extreme should inform themselves of the nature of the American CIA, which is an international terrorist organization. The CIA implements the policies of the President of the United States. The CIA carries out unofficial U.S. government policy. This means that the United States is a terrorist state.
On October 12th [2001], a couple of days after the bombing [of Afghanistan] started, [George W.] Bush publicly announced to the Afghan people that we will continue to bomb you, unless your leadership turns over to us the people who we suspect of carrying out crimes, although we refuse to give you any evidence. ...Notice that is a textbook illustration of international terrorism, by the US official definition. That is the use of the threat of force or violence, in this case extreme violence, to obtain political ends through intimidation, fear and so on. That's the official definition, a textbook illustration of it.
Three weeks later, by the end of October, the war aims had changed. They were first announced as far as I can find out, by the British Defense Minister, Sir Admiral Boyce. Admiral Boyce informed the Afghan population that we will continue to bomb you until you change your leadership. Well, that's an even more dramatic illustration of international terrorism ...
— Noam Chomsky: Is the U.S. a Terrorist State?
And now in September 2002 the United States is threatening to bomb Iraq (no doubt killing many thousands of civilians and destroying much of the civilian infrastructure as it did in 1991) unless its leader resigns his position or the people of Iraq somehow manage to remove him (and allow a regime to be installed which is acceptable to Washington). Is it not glaringly obvious that the U.S.A. is a terrorist state?
Several thousand civilians died in the collapse of the WTC towers, and hundreds of military personnel were killed in the attack on the Pentagon — though the numbers are small compared to
- the hundreds of thousands of civilians incinerated in the U.S. fire bombings of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo, and in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
- the two to five million post-World-War-II refugees from the Soviet Union who were forcibly returned to Stalin, to face either immediate execution or a slow death in the Gulag, on the orders of Roosevelt and Eisenhower in Operation Keelhaul;
- the millions of civilians who died from hunger and disease as a result of U.S.-instigated mass starvation of Germans during 1945-1950 under the Morgenthau Plan;
- the millions of Native Americans killed by soldiers and occupiers of their land in the 19th Century or allowed to starve to death by the U.S. government in the 20th (a clear case of genocide);
- the thousands of Iranians tortured and murdered by SAVAK, the secret police of the regime installed in 1953 as a result of a CIA-led coup which overthrew the popular Iranian Premier, Mossadegh);
- the murder of between 20,000 and 40,000 Vietnamese from 1968 to 1971 by the CIA in their political assassination program Operation Phoenix;
- the million or so Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians killed by the American military in the 1960s and 70s whilst defending their countries from American domination (or simply because they happened to be where the Americans carried out their carpet bombings);
- the tens of thousands of civilians who were tortured and murdered by CIA-installed dictatorships in Central and South America;
- the 200,000 people (all civilians) killed (using U.S.-supplied equipment) as a result of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor in 1975 for which prior approval was given by the then U.S. President and U.S. Secretary of State (Ford and Kissinger);
- the six million Brazilian Indians who have died as a result of the policies of multinational corporations;
- the 10,000 to 20,000 people, mostly civilians, killed in the U.S.-supported 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel;
- the 300,000 Iranians killed in the Iran/Iraq war, which was started by Iraq at the instigation of the U.S. (which supplied Iraq with the weapons it used);
- the 180,000 civilians killed by Reagan's CIA-cocaine-funded Contras in Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 1980s;
- the 6,000 (perhaps as many as 20,000) Iraqi civilians killed during the 41 days and nights of bombing by the British and the Americans in 1991 (during which time the civilian infrastructure was targeted, a war crime), including:
- the 500 civilians (including whole families) burnt alive and turned into cinders when American missiles penetrated a shelter in Baghdad;
- the tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts slaughtered on the "Highway of Death" by U.S. Navy pilots during their attempted retreat from Kuwait in 1991 (another war crime because the soldiers killed were not in a combat situation);
- the tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians killed in South-East Turkey during the 1990s by Turkish government soldiers using weapons and equipment supplied to them by the U.S. (which knew exactly what they were doing with them);
- the tens of thousands of civilians in Sudan who have died due to the absence of medicines resulting from the destruction of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant by American cruise missiles in 1998 and from the economic sanctions imposed on Sudan;
- the one to two million Iraqi civilians, two-thirds of them children, who have died in the last ten years as a result of the effects of the hundreds of tons of cancer-causing depleted uranium left over from the million or so exploded rounds of DU ammunition used in attacks by American warplanes in the 1991 American/British 6-week terrorist campaign against Iraq and from the subsequent U.S./British-imposed economic blockade and criminally punitive sanctions (not to mention those killed by the bombing raids which occur every week);
- and the tens of millions of civilians who die every year in Third World countries from starvation, disease and despair because their countries are mired in poverty and corruption as a result of economic exploitation by American multinationals acting with the support and approval of the American government.
To those in the higher echelons of a government of a terrorist state which, by means of its military and its CIA, has killed tens of millions of civilians in foreign countries, the killing of a few thousand of their fellow citizens is simply another exercise in mass murder, needing a little more planning, but not much different to what they and their predecessors have done before.
When asked about the number of Iraqis who died in the war [the 1991 Gulf Slaughter], US General Colin Powell [current US Secretary of State] replied: "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." — The Allied Genocide of Iraq [link expired]
12. The Corruption of the Republic
The BBC's George Arney reported on September 18, 2001, that Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had stated that he had been informed by senior American officials at a Berlin UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan in mid-July that Pentagon plans for a military assault on Afghanistan had already been completed. (This was the meeting in which a U.S. representative threatened the Taliban representatives with a carpet of bombs.) The assault on Afghanistan had to be carried out before snow begins to fall in the mountain passes, which is around mid-October — and, indeed, it began on October 7th, 2001. The timing of the WTC attack was thus very convenient.The Pentagon was clearly delighted at the opportunity of trying out all the new-fangled lethal technology it had developed in the ten years since it last demonstrated its capability for mass slaughter in its 1991 terrorist campaign in the Gulf (this was in part a demonstration of its weapons systems for the benefit of potential purchasers, and the same happened again in Afghanistan).
The AC-130 [gunship, which began to be deployed in Afghanistan in mid-October 2001] is one of the most lethal American warplanes in terms of its ability to chew up ground forces. ... [and] because of its fearsome firepower. It circles a target and saturates it with automatic fire from three computer-controlled guns, including cannon and heavy machine guns capable of firing 1,800 rounds a minute. The plane's guns can cover an area the size of eight football fields with a round in each square yard ... [and] has banks of electronic sensors on board capable of detecting ground targets normally elusive from the air." — International Herald Tribune, October 17, 2001, p.1
It was an AC-130 gunship which attacked a compound in the village of Kakarak, Afghanistan, on July 1st, 2002, resulting in the deaths of 48 people, mainly women and children, and the injury of another 117. Such weapons are just the latest in a long line of devices invented in the United States for efficient slaughter on a large scale, from the Gatling gun (invented about 1862) to the atomic bomb (the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused more than a quarter of a million deaths and injuries) to the hydrogen bomb (whose capability to cause death and destruction is almost unlimited) to cluster bombs and fuel-air bombs.
The [fuel-air] bomb works thus: there are two detonations; the first spreads a fine mist of fuel into the air, turning the area [about the size of a football field] into an explosive mix of vast proportion; then a second detonation ignites the mixture, causing an awesome explosion. The explosion is about the most powerful "conventional" explosion we know of. At a pressure shock of up to 200 pounds per square inch (PSI), people in its detonation zone are often killed by the sheer compression of the air around them. Human beings can typically withstand up to about a 40-PSI shock. The bomb sucks oxygen out of the air, and can apparently even suck the lungs out through the mouths of people unfortunate enough to be in the detonation zone. Our military used it on helpless people [in the 1991 Gulf Slaughter]. — Wade Frazier: My Experiences in America Regarding Iraq
A soldier who is prepared to risk his own life when attempting to kill enemy soldiers is a brave man. Such a man is not to be despised. But the design, development, deployment and use of this sort of highly efficient lethal technology is done, not by brave men, but by cowards — by those willing to slaughter other humans only if their own lives are not placed in danger. It can only be done by people who are either mentally ill, morally depraved or too stupid to understand what they are really doing. And as well they do it for the money — so they are basically hired killers.
In early November the Americans began to drop "daisy cutter" bombs on troops in the Taleban front lines. This "daisy cutter" is the fuel-air bomb as described above. Only a nation sunk in depravity could descend to the use of such diabolic devices against human beings, soldiers or otherwise. The United States thus shows itself to be depraved and barbaric. And any nation which, by providing military support to the American war machine, condones this barbarity forfeits (as the United States has already forfeited) any claim it might have to be regarded as a civilized nation in the eyes of the world. A barbarian nation drags its allies into barbarity also.
Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler the German nation sank also into barbarity (from which it emerged after 1945). One of the defining characteristics of the German Nazis was their willingness to use violence to achieve their ends — not just their willingness to use violence but their willingness to use unlimited violence. As for them, for those who now control the American military juggernaut, there is no limit to the degree of death and destruction that they are willing to use to achieve their ends. This is one reason why they may properly, truly and without exaggeration, be described as "Nazis".
Are these the sort of "leaders" that the American people really want? These calculating, cold-blooded, racist mass murderers? Are they representative of what America stands for?
Perhaps so. The worship of violence, death and destruction has in recent decades become a defining characteristic of contemporary American society. It appears in its television shows, its video games and its Hollywood-produced films. It manifests itself in the willingness of its multinational corporations to rape the Earth. America is by far the largest manufacturer and merchandiser on the planet of lethal hardware, of military and police equipment, of machines for the production of death and destruction. This is a sign of a profoundly sick society.
This state of affairs has not come about because the American people are inherently violent and psychopathic. As with all social matters of this scale the historical causes are complex. But one of them is the dominance in American society of corporate capitalism, which elevates shareholder profit above all other concerns, and which has created the social conditions where evil men can attain great power and influence, both within government and without. The American people tend to trust their government and their political leaders (though there have always been those who could recognize corruption in individual politicians when they saw it). This trust is given partly because of the indoctrination Americans receive as children in school but also partly because their government was in fact founded on republican principles designed to ensure their liberty and happiness. But this trust has now been betrayed. When evil men become leaders of the nation this corruption percolates down and sickens all levels of society.
Since the end of World War II, and partly due to the absorption then into the American "security and intelligence" agencies of so many former Nazis (Gestapo, SS and Wehrmacht intelligence), the entire political structure of the United States has been infected with evil. There have, of course, been men of outstanding moral stature, for example, Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr, U.S. Senator George Mitchell and President John F. Kennedy (whose assassination in 1963, probably involving the CIA (attempting to stage an assassination attempt to be blamed on Castro so as to justify an invasion of Cuba), the FBI, the Mafia, military intelligence, American supporters of Israel and two future U.S. Presidents, Nixon and Bush Sr., was the first coup d'etat in the history of the U.S., the second being the coup which began with the 2000 usurpation of the Presidency by George W. Bush, a coup which is still being implemented in 2002 under cover of the "War on Terrorism" and has not yet been completed).
But there have also been corrupt Supreme Court Justices (Rehnquist and Scalia), primitive, blatantly racist U.S. Senators (Jesse Helms), a transvestite head of the FBI who was blackmailed into ignoring organized crime (J. Edgar Hoover), a scumbag President (Nixon) succeeded by a series of traitors possessing only contempt for the U.S. Constitution (Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.), along with a multitude of elected and unelected officials (including many judges at all levels) whose only concern was and has been their own power, prestige and material wealth, who were and are ready to support genocidal foreign and domestic policies (targeted at the expendable and the non-white both within and without the U.S.) as long as there is something in it for them.
But we should not blame only the leaders and official functionaries, corrupt and in same cases evil, though they may be. It is not fundamentally the government which is at fault — it is the mass of the people themselves, who seem to lack the moral sense required of a people who are to restrain their government from descent into depravity.
Many Americans have consciously prostituted themselves, realizing that the CIA and gang are creating immense death and destruction throughout the world, but as long as they enjoy cheap gasoline, coffee, bananas and tennis shoes, they think it is great. ... Many in the upper classes think that the CIA, FBI and NSA are great institutions, keeping the chips flowing their way. Those who condone bloodshed and exploitation in the service of their lifestyles, often coming up with highly strained rationales, will create future circumstances where they will find the shoe on the other foot. They will experience what living like a slave is like, barely surviving while their masters live in opulence.— Wade Frazier: Investigating Possible Conspiracies
Actually democracy itself, when implemented so that every adult (however stupid) is given a right to vote, is inherently flawed, since it inevitably becomes the tyranny of the majority. As noted 200 years ago by A. F Tyler, democracy leads to the corruption of the financial system of any nation, because voters (in particular the stupid and self-interested ones) sooner or later discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, by electing whichever politician promises to give it to them. In order to fulfill that promise (to some extent at least, so as to be re-elected) that politician must connive in the acquisition of government wealth by any means available, which in the case of the United States, is mainly the economic exploitation of third-world countries and of the economic resources of the planet (partly to manufacture weapons of death to sell to those and other third-world countries for financial gain).
A U.S. politician remains in office basically by stealing (together with his fellow politicians) from the rest of the world to finance the comparatively comfortable (and generally self-indulgent) lifestyle of the middle-class American voter (whether Democrat or Republican). George W. Bush's "War on Terrorism" is a campaign, not against terrorism, but to gain total control of the Earth's economic resources so as to maintain this system of global theft. Without continued capitalist exploitation of the planet's resources the American social and financial system will collapse. But if it persists then we face global tyranny and probably global eco-death once the fifty billion barrels of oil in the Caspian Basin (following a similar amount from already-exploited resources) has been extracted, refined and burned, with the major risk of producing irreversible atmospheric heating.
Contrary to the widespread belief among Americans that the U.S. is a constitutional democracy, the words "democracy" and "democratic" are nowhere used in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution of the United States does not establish a democracy; it establishes a republic.
... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. — James Madison, as quoted in Robert Welch's Republics and Democracies
Democracy in the United States (in which the votes of dim-witted uneducated manipulable illiterates count as much as the votes of those of above-average intelligence who can understand what is best for society as a whole and not just for themselves) has finally produced a tyranny, with power concentrated in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government and denied to the states and to the people. The other two branches of the government, the legislative and the judicial, have largely become willing tools of the executive, exactly as happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Everything the German Nazis did was legal, either because they appointed corrupt judges to interpret existing law as the Nazis wished or because they enacted laws to allow them to do what they wished to do (as has again occurred in the U.S. Congress with the October 2001 passage of the grossly misnamed "Patriot Act" — those congresscritters really have a perverted sense of humor).
The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want [that is, do not lack] virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots. — Elbridge Gerry, delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, as quoted in Republics and Democracies
But actually the executive branch no longer requires a compliant legislative branch to enact laws because it can do so itself, by means of executive orders. The President can stipulate that something is the case and if no-one in Congress raises any objection within a few weeks (and no congresscritter has ever raised any objection to the thousands of executive orders which have been promulgated) then whatever the President has stipulated becomes part of the law of the land. This mechanism of executive orders provides near-dictatorial powers to the U.S. President.
And George W. Bush has now issued an executive order giving him the legal right to order the killing of anyone deemed to be a terrorist (Bush Gives Green Light to CIA for Assassination of Named Terrorists). Interestingly, it seems that although the executive order is presented as applying to foreign "terrorists" there is nothing to prevent it from being applied to domestic "terrorists". A "terrorist" is a "terrorist" whether he is within the borders of the U.S. or beyond. And who's to say a "terrorist" cannot be an American citizen? Thus George W. Bush has now given himself the legal right to order the killing of any American citizen that he chooses to label as a "terrorist". The American Republic has indeed fallen upon grim times.
A tyrannical executive branch of the U.S. federal government, arrogating all rights and powers to itself in blatant disregard of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, has now embarked on a war of aggression against the rest of the world (particularly against any countries whose actions may threaten American economic dominance), having cynically duped the American people (by carrying out a fake terrorist attack which took the lives of thousands of them and then blaming "Arab terrorists") into believing that this is a just and moral war. It is an administration that is dominated by men who have no moral scruples, who seek only to increase their own power and wealth, who have only contempt for the principles upon which the United States was founded, who are in fact traitors to the American Republic, and who deserve to receive the penalty for treason — and that soon, before they succeed in extending the tyranny which now exists in the United States to encompass the entire planet (or else produce by their actions the enormous death and destruction resulting from another world war, with large-scale use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons).
13. Questions About the Events of September 11th
There are some who wish to dismiss this webpage as 'conspiracy stuff', and pour scorn upon its author. Such people never offer answers to the following questions. As Gore Vidal has recently stated (The Enemy Within), "Apparently 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth."
- In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware (or so they say) of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN? And why has this (apparent) incompetence been rewarded with yet more billions?
- The four AA and UA jets took off with an average occupancy rate of 27%. That four airliners from major airlines leaving from the East Coast around 9 a.m. on a weekday for the West Coast would all have such low occupancy rates is highly unlikely. Was the booking system tampered with in order to ensure such low occupancy rates (so that the passengers from all four planes could eventually be loaded onto UA Flight 93 for elimination)?
- Why would hijackers intending to crash planes into the WTC hijack jets taking off from Boston rather than from someplace closer such as JFK Airport in New York?
- Why would hijackers intending to crash a plane into the Pentagon hijack a jet from Dulles Airport near Washington DC (and thus close to the Pentagon) and allow it to fly for 40 minutes away from its target before turning around and flying another 40 minutes back to it (knowing that interception by military jets during this time would in normal circumstances have been very likely)?
- AA Flight 77 (the jet which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon) was allegedly hijacked at about 9 a.m., at about the same time as the Twin Tower impacts, and its change of course back toward Washington, or its transponder having been turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why, then, were U.S. Air Force jets not scrambled to intercept AA Flight 77 forty minutes before it (allegedly) hit the Pentagon, when there were U.S. Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice?
- Why are the FAA, the FBI, the CIA and the NSA refusing to release any transcripts of communications from the four doomed Boeings on September 11th or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?
- Where are the black boxes (the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders) from all four jets? These black boxes are designed to survive any crash. Have they been examined by experts from the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency which normally investigates airplane crashes? If not, why not?
- In particular, what is on the FDR and the CVR from UA Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania? Why, exactly, did this jet crash? Was it shot down?
- "Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001) If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing? (For wind-borne debris to travel six miles in, say, six minutes requires a 60 mph wind.)
- Were the conversations between the pilots of the other three hijacked planes and air traffic controllers recorded? If so, what did those pilots say? Were those recordings siezed by the FBI? Were (alleged) transcripts given by the FBI to the mainstream media? Were those transcripts fabricated to provide false evidence in support of the "Arab hijackers" story?
- Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?
- Since no public TV cameras were trained on the North Tower at the time of impact, what was the source of the transmission of the North Tower impact which George W. Bush says he saw before he went into the classroom in Florida? Why did he do nothing (except continue listening to a little girl's story about a goat) for half an hour after he was informed that the second jet hit the South Tower (and that America was "under attack")? Did Bush have prior knowledge of the WTC attack?
- Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)? Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists at all? Did the FBI prepare in advance a list of the names (and aliases) of the (alleged) "Arab hijackers" on those flights?
- Why did the South Tower collapse first, 56 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?
- If the outer perimeter walls of the Twin Towers were connected to the central cores only by lightweight trusses, how was wind load on the towers transmitted to the central core (as it must have been because the floors did not buckle in a strong wind)?
- What exactly was the nature of the structural connections between the outer perimeter wall and the central core of the two towers? Is it not false that this consisted only of lightweight flimsy trusses? Is it not the case that the connection was actually made with 32,000 tons of steel beams?
- Why are the architect's plans of the Twin Towers not publicly available?
- Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 56 minutes? If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, and toppled over onto the surrounding buildings in the Lower Manhattan financial district, rather than collapsing neatly upon themselves in the manner of a controlled demolition?
- Were the Twin Towers re-engineered in the mid-1990s to make possible a collapse-on-demand if that were judged necessary? Was FEMA aware of this? Do blueprints of the Twin Towers in the possession of the past owners reveal any evidence of this?
- Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced? How could fire convert concrete into dust? Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced?
- Were any tests done on the debris for the presence of radioactivity?
- Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of airliner impacts and fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know exactly how this was accomplished)?
- Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?
- What was the actual size of the entrance hole made by the object which hit the Pentagon? Is it not the case that photographic evidence reveals that it was in fact at most just a few meters in diameter, much too small to have been made by a Boeing 757 jet, but just the right size for a missile?
- Why were no aircraft fragments, identifiable as coming from a Boeing 757, recovered from the Pentagon crash site?
- Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives for burial?
- Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?
- In September the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an inquiry to establish who benefited from the unusually high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options. Why has this inquiry stalled? Why have those who benefited from the purchases of these put options not been identified (or at least, not publicly)?
- Is it not the case that this atrocity was planned and carried out by elements at high levels of command in the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, the Justice Department and FEMA (possibly with the involvement of well-placed civilians outside the government), acting under orders from, or with the approval of, high officials within the U.S. Administration, and that those same elements are now directing a propaganda campaign against the American people to justify a war of aggression in Asia and the Middle East aimed at controlling the oil and mineral wealth of those regions?
- Why is the U.S. mainstream media ignoring questions like these?
14. The American Drive for World Domination
In August 2002 George W. Bush (whose public utterances have finally demonstrated that he is mentally deranged, unhinged, demented and a lunatic) and his crony Tony Blair were talking up their intention to attack Iraq, going on like a broken record about its "efforts to create weapons of mass destruction", hypocritically ignoring the facts that (a) it is the U.S. which leads the world in the manufacture and use of such weapons (Germany and Japan 1945, Vietnam and Cambodia 1960s and 70s, Iraq 1991, Kosovo 1999 and Afghanistan 2001 — not all weapons of mass destruction are nuclear) and (b) it is Israel, America's client state in the Middle East, which already possesses "weapons of mass destruction" and is entirely willing to use them against its neighbours.Iraq's immediate neighbours do not consider Iraq a military threat, so why should the U.S.? Iraq's missiles can reach parts of Europe and Russia but neither Europe nor Russia considers Iraq a threat; indeed, in mid-2002 Russia signed a multi-billion dollar trade deal with Iraq. Only Israel considers Iraq a threat (consistent with the pan-Arab hatred of Israel for its brutality toward the Palestinians), and in the U.S. Congress and in the Bush Administration what Israel wants Israel gets.
As British elder statesman Tony Benn has said, the American desire for a war against Iraq is based not on any concern over what weapons Saddam Hussein might possess but springs from the desire of the U.S. to grab Iraq's oil.
Bush's "War on Terrorism" is not about terrorism (except insofar as staged terrorist acts are an important part of the propaganda campaign) — it's about control of all of the Earth's economic resources, not just oil.
| Arundhati Roy: Why America Must Stop the War Now |
He [Bush] wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It was used by Hitler. — German Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin, 2002-09-20. (For other similarities see Perils of Cocaine Abuse.)
If Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are allowed to proceed with their plan to attack Iraq it will lead to the overthrow of those Arab regimes whose leaders are in the pay of the Americans (in the case of Egypt, to the extent of a good chunk of the two billion dollars per year military "aid"). Will Middle Eastern oil continue to flow to the Western industrial societies and to Japan and to China? What might be the consequences for those countries (especially as regards feeding their people and keeping them warm in winter) if oil supplies are cut off for an extended period of time?
World War III will involve the nuclear- and CBW-armed countries of India, Pakistan, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel and the U.S. itself, and it will mean that millions of soldiers and civilians will die: shot, burnt, blasted, asphyxiated, crushed, incinerated, poisoned. Nor will all these civilians be Asian; this war will also extend to the U.S. mainland and probably to Europe, despite what the Pentagon planners intend. Violence will lead to more violence, and wars will escalate (remember "escalation"?) until eventually nuclear weapons are used — first "low-yield", later the big ones, in the megaton range, whose detonations (if there are enough of them, and we don't know how many will be used) will produce high levels of radiation in the atmosphere of (mainly) the Northern Hemisphere, leading to millions of cases of cancer among the populations of Western countries.
And what if the U.S. warmongers achieve their aims of gaining control of all sources of oil in Asia (and the Middle East and North Africa), and of the mineral wealth of Central Asia? Will the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese feel secure in the knowledge that the United States will surely sell them whatever they need to maintain their industrial economies — and their military capabilities? (The Russian and Chinese leaders surely understand the long-term threat to their national sovereignty, and are acting accordingly.)
Or is there something even more sinister going on? Is the goal "at the highest level" the extinction of the human species? If so, will the American people prove to be "useful idiots" facilitating the attainment of this goal? Or, on the contrary, might they yet awaken from their ignorance, their stupidity, their greed and their egoism, take a hard look at themselves, understand what their lying, vicious, rapacious, hypocritical government is doing in the name of "freedom and democracy", and rein in and reform that government, reconstitute their nation as a republic as the authors of the Constitution intended, and save the world, as they believe (or used to believe) is their manifest destiny?
After September 11th revenge was uppermost in the minds of most Americans and few of them were inclined to look at what brought this catastrophe to their land. Were they to look for the causes of the events of September 11th they might eventually be led to ask themselves whether their government is not so hypocritical, vicious, ignoble and immoral, so much the opposite of that ideal of government expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, that it must be reformed completely, with most of its current office holders, in particular, the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary, the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff removed in disgrace, before they can again think of themselves as Americans with any degree of self-respect.
Their mindlessness is willful, and at least partly conscious. They do not know what is really happening because they do not want to know what is really happening. Why? As far as I have seen, it is because they benefit from the current arrangement (at least in the short term), and denial helps protect their flickering consciences. ...All those institutions that we have given our power away to — corporations, governments, churches, etc. — have largely enslaved us with our own power. The only path to true freedom is by reclaiming our power, responsibility and sovereignty, and doing it lovingly.
— Wade Frazier: The Things We Do Not Want To Know
For most of their short history Americans have been adolescents. Brash, ignorant, naïve, overconfident and infatuated with power. And, like adolescents, they have never understood or believed in evil. As a result of September 11th they have lost their innocence. They now know what evil is, at first hand. But many Americans (encouraged by their warmongering politicians) insist on projecting that evil "out there" — onto Arabs and Muslims — and insist on hating "them". But the evil of September 11th did not have its origin "out there". It is an evil at the heart, not of America, but of a corrupt and depraved American government. If and when Americans acknowledge this (before their warmongering politicians take them into World War III) then maybe (just maybe) they can save their country, themselves and the rest of the world. But this is probably too much to expect from a country in which 49% of the voters (or of those whose votes were counted anyway) in the 2000 Presidential election were so stupid as to vote for someone who even then was obviously a moron who cared only for himself and his cronies in big business (and secretly for his pals in Skull and Bones).
Have America's geopolitical strategists really thought through the consequences of an attack on Iraq and of what they plan thereafter? Perhaps they have, and see advantage to themselves in the form of the eventual realization of the goal that the Nazis set for themselves in the 1930s: a global fascist dictatorship achieved by the use of military force, and the consequent enslavement of all humans (with those unfit to work being eliminated).
We ordinary Americans are being led, step by step, down the road to a dictatorship more evil and all-pervasive than that of the late Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party of the German aristocracy. — Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 2
Writing to your Congresscritter will do no good (they do not represent the interests of the people and in any case are almost all spineless traitors). Political action within the system might (just possibly) have some effect. Demonstrating against America's criminal foreign policy — especially if you do this in the U.S. — will get you tear gas and rubber bullets (which could be useful if this appears on the news night after night, as the Vietnam War did in the 1960s).
To the American aristocracy, the true enemy has always been, and still is, the American common people. — Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 14
Although this section is entitled "The American Drive for World Domination" those who are planning and implementing this drive are not all American. Those at the top of the human chain of command are to be found in
the political and corporate elites of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union — also, as it happens, the very parties orchestrating the global war on terrorism. — Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11
The machinery of the New World Order is already in place. The Office of Homeland Security (and its Stasi-plan for making 5% of the American population informers upon the rest) is only the most public manifestation of it. Have you heard of the Executive Secretariat, the Joint Task Force Civil Support and Phase III? How about the Doctrine for Joint Urban Operations and the DSB Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism? No? Well, you're not supposed to. While most of the citizens of the United States remain as ignorant as sheep (mostly because they don't wish to know) their cryptofascist government is hell-bent on taking control of the entire globe by the use of its military forces. All countries, if they are not already, will soon be under the threat of annihilation by a supposedly invincible American military superiority. At the same time the U.S. secret government, the prototype for a global dictatorship, will be extending its Satanic legal system (including civil asset forfeiture laws) to the entire world either by forcing all other countries to sign "treaties" committing them to (in effect) submit themselves to American legal jurisdiction or by ensuring the dominance of fascist elements within other governments. And with control of Middle Eastern and Central Asian oil (if the U.S. achieves this) all other countries will have to submit to American demands or see their people go hungry (like much of the world already does) and cold in winter (with rioting in the streets put down by the usual brutal methods). Welcome to the New World Order — what they used to call "The Thousand-Year Reich". Like it? No? Then what are you going to do about it?
Their world government is based on lies, supported by the power of money; but now the lies are beginning to unravel. It is time to withdraw our support, challenge their legitimacy, and push their lies toward collapse. There is no Constitution. There is no Bill of Rights. There is no legitimate government. There is no America left to restore. We shall welcome the ensuing chaos as a return of liberty.— Grugyn Silverbristle: Team Bush Betrays America
Related Documents on this Website
- David Rostcheck Message concerning the WTC Attack
- Fintan Dunne: The Split-Second Error
- Fintan Dunne: The Blockbuster
- J. McMichael: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part I
- J. McMichael: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part II
- Ummat: Interview with Usama bin Laden
- Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
- Carol Valentine: Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
- Carol Valentine: Anti-war.com: Slyly Justifying The War On Islam
- Leonard Spencer: The Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking
- Gerard Holmgren: Debunking Conspiracy Theorists
- Christopher Bollyn: Laser Beam Weapons and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
- Christopher Bollyn: Seismic Evidence Points to Underground Explosions Causing WTC Collapse
- James S. Adam: Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
- United Nations: Preamble to the U.N. Charter
- U.S. Senate: Congressional resolution
- George Sunderland: Our Vichy Congress
- John Pilger: Blair has made Britain a Target
- George Monbiot: America's Pipe Dream
- David Cole: A Matter of Rights
- Thomas Jefferson: The Bill of Rights
- Lee Rodgers: The Duplicity of the War on Drugs
- Wade Frazier: The Things We Do Not Want To Know
- Wade Frazier: Letter from America (about Iraq)
- Marc Bumgarner: Why They Hate Us — A Re-Examination
- Sherri Muzher: Racism: When will We Face the Facts?
- Harry Browne: On Anti-terrorist Proposals
- George Paxinos: Greenbrier and the Coming War
- George Paxinos: W A K E U P C A L L ! ! !
- Thierry Meyssan: Who was Behind the September 11th Attacks?
- Noam Chomsky: Is the U.S. a Terrorist State?
- Noam Chomsky: On Patriotism
- Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Howard Zinn et al.: Not In Our Name
- Cheryl Seal: Smoking Gun: The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush
- J. B. Gerald: Is the U.S. Really a Signatory to the U.N. Convention on Genocide?
- Arundhati Roy: Why America Must Stop the War Now
- David North: The War against Iraq and America's Drive for World Domination
- Doreen Miller: High Treason in the U.S. Government
- Neal Smith: Occupied America
- Grugyn Silverbristle: Team Bush Betrays America
- Philip Agee: Producing the Proper Crisis
- John Stockwell: The Secret Wars of the CIA
- Robert Welch: Republics and Democracies
- Dr Martin Luther King Jr: Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
- Gore Vidal: The Enemy Within
- Charles Hayes: Is Taking Psychedelics the Answer to the War on Terror?
- Voxfux: New York Nuked
- Voxfux: Bali Bombing — the real facts
- Archaeos Prime: Possible Patterns and Motivations Forming for September 11th Sequel?
- The South Tower Impact
- Other WTC Building "Collapses"
- Debris Mountain Starts to Shrink
- SEC Releases List of Suspect Trades
- Insurers Debate: One Accident or Two?
- Bush Flubs it Again: Details and Confirmation of Prior Knowledge
- Perils of Cocaine Abuse
- 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes
- MIT Report on WTC Collapse is Incompetent
- Reply to Criticism of this Page
- Second Reply to Criticism of WTC Demolition Page
- Third Reply to Criticism of WTC Demolition Page
- Three reviews of Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth
- Former German Minister Speaks Out About September 11th and After
- 'Crude lies' used to justify war on Saddam
- Ashcroft Following Nazi Example
- The Enemy is Very Much Within
- The Meaning of the Kuta Bombing
- Corporate Suppliers for Iraq's Weapons Programs
- On Democracy in Our Republic
- Propaganda Techniques
- The Declaration of Independence
- New Declaration of Independence
- Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks
- Bush Gives Green Light to CIA for Assassination of Named Terrorists
- The CIA as a Terrorist Organization
- A CIA Reading List
- The CIA: Audiotapes, Videos, CD-ROMs, Books and Articles
Relevant Web Pages
The following external web pages (some already referenced in the body of the article) contain information and analysis which throw much light on what actually happened on September 11th, 2001, and provide evidence as to who was behind it. The availability of this information and analysis on the web contrasts with the U.S. government's refusal to conduct a genuine forensic investigation (though the reason is clear: such an investigation would cast serious doubt on the official story and would risk exposing the identity of the perpetrators and their motivation). There are, of course, other important websites (a few mirrored on this site and included in the list above) which are not given here.
The following are concerned more with the consequences of the attacks of September 11th, in particular, its use as a legitimation for the U.S.'s war against the rest of the world under the disguise of the fraudulent "War on Terrorism":
|
As we move into the second year after September 11th there is a growing skeptics movement which seeks to force a public and honest inquiry into what actually happened on that fateful day, and which can no longer be ignored, even by the mainstream media. Eventually the truth, whose major outlines can already be known by anyone who wishes to know, will be generally recognized and acknowledged, and those responsible will be revealed. Bush Jr. and Sr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Myers, Powell and the others know it, which is why they are hell-bent on attacking Iraq and starting World War III (and turning the U.S. into even more of a police state than it is already) before the citizens of the U.S. can bring them to justice for their crimes against humanity.
John Kaminski's Best 9/11 Sites — 4th Edition
The earliest version of this web page, entitled "The World Trade Center Bombing", and stating that "the [WTC] towers collapsed because explosives were carefully placed besides their structural supports", appeared at this location two days after 2001-09-11.
This web page as at 2003-03-18, together with all the local web pages which it links to, may be downloaded as a ZIP file for offline reading or for mirroring on your own website. Details are at Mirroring the "The World Trade Center Demolition" Files.