T Nation

New American Century





"the events of September 11th are being used to manipulate public emotion, using people's grief, anger, and fear, to guarantee American support for the NWO, and "to launch a new era of American internationalism."[8]

"The New World Order is no longer a conspiracy theory; it is an established fact."


SO what happened on 9/11, Believe what you want .

Molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction. heres a shot of Thermite dripping from the towers as it collapses in a controlled manor:

Watch with caution


From from September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched. On September 11th, 2001, when Dick Cheney was running his war games, 4 jet airliners were supposedly hijacked, and all our systems that have worked flawlessly 67 times that year, failed. Coincidence?

Side note: Now on Oct 1999 you may remember Payne Stewart and his crew died in flight.


WTC Building 7. Not alot of people heard about the third building which collapsed on 9/11 shortly after the towers.

Larry Silverstein invested $386 million in WTC 7. On 9/11, by his own admission, Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition of his building. In February of 2002, his company won a settlement of $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers. Do the math. No one investigated. Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
-is this a confession?- http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv



"It's the devil's way now
There is no way out
You can scream & you
can shout
It is too late now

You have not been
paying attention"



"They absolutely refuse to accept even the most convincing proof because they dare not admit to themselves that they have been lied to by officials in whom the placed their trust."

The attacks of 9/11 were so unthinkable that most Americans would refuse to believe the complicity of their own government, even if presented with a mountain of evidence.

Very simply, it is possible to escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you could do.


When I was 11 years old I sat next to my friend and fellow class clown Jeffery, quietly thinking of ways to torture the unsuspecting substitute teacher. Jeffery and I were competing comedians, always trying to "get over" on each other in school. Jeffery was good and there were no limits to what he would do.

On this particular day we sat next to each other, sharing one of the double desks with which Brooklyn school children of the 70?s were so familiar. As our unsuspecting substitute turned his back to write something on the black board, Jeffery raised his arm and launched all his own books across the room in the direction opposite from where I was seated, immediately turning towards me with a look of horror and shock plastered on his face. The teacher, alarmed by the noise of the book launching, spun around only to see Jeffery's books scattered around the room. His loose leaf binder had opened up and produced an explosion of confetti in the form of notes and homework sheets.

A quick glance our way by the teacher brought into view a shocked Jeffery, who appeared to be the victim, sitting right next to me and staring at me with an expression of, "What the hell did you just do?" splashed on his face. I sat there, speechless, as the person on the right side of Jeffery's books prior to their launch to the left. I had nothing to say because the truth was simply not believable and no convincing lie presented itself.

Anyone witnessing this scene from the teacher?s vantage point could only come to one conclusion, Jesse did it. Even if I tried to explain that Jeffery launched the books, who would believe me? After all, who would have done this to his own property? Jeffery would have to spend the next hour or so reassembling his loose leaf binder. There is no way he would have done this to himself. No way, except for one thing...he did do this to himself, his motive...comedy. I was the patsy for two good reasons. First, I was sitting right there when it happened? and second - I had a history of being a clown. I understood why people thought I was guilty and let me be the first to commend Jeffery for executing the perfect crime. He did the unthinkable and set up a patsy with his convincing claim of innocence.

In this sad, but true story, I was kicked out of the class by our substitute teacher. I was only 11 years old but I knew enough to understand that there was no way in hell that anyone would believe me if I told the truth and said that Jeffery was guilty of tossing his books . And so, having no proof that I was blameless, I swallowed my defeat and walked out of the room wondering what form my revenge against Jeffery would take.

The point to be made is this: sometimes, the more outrageous an action, the easier it is to get away with. Sometimes, there is no way that people can connect the criminal with the crime: the very idea of guilt is so far out of the norm as to be unthinkable.

Very simply, it is possible to escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you could do. If the deed is egregious enough, even if some proof of your culpability surfaces, you?ll be on safe ground. If people cannot imagine your involvement in an unthinkable action, they will simply not believe you could possible be complicit in its commission. Think about it.


Flashback to a heinous crime of the recent past: When Susan Smith appeared before the public to beg the kidnapper of her children to return them to her, the nation cried with her. Her description of the guilty assailant was so very believable. It fit right into the criminal stereotype that had been etched into the psyche of Americans by the corporate media. And for a few very long days, everyone believed her.

But there was one huge problem with her story. It was Susan Smith, herself, who killed her children. Yes, the unbelievable was true. A young mother had actually allowed her own children to drown. It was inconceivable. It just couldn?t be. But it was.

Susan Smith had tried to throw the blame for her crime to a reasonable patsy. Had her story gone unchallenged, she might have gotten away with it. As it was, her crime fell apart because there was an effective investigation. Smith had no way of curtailing or controlling the inquiry into her crime. And as a result, justice was done, and Susan Smith was eventually charged and convicted of murder.

Truth and reality often can be totally unbelievable. It is very possible for people to totally deny assertions presented to them, even when provided with very credible of evidence that corroborates what they are told. A perfect example of such denial occurred when eye witness accounts of the Holocaust began coming out of war torn Europe. The unimaginable horror of what was being reported was simply too terrible to believe. It was easier to deal with the information as some sort of exaggeration and overreaction. Humans simply could not do this to other humans.

Think about what we know about acts of genocide in the Congo or Rwanda or Darfur? The art of denial is a well honed form of human self protection. Sometimes it is far easier to close one?s eyes to the truth than to acknowledge what is very painful. Think about that as well.


In this post 9/11 era, most Americans are unable even to consider the possibility of US government complicity in the attacks on our nation even when confronted with a mountain of evidence. In contrast, many of these same people accept far less believable scenarios simply on the basis of faith and without a single shred of evidence such as believing in the existence of a God. Tragically, they seem to have the exact same blind trust in the Bush administration.

At close inspection, the official version of 9/11 is outrageously full of holes. When those of us who are knowledgeable discuss the evidence that has unearthed about that day, there is so much to reveal that we don?t know where to start or where to stop. When tapped for what we know, we have so much to expose that the torrent of information that rushes can sound like the meaningless rant of a lunatic. Regardless of how credible or tangible the evidence, when rolled out in front of the public, it often sounds too far fetched or irrational to believe.

The facts that have come out about 9/11 differ so greatly from the official story that they almost defy validity. On the contrary, the official version is so simple as to be perfectly believable. It places the entire blame on the work of a handful of terrorists who hated us for our freedom. Case closed.

It is important to keep in mind that the 9/11 issue is not simply a question of whose version of a story is correct. This is a case in which millions of people would be taking a great risk. They would have to consider that the very government they have trusted and supported for more than four years may have participated in an unthinkable atrocity. That, in itself, may be impossible. By opening their minds to an objective examination of what has been discovered about the 9/11 attacks, millions of Americans would have to abandon their blind faith in this administration, and reject the mistaken belief that those in charge of our nation can do no wrong. That, too, may be impossible.

Herein lies the paradox. If the American people want truth they must acknowledge that they have been deceived. If that were to happen, and if they were to accept the facts that have been uncovered by the independent 9/11 research community, their faith in their government would be irreparably destroyed. In the long run, it is far easier to maintain one?s faith in a deceptive government than to deal with the painful details of that deception.

The consequence of such denial is that people end up believing what they must, rather than what is true. As time passes, they totally erase the distinction between fact and fiction in order to believe in their government, and they find themselves living in the America of 2005.

They greater tragedy of course, is the nature of the deception that has been accepted. There are lies, and there are lies. There are deceptions, and there are horrendous deceptions that alter history. .It is one thing for Jeffery to have gone unpunished for throwing his own books around so he could claim the crown of class clown. Thirty years after the fact, our mutual friends now believe the truth, and we can laugh at what went on.

It would have been another thing altogether to have allowed Jeffery to perpetrate a Columbine-like massacre to claim that same crown. There is no way that could have resulted in denial, and there is no way that any one would have dared to laugh.


Ironically, it?s almost funny when the fact-based 9/11 research community gathers to discuss the events of that day. The official government version of what happened loses so much credibility in the light of the available facts, films, testimony & chronicled history that it is almost impossible not to laugh in disbelief when we start to share what we know. The evidence that has been amassed is so persuasive as to rip the official version of 9/11 to shreds. And still, there is no one but ourselves to hear us.

We go on and on and on like people obsessed because as responsible citizens of the world we have assigned ourselves the task of exposing the truth. But we also have to accept the obstacles we face. We must understand how and why people refuse to believe what we say despite all the evidence in our possession. To explain that phenomenon I think about my friend Jeffery and his book launch. He did something no one believed he could possibly have done. As a result, he carried it off.

The people who were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 did something so unbelievable that most people would not believe they did it, even if presented with conclusive evidence of their guilt. As a result, they also carried it off, and the evidence be damned.

In the end, there is always the comment by those who would discredit the research and the evidence that has been uncovered. The defenders of the official version of 9/11 inevitably ask how so many people could keep a secret. "Wouldn't someone have blown the whistle by now?" is the constant challenge by the champions of denial. How na?ve they are.

At the higher levels of government the issue is no longer about secrecy, but about survival. The extent of the 9/11 crimes are so great that a very real scenario of self preservation has arisen. It may well be that whistle blowers fear the consequences of exposing the truth about 9/11, not to themselves, but to the nation.

It is highly probable that they believe that their testimony would lead to the end of the United States of America as a viable power.

In this worst case scenario, the good people in our government and in our intelligence community may really fear that America would never ever regain its credibility in the world, and would never again be respected or trusted. They may envision a terrible time when the United States would relinquish its leadership position in the world and sink to the position of a rogue nation that had committed an unforgivable atrocity against its own people for political purposes. If this is so, can anyone blame them for not coming forward to expose what they know?

A deep love of country might easily create a dilemma for those who know the truth. What would happen at that unimaginable moment when a ranking government official was charged with complicity in 9/11? Would the nation recover? Could the nation heal after such a huge betrayal of the trust that has been cultivated and nurtured over our 230 year history as a nation?

The people who were involved in 9/11 know that there is more at stake than their exposure. They already have the blind loyalty of those Americans who would refuse to believe they could possibly have been involved. . But deep in their corrupted souls they also have another ace in the hole. They are counting on the protection of those who fear for the stability of the nation. They are convinced of their own invincibility and really believe that they will never be held accountable. But they also believe that no one of credibility will step forward to expose them.

As I did with Jeffery, let me be the first to admit that these folks seem to have committed the perfect crime. Not in the sense that they will never be discovered, but in the sense that they believe it will do more harm to the country to expose them than to play along with their charade.

But, in fact, they are badly mistaken. The United States of America will not crumble with the revelation of their actions because our foundation is too strong to falter at their hands. History is never without obstacles to progress and this ordeal will not be an exception. On the contrary, if and when the truth is ever known, this nation will be stronger and nobler for that knowledge.

And it is for those reasons that we must continue to pursue the truth.

Bottom line: the real facts are out there, somewhere. The questions being asked are legitimate and raise reasonable suspicions that must be addressed. And yet, so few Americans are willing to even examine the evidence before them. Truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see. Think about that, and if this farce continues, weep for us all.




We don't wanna wake monster taking over
"Tiptoe round tie him down"
We don't want the loonies taking over
"Tiptoe round tie them down"

Go to Sleep

  • Emotional Block * * *

Readers: "I can't believe the horseshit that comes out of you!"

"Conspiracy Fruitcake!"

"Scum-bag mother fucker . I FUCKING HATE YOU I FUCKING HATE YOU!"

"You sir are a dumbass."

Ok Ok say what you want, come back with your propaganda bull-shit. Fed to you daily like pigs in a pen. You will honestly see this unreveal itself over a course of the next few years.



Why, oh why, would they have thermite at that location? That isn't any type of structural support.


Experiments with Molten Aluminum

By Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch

In a treatise entitled "Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster," Frank Greening raises an intriguing hypothesis:

"Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse...
"Based on these findings it is proposed that the formation of molten aluminum in the Twin Towers just before their collapse, accounts for most of the startling and controversial
observations that accompanied the spectacular destruction of these massive structures. It is suggested that molten aluminum initiated the global collapse of each Tower by burning through key structural supports in the impact zones. Molten aluminum-thermite reactions could explain the rapid intensification of the fires and the many detonations seen and heard moments before and during the collapse of each Tower. Molten aluminum-thermite explosions - reactions that are quite capable of shattering ceramic or metal molds during aluminum casting - would go a long way to explaining the much-debated pulverization of the WTC concrete." [1]

   I noted to Greening that this explanation would not apply to the 9/11 collapse of WTC 7, since it was not hit by an airplane, and in he agreed:

"Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say.. Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down."

In reference to my further skepticism that melted aluminum could cause global failure and symmetrical collapse of the Towers, as well as the speed of the collapses, Greening replied:

"I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions."

  Accordingly, an experienced welder along with students and I conducted such tests on a small scale at BYU, on February 16, 2006.  We performed two tests involving approximately 500 g of aluminum alloy 6061 in each test.  This alloy is composed of 97.9% Al, 0.6% Si, 0.28% Cu, 1.0% Mg and 0.2% Cr [2] and has a melting point of about 600 C.  The aluminum alloy was melted in a steel pan using an oxyacetylene torch.  The pan reached red-hot temperatures (about 600 C) during the melting process.  We noted that the aluminum retained its silvery appearance throughout the melting process and final heating.  Temperatures were monitored with an infrared probe.

TEST 1, Molten Aluminum on rusty steel

    In this test, we explored Greening's hypothesis that molten aluminum alloy would initiate violent thermite reactions when poured onto rusty steel:

"At 50 minutes, molten aluminum forms and starts to flow from the airframe in WTC 2. The molten aluminum re-ignites some of the smoldering fires and rapidly burns through other combustible materials that survived the initial conflagration. Molten aluminum also falls onto concrete, gypsum and rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions, dispersing globules of molten metal and igniting new fires. The extreme heat generated by the molten aluminum rapidly weakens already damaged steel columns and trusses in the impact zone causing local slumping and partial collapse." [1]

     Just in case Greening was right, the students and I stood well back from the heated and very rusty angle-iron as Wesley Lifferth poured molten aluminum onto the rusted steel surface (see photos).  Lifferth has had considerable experience with aluminum and had never seen "violent thermite" reactions or explosions of any kind while working with molten aluminum, so he was willing to pour the molten aluminum without special precautions.

   We observed that no obvious heat-releasing reactions occurred.  There were no explosions whatsoever. No "globules of molten metal" were dispersed.  No fires, and certainly no melting or warping of the steel member.  

  We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the pre-heated rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 C per minute until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling.  When we removed the solidified aluminum alloy from the rusty steel surface, we found that a small percentage of the rust did adhere to the aluminum and may have undergone a reaction, since the color of the adherent metal had changed from orange-red to black indicating reduction.  However, no damage to the underlying steel was observed at all.  There appears no justification for larger-scale tests on WTC models.

   This experiment lends zero support to the notion that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the core of the buildings.

TEST 2, Molten Aluminum on concrete

 Greening also predicted that molten aluminum impinging on concrete would initiate violent reactions:  

"As previously noted, the combination of water and metal oxide bonding in
concrete makes this material very susceptible to explosive reactions in the molten aluminum." [1]

So we poured molten aluminum onto a concrete cinder block to see whether "explosive reactions" would in fact ensue. They did not. In this case, we formed two "puddles" of molten aluminum, one directly onto the concrete, and the other onto concrete, acrylic plastic, and a piece of aluminum foil which held a fair amount of iron rust extracted from a very rusty iron ball. In both cases, the molten aluminum sat on the surfaces with no "explosive reactions" whatsoever. Instead, the aluminum cooled steadily, suggesting no exothermal chemical reactions were competing with radiative and conductive cooling.

Some water was present in the concrete, which clearly formed steam and then a distinct bubble under the aluminum melt. The rectangular piece of plastic also released gases which formed a separate bubble under the aluminum melt poured over the plastic. The rust was embedded in the aluminum melt (the aluminum foil melted) without showing any "explosive" reaction at all. When the aluminum was removed from the concrete surfaces, we observed a dark pattern on the surface (not deeply etched into the concrete) where the aluminum had been, so there may have been some surface reactions with the concrete. The rectangular piece of plastic left an image which shows where the aluminum did not contact the concrete (photo above).

TEST 3, Molten Aluminum on crushed gypsum, concrete, plastic, on rusty iron

Crushed gypsum (from drywall) mixed with crushed concrete and plastic pieces and placed on a very rusty steel channel thrown in to cover all the bases -- trying to reproduced conditions as might be found in the WTC. (Greening's idea is that molten aluminum from a plane might hit these materials and lead to violent reactions, culminating in Tower Collapses.)

The experiment showed no violent or even visible reactions. The molten aluminum flowed around the materials with no obvious reactions at all, and solidified.

TEST 4, Molten Aluminum on water-slurry of crushed gypsum, concrete, plastic on rusty iron

The mix described in test 3 was repeated, this time mixed as a slurry in water. Greening suggested that molten aluminum plus water might generate hydrogen, perhaps to get reactions started. And there could have been water in the WTC.

Again, the experiment showed no violent or even visible reactions, except that some steam was generated. No flame or strongly exothermic reaction was detectable in any of these tests.


These experiments do not support the assertion of Greening that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have attacked the enormous steel columns (47 core columns and 240 perimeter columns) sufficiently to cause total collapse of these skyscrapers, even in the presence of crushed gypsum, concrete and plastic, with or without water.  

We also conclude that pre-planted thermate (sulfur added to iron oxide and aluminum powder) is much more likely to have cut through steel-core columns in the Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 than aluminum melted from the planes and contacting the columns at random places, if at all.  The cutting effect of thermite derivatives is well-substantiated and rather routinely used. [3]  The use of thermate or thermite would explain the enormous pools of molten metal observed pouring down the rubble immediately following the collapses, and then forming in pools beneath the rubble piles of both Towers AND WTC 7 (where no aluminum-frame plane hit).  The use of thermate would also account for the significant sulfidation attack structural members at WTC7 and the Towers. [4] These issues are all treated in a previous paper. [3]  The collapse of WTC 7, the molten metal beneath the WTC 7 rubble pile, and the observed sulfidation of structural steel from WTC 7 and the Towers? rubble piles are very important facts not treated or explained by Greening in his treatise [1].  

Finally, the use of thermite or a derivative such as thermate is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling in large ?drops? from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower), just prior to its collapse.  (See

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm .) We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well -- and it appears "silvery". Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescense) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the thermite reaction. (See http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html .)


  1. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf


  1. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

  2. Barnett, J. R., Biederman, R.R. and R.D. Sisson, Jr., "An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7," Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:18 (2001), and FEMA WTC report, Appendix C.

Draft 2.0




Shout all you want.

You will not stop my rise to power.

Too many people have planned for far too long, and too much money has been promised, spent, and emplaced (like bombs in a building) for this to go wrong.

You will serve me. YOU WILL ALL SERVE ME!!



You evil fuck!


Evil... good... whatever.

What really matters in this world is the distinction between the ruler and the ruled. Right now, thanks to our ally in the White House, this distinction has never been more poignant, as our organization pulls off more and more grander schemes, quietly erasing the rights of our subjects and making their privileges harder and more expensive to obtain.

Only a complete idiot would think that there wasn't an evil mastermind organization bent on world domination that meticulously planned out every aspect of the 9/11 attacks, even going so far as to set up some innocent Saudi tourists as patsies. Fools!

The fact that we "own" politicians that you disagree with is just pure coincidence, I'm sure. There is no way that you are personally projecting your insecurities and doubts into some psychological construction that you personify so that you no longer feel vulnerable to what you fear and don't understand. What I'm talking about is real life. It is too messy and layered for you to come to grips with, so you conveniently "discover" a vast, villainous, multi-levelled, multinational underground shadow conspiracy which accounts for the parts of your life that you find personally unfair and unjust.

And that's fine. You aren't paranoid... you're right. You found us out. And I can freely admit this on a bodybuilding forum because all of us here at NWO inc. fully understand that you are all powerless to stop us. We can say and do whatever we want, whenever we want, and there will be no repercussions, because all of the "normal" people think that do-gooder crusaders like you are nutjobs.

We have already won. The battle was over before it started. We are Michael and you are Tito. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong... you are our property.

Now go make me a turkey sammich.



Thank you for posting all of this thought-provoking information. But, my question is: How do you know that the conspiracy theory itself is not a conspiracy? Could it be that, by allowing this information to be put out, you are being manipulated to become a total nihilist?

Further, doesn't the fact that you are still alive belie the very notion?



Manipulation of the events after the fact does not imply involvement prior.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that only thermite will melt steel. Molten steel is the result of melting steel, no matter the cause.

Secondly, in the video, we see something dripping. Is it steel? Another metal? Plastic? Vinyl? Who knows?

The problem people have with most conspiracy theories is that they pick a version that fits the fact they want to present, while discounting all other possible explanations; whether those explanations are more likely or not.

Another common tactic. Present some seemingly unanswered question and then let the viewer reach his own conclusion, which will, of course, support the conspiracy theory.

1st, is what is advanced true? If so, has it been investigated? Was there an official response to it? What is it?

Here again, one "possible" scenario is depainted, and immediately accepted as the only plausible one. Was the building demolished because it was a security risk? Beyond repair? Maybe letting the building fall on it's own would've caused more damage than a controlled demolition?

The U.N. have about as much power as a watch battery. That they could "install" a United States of Earth without the cooperation of most member nations is simply ridiculous.

Besides, it is completely irrelevant to 9/11 and only serves to discredit you further in the eyes on anyone reading this with a minimum of skepticism.


...a pretty long post, I won't go over it point by point.

1st problem: What is often presented as proof is only conjecture, what-ifs, and convenient piecing together of cherry-picked information.

That is not "proof."

Same with the evidence. The "mountain" is conspicuously empty of any contrindicating evidence, when such evidence does exist. Why accuse the government of hiding facts and ignoring evidence, when the conspiracies do the same?

The problem is that "the fact-based research community" only keeps "facts" that fit their theory and only "researches" ways of bolstering a conclusion they've reached apriori.

If you have 200 interviews with witnesses and 198 saw a plane hit the building but 2 think they saw a missile, which 2 interviews do you think will make the cut for the video?

Similarly, you'll often have "expert" witnesses who have no relevant expertise on the subject on which they are commenting, but are presented as such. The fact that they are engineers in some unrelated field simply used to "boost" the credibilty of their views, when in actually, they know no more, and often less, than the official investigators who did use the proper experts.


Exactly. These interviews will then be latched onto by the worlds "free thinkers", and raced around the internet at a record pace. Conspiracy kooks worldwide then use this shit as fuel for their anti-establishment rhetoric.

I'll try to find the study of the towers collapse done by a panel of MIT professors. It's a pretty good analysis of how the towers collapsed.


professors in the pockets of the government for sure...


Make sure to use the chin strap.


So basically, you're dismissing it before you've even seen it?


9/11: Have we been lied to?
An article in preparation by members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth January 2006

All of that [the US military role of the 20th century] changed on Sept. 11... We saw on 9- 11 nineteen men hijack aircraft with airline tickets and box cutters and killed
more than 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours. Richard Cheney , March 2003. In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted..they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie... It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Adolf Hitler, 1925

Why do so many accept the "official story" of 9/11 uncritically ? that a few hijackers (per plane) alone overpowered well-trained airline pilots using box-cutters and hijacked four separate airliners, then brought down the World Trade Center buildings and struck the Pentagon ? all without being intercepted by military jets?

Americans have been told this story over and over and most seem to accept it without scrutiny. To challenge this story is to risk being smeared with the dreaded conspiracy-theorist label. It is easier to dismiss without much consideration the notion that the official story may be wrong or that our leaders may have known about the impending attacks before hand and misled us.

But - as recognized by prominent conservatives and liberals alike -- they have misled us in important things, clearly. Here are a few examples.


In August 2002, Vice President Cheney stated:
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth... the President and I never for a moment forget our number one responsibility: to protect the American people against further attack, and to win the war that began last September 11th. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

Others in the Bush administration made the same claim: "No doubt" that Saddam had WMD?s. Yet, there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. Moreover, an initiative of the UN to conduct weapons inspections in Iraq was abruptly aborted by the U.S. decision to attack. (An excellent 4-minute mini-documentary explains further, with historical clips of various officials: http://www.iwilltryit.com/downingstreet1.htm. )

Indeed, the current administration rationalized the Iraq war upon a false link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and has repeated that link ever since. Specifically,
Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda". (http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm)

And yet Bush, Cheney and other top administration officials claimed and continue to claim that Saddam was behind 9/11. See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007005.php. Indeed, Bush administration officials apparently swore in a lawsuit that Saddam was behind 9/11. (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_evelyn_p_051115_bush_gang_swore_sadd.htm)

President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph:

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html)

The administration's successful but false linking of Saddam with 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that at the time, the Saddam-911 link was touted as a strong reason to invade Iraq. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html)

Within days of the September 11th tragedy, USGS scientists carefully analyzed dust samples. The results from various tests showed the presence of asbestos and heavy metals and high alkalinity. USGS scientist Gregg Swayze stated:

"Some techniques can see more than others, and we were throwing in every technique we had in house," he says. Tests revealed the dust to be extremely alkaline with a pH of 12.1 (out of 14) and that some of it was as caustic as liquid drain cleaner. "We were startled at the pH level we were finding," Swayze adds. "We knew that the cement dust was caustic, but we were getting pH readings of 12 and higher.

It was obvious that precautions had to be taken to protect the workers and people returning to their homes from the dust." Sam Vance, an environmental scientist with the EPA, sent the results to officials at the EPA, the New York health department and US Public Health Service. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/10/02]

Despite such warnings from experienced scientists, the EPA released press releases which gave false reassurance about the toxic dust. EPA has found variable asbestos levels in bulk debris and dust on the ground, but EPA continues to believe that there is no significant health risk to the general public in the coming days..."Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York's financial district," said John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA. [Said] EPA Administrator Christie Whitman: "... The good news continues to be that the air samples we have taken have all been at levels that cause us no concern." EPA press release, September 16, 2001.) EPA Administrator Christie Whitman announced today that results from the Agency's air and drinking water monitoring near the World Trade Center and Pentagon disaster sites indicate that these vital resources are safe.

Whitman also announced that EPA has been given up to $83 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support EPA's involvement... "We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air quality and drinking water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances," Whitman said. "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breath (sic) and their water is safe to drink," she added. (EPA press release, September 18, 2001.)

Two years later, the truth came out, that the White House had in fact deleted scientific warnings and replaced these with (incorrect) reassuring statements:

At the White House's direction, the Environmental Protection Agency gave New Yorkers misleading assurances that there was no health risk from the debris-laden air after the World Trade Center collapse, according to an internal inquiry. The White House "convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones" by having the National Security Council control EPA communications after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, according to a report issued late Thursday by EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley.

In all, the EPA issued five news releases within 10 days of the attacks and four more by the end of 2001 reassuring the public about air quality. But it wasn't until June 2002 that the EPA determined that air quality had returned to pre-Sept. 11 levels -- well after respiratory ailments and other problems began to surface in hundreds of workers cleaning dusty offices and apartments. The day after the attacks, former EPA Deputy Administrator Linda Fisher's chief of staff e-mailed senior EPA officials to say that "all statements to the media should be cleared" first by the National Security Council, which is Bush's main forum for discussing national security and foreign policy matters with his senior aides and Cabinet, the inspector general's report says.

For example, the inspector general found, the EPA was persuaded to omit guidance for cleaning indoor spaces and tips on potential health effects from airborne dust containing asbestos, lead, glass fibers and concrete. James Connaughton, chairman of the environmental council, which coordinates federal environmental efforts, said the White House directed the EPA to add and delete information based on how it should be released publicly... http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/136350_epa23.html By JOHN HEILPRIN THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The administration, when caught red-handed, did not admit guilt nor apologize. Instead, they "attacked the messenger" by criticizing the whistleblower Nikki Tinsley. As a sad addendum, we note that since Tinsley?s scathing report, at least two individuals who helped at Ground Zero have died, James Zadroga and Tim Keller.

Zadroga had developed black lung disease and mercury on the brain as a result of working at ground zero, Palladino said. Zadroga spent 470 hours in the first month after the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the trade center in rescue and recovery efforts, working up to 16 hours a day at the site... A majority of residents and ground zero workers tracked by several different registries monitoring the participants' health have reported worsening respiratory problems in the years since the attacks. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/08/national/main1185610.shtml

The dust particles at Ground Zero were small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs and become lodged causing permanent damage to the lungs. What's worse is what was in the dust - hundreds of tons of asbestos, mercury from tens of thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, and lead from over 50,000 computers. All of these toxic materials were released into the air when the 9/11 attack occurred.

Tim Keller, a veteran NYC fire department medic, was one of the heroes. Not only was Keller one of the first rescuers on the scene, he also spent weeks at Ground Zero searching for 9/11 survivors. Keller was diagnosed with severe chronic asthmatic bronchitis about one year after the 9/11 World Trade Center attack. When Keller became ill, he turned to the city for help - the city where he had dedicated his life to helping others and saving lives. He was denied both worker's compensation and any 9/11 benefits. The city did not believe there was a connection between his condition and the 9/11 attack.

Eventually, Keller received a partial benefit, however it was no where near enough to help him treat his lung disease. Keller soon became too sick to work, and too in debt to fill his much-needed prescriptions. Tim Keller died at the young age of 41. http://lungdiseases.about.com/b/a/187074.htm

Early in our country?s history, true patriots stood for truth while criticizing the governing regime. Patrick Henry stated:
We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it -- now. 1775

On the other hand, Adolf Hitler wrote about the "Big Lie" approach in his infamous Mein Kampf :

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.... (Hitler, 1925, p. 134)

The central question here is whether the Bush administration ? which has used 9/11 as an excuse for wars and enormous deficit spending -- knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance, and allowed them to happen. This is a bold question. Let?s examine some facts. How did the hijacked planes get through to their targets? Is it possible that officials stopped the scrambling of military jets, routinely launched to intercept hijacked planes? How do we know that bin Laden was behind the hijackings anyway ? seeing that he himself has repeatedly denied this and no one has yet been convicted? We will examine these and other issues in this paper.

  1. Foreknowledge of US officials regarding 9/11 hijackers: Able Danger
    The story of a covert intelligence operation called Able Danger came to light just months ago. Previously undisclosed facts are still coming to light, due primarily to the investigation spear-headed by Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa), vice chairman of the House Armed Services and House Homeland Security committees.

The existence of this operation and its identification of Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers, long before 9/11, was disclosed publicly on the House floor by Rep. Weldon on June 27, 2005:

Mr. Speaker, I rise because information has come to my attention over the past several months that is very disturbing. I have learned that, in fact, one of our Federal agencies had, in fact, identified the major New York cell of Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11; and I have learned, Mr. Speaker, that in September of 2000, that Federal agency actually was prepared to bring the FBI in and prepared to work with the FBI to take down the cell that Mohamed Atta was involved in New York City, along with two of the other terrorists.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that when that recommendation was discussed within that Federal agency, the lawyers in the administration at that time said, you cannot pursue contact with the FBI against that cell. Mohamed Atta is in the U.S. on a green card, and we are fearful of the fallout from the Waco incident. So we did not allow that Federal agency to proceed.Members of the 9/11 Commission initially denied having been briefed about this pre-9/11 intelligence; for example, Vice-Chair Hamilton stated:

The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell...Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
On August 12, 2005, Rep. Weldon issued the following statement:

The 9/11 Commission has released multiple statements over the past week, each of which has significantly changed - from initially denying ever being briefed to acknowledging being briefed on both operation ABLE DANGER and Mohammed Atta. The information was omitted [from the 9/11 Commission Report]....

Despite their varied statements, two critical questions remain unanswered.

1) Why did the Department of Defense fail to pass critical information obtained through ABLE DANGER to the FBI between the summer and fall of 2000?

2) Why did the 9/11 Commission staff fail to properly follow-up on the three separate occasions when they received information on ABLE DANGER and Mohammed Atta?

I will continue to push for a full accounting of the historical record so that we may preclude these types of failures from happening again." http://curtweldon.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=32271
Rep. Weldon on August 25, 2005, told FOX News:

There's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me. What's the Sept. 11 commission got to hide? The commission is trying to spin this because they're embarrassed about what's coming out...Moreover, evidence indicates that the 9/11 Commission learned about this important information and yet failed to include it in their final report.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger) The Senate Judiciary Committee will evidently examine the matter further, but we suppose the inquiry should not end there.

In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, former FBI director Louis Freeh comments on the information about 9/11 that has come out in the past several months:

The final 9/11 Commission report, released on July 22, 2004, concluded that "American intelligence agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the attacks." This now looks to be embarrassingly wrong...

The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these revelations and called for a "new" commission to investigate. "I'm angry that my son's death could have been prevented," seethed Diane Horning, whose son Matthew was killed at the World Trade Center.

On Aug. 17, 2005, a coalition of family members known as the September 11 Advocates rightly blasted 9/11 Commission leaders Mr. Kean and Lee Hamilton for pooh-poohing Able Danger's findings as not "historically significant." Advocate Mindy Kleinberg aptly notes, "They [the 9/11 Commission] somehow made a determination that this was not important enough. To me, that says somebody there is not using good judgment. And if I'm questioning the judgment of this one case, what other things might they have missed?" This is a stinging indictment of the commission by the 9/11 families.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, has led the way in cleaning up the 9/11 Commission's unfinished business. Amid a very full plate of responsibilities, he conducted a hearing after noting that Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott "appear to have credibility." Himself a former prosecutor, Mr. Specter noted: "If Mr. Atta and other 9/11 terrorists were identified before the attacks, it would be a very serious breach not to have that information passed along . . . we ought to get to the bottom of it."

Indeed we should. An excellent relevant mini-documentary (about 19 minutes) is now airing in Europe, and is available with English sub-titles: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm .
Considerable evidence now supports Weldon?s contention that intelligence agencies knew about Atta and other 9/11 hijackers prior to 9/11, and the Bush administration was evidently informed.

The evidence is laid out in detail in Michael Ruppert?s 600-page book, Crossing the Rubicon. For example, on the day prior to the 9/11 attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted a communication directed to Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the 9/11 hijackings. The message stated: "The match is about to begin." Clearly Atta?s terrorist role was known to officials and the fact that a major event was "about to begin" was known also, before September 11, 2001.
Writing about this pre-9/11 warning and Ruppert?s book, Michael Kane writes:

The Whitehouse was so infuriated when this communication leaked from the Senate Intelligence Committee that they threatened Senators with polygraphs and office searches for disclosing classified information.  This leak struck a nerve within the White House.

We know multiple Air Force war games were running on the morning of 9/11, as documented extensively in the mainstream press [and] Crossing the Rubicon.... In this case, [the war exercises] mirrored the real attacks of 9/11 with such shocking congruence as to be beyond the realm of coincidence. This is made clear when we consider the warnings that had flooded U.S. Intelligence prior to 9/11, indicating that terrorists were planning to hijack aircraft and crash them into American targets on the ground during the week of September 9th, 2001. With that type of information, who in their right mind would then schedule war games that would leave New York and Washington D.C. completely undefended?

In May of 2001 Dick Cheney was placed directly in charge of managing the "seamless integration" of all training exercises throughout the federal government and military agencies by presidential mandate. The morning of 9/11 began with multiple training exercises of war games and terror drills which Cheney, as mandated by the president [just four months earlier], was placed in charge of managing. (Kane, 2005; read his pithy summary at: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml#bullmeans)
Another example of evident foreknowledge of the impending attacks comes from Newsweek, 9/24/01: "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

From all the evidence, it is clear that the Administration was aware that "terrorist attacks" against US cities were imminent, and yet no jets were sent to intercept the hijacked planes that crashed into buildings that day. We will return to this issue later.

  1. Vice President Cheney as the plane approached the Pentagon: "The orders still stand"
    Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta provided provocative testimony before the 9-11 Commission. He testified that he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House at about 9:20 on 9/11/01. Vice President Cheney was there and in charge as President Bush was not in Washington, DC. Secretary Mineta related:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2003/commissiontestimony052303.html
For heaven?s sake ? what orders? It appears there were orders NOT to scramble military jets to intercept the plane, since the plane was known for 50, 30, and 10 miles out and yet never intercepted (see also next section). There was plenty of time for the scrambling of military jets to intercept flight AA77; it had been well off its flight-approved course for over 50 minutes before it came close to the Pentagon.

The commission did not ask such questions, did not include Mineta?s testimony above in the 9/11 Commission Report -- a glaring omission (Griffin, 2005), -- and removed the video of Mineta?s testimony from the 9/11 Commission website (See http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv) . The testimony of Secretary Mineta strongly motivates further questioning, under oath, of Cheney, Mineta and this unidentified young man.

(For further information, see David Ray Griffin, "Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93: The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales," http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051205150219651, also "The failure to defend the skies on 9/11," http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense .)

  1. 6/1/2001 change of orders for scrambling jets, and lack of air defenses on 9/11/2001.

For decades, the U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard have rapidly deployed (or "scrambled") jet fighters to "escort" airplanes that significantly deviate from their flight plans. The commanders in the area had permission to scramble the jet fighters, so that an escort jet would reach an errant plane within about ten minutes from the observation of possible trouble. In this way, hijacked commercial airlines have been intercepted rapidly and provided military escort to prevent harm to passengers and to people on the ground, and to end hijacking threats. Intercepting and guiding the plane would be the goal rather than shooting the plane down.

There were "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001" according to Major Douglas Martin (Miller, 2002), nearly two jet-scrambles per week on average. So what happened on September 11th, 2001? Why were there no jets scrambled to intercept the three hijacked planes, which subsequently crashed into the WTC Twin Towers and the Pentagon? What happened to our air defenses that day?

We find that the procedure for scrambling military jets was significantly changed due to a military order issued June 1, 2001 ? just three months and ten days before the hijackings on September 11, 2001. The order stated:

c. Military Escort Aircraft
(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to
determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d).
d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities"

Thus, beginning in June 2001, the Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) was the one civilian who had to approve requests for scrambling intercept-planes. For any and all requests for air-defense approval had to come ? no longer from military commanders in the field?but from the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.

Aviation Week explained the approval pattern in these words:
On Sept. 11, the normal scramble-approval procedure was for an FAA official to contact the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and request Pentagon air support. Someone in the NMCC would call Norad's command center and ask about availability of aircraft, then seek approval from the Defense Secretary--Donald H. Rumsfeld--to launch fighters. (Scott, 2002)

Why would such a drastic change be made? An explanation is needed. Clearly, the consequences on September 11th were tragic. Three jetliners hit three occupied buildings that day. According to official reports, not one was intercepted. Not one, between the time when AA flight 11 hit the South Tower at 8:46 am up to the time UAL 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, one hour and twenty minutes later. Where were our air defenses when we needed them?

News reports dutifully described what did NOT happen:
The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed. 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A, "Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, Washington How could a hijacked airliner fly through Washington airspace and crash into the Pentagon, the five-sided symbol of American military might? ..Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon...
-- SECURITY CRACKS EXPOSED," The San Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.; Sep 12, 2001; Steve Goldstein
It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a protective cover over Washington, DC.
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001, Jim Miklaszewski reporting.

  1. Unanswered questions about Rumsfeld?s meeting on the morning of 9/11/2001.

Where was Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary the morning of September 11th? He was at a meeting in the Pentagon. Why were no jets scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit? Indeed, why -- when fifty minutes earlier, after the South Tower had been hit and after a third jetliner (AA 77) had gone way off course, the red flag for a hijacking?
These questions have been approached (Kean/Zelikov, 2004), but the explanation has changed over time and certainly seems unsatisfactory (Griffin, 2005). As summarized by the Washington Post:
The [9-11] commission report portrays a discombobulated government that can't even keep track of the hijacked planes. Fighter planes fly in the wrong direction, pilots have no idea why they're in the air (maybe a cruise missile attack?)... Wash. Post, 19 June 2004
The first tower was hit at 8:46 am, and the second at 9:03 am. The jetliner that later hit the Pentagon was taken over about 8:46 am, and it hit the Pentagon at 9:38 am ? fully 52 minutes since the first Tower was struck. Where were the vaunted American air defenses during all this? In the year before this day, 67 military escort jets had been routinely scrambled in five to ten minutes of an indication of trouble:
The scrambling of fighter aircraft at the first sign of trouble is a routine phenomenon. In the year period before 9/11, fighters were scrambled 67 times. [AP, 8/13/02]
But not on September 11th, 2001, when none of the hijacked planes was intercepted at all. And why was the one man who could authorize deployment of those air defenses not informed sooner? Perhaps these matters should be investigated, to find out why there were no air defenses, no interceptions of the hijacked planes that crashed into buildings on 9/11. Note that one man placed in a key position to authorize ? or not -- deployment of military jets for intercepting errant aircraft could also stop the system. One man. It would not take a large "conspiracy" to do so. Although military personnel under that man might question the lack of authorizations, they are not allowed (we understand) to criticize their leaders publicly.
Rumsfeld himself explained some of what was happening to him that morning during a Larry King live interview on December 5, 2001:
Rumsfeld: I had said at an 8:00 o'clock breakfast that sometime in the next two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department that contributes to -- That underpins peace and stability in our world. And that is what underpins peace and stability.
In fact we can't have healthy economies and active lives unless we live in a peaceful, stable world, and I said that to these people. And someone walked in and handed a note that said that a plane had just hit the World Trade Center. And we adjourned the meeting, and I went in to get my CIA briefing --
King: Right next door is your office.
Rumsfeld: -- right next door here, and the whole building shook within 15 minutes.
King: It was a jarring thing. And you ran toward the smoke?
Rumsfeld: Uh huh. ..
King: I know we're out of the allotted time, but Gary Hart has said that he expects, his commission previously said this would happen; you were pretty prophetic that morning.
Rumsfeld: Yeah.... We have to be willing to invest, to see that we have the kinds of capabilities that we can deter and defend and where necessary preempt....
King: Where, Mr. Secretary, do you think or do we know it will stop? What are your views on going to Iraq, other nations that harbor terrorists? What's your view?
Rumsfeld: I don't know what will be decided by the president. It's certainly something that is at that level for our country.
King: It's his goal, right?
Rumsfeld: You bet....
King: Bin Laden, is it a must to get him one way or the other?
Rumsfeld: Well sure... And we're after him and we intend to find him and get him.

Particularly noteworthy in Rumsfeld?s history was the note telling him about the attacks on the World Trade Center ? followed by the attack on the Pentagon "within 15 minutes." This seems remarkable, that the only man who could authorize scrambling of fighters on 9/11/01 was in a meeting, in which he reports he heard about the attack in New York within 15 minutes of the strike on the Pentagon. This would evidently explain why no air defenses were deployed that day (along with the interfering war games discussed above), but begs the question of why no one interrupted the meeting earlier, while thousands died?
Why was Secretary Rumsfeld not informed earlier ? particularly with a hijacked plane on its way towards the Pentagon? Was he not in some danger? Does this not merit an investigation? Millions knew about the attacks from watching television ? was the Secretary of Defense too busy in a meeting to be informed of this until 15 minutes before the Pentagon (where the meeting was being held) was itself attacked? Did his staff have instructions to inhibit them from informing him sooner? One suspects that the full story and timeline is not yet available publicly. It is important to understand that before and since 9/11/01, fighters were quickly and routinely deployed to escort errant aircraft, as the following reports demonstrate.
The scrambling of fighter aircraft at the first sign of trouble is a routine phenomenon. In the year period before 9/11, fighters were scrambled 67 times. ?[AP, 8/13/02]
The commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov said the day after 9/11: "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday... As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up." [Pravda, 9/12/01]

Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft.
If... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency. [FAA regulations]

Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They?ll call the plane, saying "American 11, you?re deviating from course." It?s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart?s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. [MSNBC, 9/12/01]
A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile. [Boston Globe, 9/15/01]
In October, Gen. Eberhart told Congress that 'now it takes about one minute' from the time that the FAA senses something is amiss before it notifies NORAD. And around the same time, a NORAD spokesofficer told the Associated Press that the military can now scramble fighters 'within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States.' [Slate, 1/16/02]
Of course, the latter statement that the military can now scramble fighters within minutes follows because local commanders can once again authorize deployments. The military Order of June 2001 which gave Donald Rumsfeld that power was rescinded soon after 9/11/2001.

  1. Rumsfeld?s statement early morning 9/11/01 about a motivating ?shocking event?, and PNAC?s Sept. 2000 statement about "some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor"
    Rumsfeld?s "prescient" statement the morning of 9/11 before he received the note about the attacks, that ?there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy defense department? -- is strongly reminiscent of similar statements made a year earlier by the PNAC committee (of which Rumsfeld was a member). (See http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf .)
    "The military?s job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the ?zones of democratic peace;? to deter the rise of [any] power competitor.. and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war..." P. 2
    "America?s current geopolitical preeminence will be extended along with the peace and prosperity that it provides? foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence." P. 4
    "Further, the process of transformation, [since] it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor." P. 51
    This remarkable statement about the value of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor" came in September of 2000. The outline strategy for "America?s ... preeminence" founded on "unquestioned U.S. military preeminence" is found in "REBUILDING AMERICA?S DEFENSES: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century." The document was published by the "THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY."
    The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington, DC based think tank. The group was established in spring 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership". The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and FOX News regular... Present and former members include several prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. A large number of its ideas and its members are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors.
    The PNAC is a controversial organization. Some have raised concerns that the project has been proposing military and economic domination of land, space, and cyberspace by the United States, so as to establish American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana) for the future?hence the term "the New American Century", based on the idea that the 20th century was the American Century. Some analysts argue that the American-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, commenced in March of that year under the code name Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the first major step toward implementing these objectives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century)
    Stated goals of this revolutionary plan include (emphasis added):
    "RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today?s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the "Base Force" outlined by the Bush [senior] Administration" p. iv "INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING? dramatically p. iv [Iraq war: ~$300 Billion and counting] "REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia [Iraq is specified] "Defend the American homeland [now "Homeland Security"] and... provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world." "CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE,"
    "EXPLOIT THE REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS... [and] American global leadership and [keep] a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American? prosperity." p. V. "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
    The PNAC document is now publicly available and makes for interesting reading. Note that many of the participants in this "Project" and document are or were members of the Bush administration, including Libby (recently indicted), Vice President Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. We question the ethics of using military might in the world arena in a way that is "uniquely friendly to American prosperity." (p. V.) This sounds very much like a prescription for empire-building, and is far beyond the limits prescribed in the US Constitution.
 What are the rights of other countries?  Are they to be subservient to American prosperity?  What happened to the traditionally American policies of using the military only for defensive purposes, as specified in the Constitution, instead of for ?pre-emptive? or aggressive purposes?  
   The paradigm-shift outlined in the PNAC strategy-roadmap are evidently being implemented without full public debate, except to declare that 9/11 has changed everything.
  Several of the main points of the PNAC roadmap have become part of what is known as the "Bush Doctrine:"

The Bush Doctrine refers to the set of revised foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Subsequently, the Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits pre-emptive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
On the eve of the US attack on Iraq, in March, 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney laid out the official story of 9/11 and the change or "transformation" it brought, in an interview with Tim Russert:
Russert said many people throughout the country and around the world are asking why it is acceptable for the United States to lead a military attack against a nation that has not attacked this country.
"We have a new and unique set of circumstances we're trying to deal with," Cheney answered. He said the nation had to deal with different threats in the 20th century ? large states, significant military forces and intercontinental ballistic missiles ? "the kinds of threats we dealt with throughout the Cold War."
"All of that changed on Sept. 11," the vice president pointed out. "Since that time, we've had to deal with the proposition that truly deadly weapons could be delivered to the United States by a handful of terrorists. We saw on 9- 11 nineteen men hijack aircraft with airline tickets and box cutters and killed more than 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours [actually a sanctioned "conspiracy theory"]. (Williams, 2003, American Forces Press Service.)
Clearly, the events of Sept. 2001 have been used to justify and bring to fruition many of the goals outlined in the Sept. 2000 roadmap by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others. It is interesting to watch and surprising that more Americans are not alarmed by these developments, or at least, not expressing more alarm. Who would have thought, four years ago, that Americans would quietly allow for secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe (if they exist), torturing of prisoners (e.g., at Abu Ghraib, if done), domestic wiretapping without warrants (this has been admitted to), giving up of significant civil rights (per the Patriot Act), and support of unilateral, pre-emptive wars in the Middle East?
The PNAC band evidently got what they were looking for on September 11th. As reported in the Washington Post (Woodward and Balz, 2002):
Like his father, Bush tries to keep a daily diary of his thoughts and observations. That night, he dictated:
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today."

  1. Appeal for indictments by Dr. Robert Bowman (USAF Ret.)
    Col. Robert Bowman is on record with strong words regarding these events:
    The cabal of neoconservatives at PNAC [Project for the New American Century, see below] who planned this war (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle, Jeb Bush) even before W [George W. Bush] became president, knew the American people would not stand for it unless there was a new Pearl Harbor. 9/11 supplied that. Our government was warned? They were warned by 11 other countries. And they were specifically warned by an FBI agent that [some group] was planning on flying a hijacked airliner into the World Trade Center.
    They not only ignored the warnings, they made sure no fighter jets were scrambled to stop it. If they had just done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to be followed, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.....
    As a pilot who flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, I can tell you that the best thing our government can do for its combat veterans is to quit making more of them. Peace is patriotic; a preemptive war is immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, a war crime, and treason. I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic....
    We are the people. We are sovereign. We are the patriots. The whole world is with us. Never allow anyone to intimidate you into silence. Wake up, America! It?s time to speak truth to power. God bless America, and God save us from the traitors in our government. R. Bowman, Baltimore Chronicle, April 17, 2004.
    Dr. Bowman concludes:
    Wake up, America! It is time for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the whole oil mafia to be ... indicted.
    Impeachment of civil officers of the United States for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is provided in the U.S. Constitution:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Col. Bowman is in appealing for indictment/impeachment as provided for in the Constitution of the United States.

  1. 9/11 and Al Qaeda
    Soon after the 9-11-2001 tragedy, U.S. military forces immediately attacked and occupied Afghanistan to "kill Al Qaeda." Oddly, four years later, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, and Al Qaeda is growing ? along with the opium trade in Afghanistan -- despite the presence of US military forces.
    Furthermore, FBI director Robert Mueller III admitted that no evidence for 9-11 planning was found in Afghanistan
    The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.
    An ex-LAPD investigator summarizes:
    To date, the case that 9/11 was perpetrated solely by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda has never been proved, even to the most rudimentary standards. In fact, some 35 months after the attacks there has not been a single successful 9/11 prosecution anywhere in the world. The only conviction that had been secured, a German prosecution against Mounir El Motassadeq, charged with aiding the so called Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta, was overturned in 2004 because the US government refused to produce... evidence relevant to the charges. M. Ruppert, http://911review.com/reason.html
    We find the official "conspiracy theory" that bin Laden was ultimately responsible for coordinating the 9-11 attacks to be uncompelling, now four years after the attacks. He himself has denied this, repeatedly, as we see in the next section.

  2. Are we certain that bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

On 9/11/2001 and subsequent days, bin Laden was tried and convicted on live television.  For example, on 9/16/2001, Vice Pres. Cheney spoke in an interview with Tim Russert: MR. RUSSERT: The president said that Osama bin Laden was the prime suspect. Why?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is just a lot of evidence to link his organization, the al-Qaida organization, and he is the head of al-Qaida, to this operation. There are some ties, for example, to some of the people involved here back to the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen. We're able to tell--going back now looking at relationships and the way they've operated in the past, we're quite confident that, in fact, as the president said, he is the prime suspect...
MR. RUSSERT: You have no doubt that Osama bin Laden played some role in this.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have no doubt that he and his organization played a significant role in this.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you surprised by the precision and sophistication of the operation?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, certainly, we were surprised in the sense that, you know, there had been information coming in that a big operation was planned, but that's sort of a trend that you see all the time in these kinds of reports. ("The White House," Sept. 16, 2001)
Thus, Mr. Cheney admitted to pre-9/11 "information coming in that a big operation was planned" (discussed above) and stated the Bush administration had "no doubt" that bin Laden was involved. This is reminiscent of White House comments that there was "no doubt" that Hussein harbored terrible weapons of mass destruction.
Yet on the same day, bin Laden himself read a statement which was broadcast by Qatar?s Al-Jazeera satellite channel:
I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation....
This denial was broadcast worldwide, but the Bush administration urged media in the U.S. not to show the video since it might contain secret signals to Al Qaeda terrorists still in the country.
On September 28, 2001, bin Laden again denied any involvement with the attacks, and suggested that he was being framed:
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...
There exists a government within the government of the United States. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.... The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks to those persons who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own nation could survive." Daily Ummat, Pakistani newspaper, 28 Sept. 2001.
Again, the US Administration urged American media not to broadcast bin Laden?s words.
Then in December 2001, the Bush administration suddenly urged the media to go ahead and broadcast bin Laden?s words ? this time from a video tape found by the US military in Afghanistan, after the US had already attacked Afghanistan in pursuit of bin Laden and his fellows. This is the famous "smoking gun" video in which, according to the Administration, bin Laden confesses to his crime of organizing the 9/11 attacks. The tape was then fortuitously discovered by the invading Americans. Ascribed to bin Laden from this tape:
The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes. ?Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group.
(Transcript of Osama bin Laden videotape, Dec 13, 2001 http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/index.html)
Now this is truly remarkable! The hijackers knew nothing about the 9/11 operation until "just before they boarded the planes", and one group did not know the other group. Yet they were able to overpower the pilots and crew of the planes with box-cutters, and then successfully navigate the planes without ground support, and starting at 30,000-foot altitudes, hundreds of miles into the WTC Towers and the Pentagon ? with instructions received just before they boarded the planes! No practice beforehand. Incredible.
Also recall that FBI director Mueller stated that after operations in Afghanistan,
In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. That is odd. It doesn?t seem to add up. But back to the US Administration and the "Smoking Gun" video, as reported by Reuters:
U.S. Shows "Smoking Gun" Video
Reuters News Service
Posted Dec. 13, 2001 (Washington/Tora Bora, Afghanistan) -- The United States on Thursday released a video it said showed Osama bin Laden holding a "smoking gun" as mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, while his al Qaeda group hunkered down in the Afghan mountains under a deluge of U.S. bombs and vowed to fight on.
The videotape shows the Saudi-born militant smiling as he explains how the hijackers assembled, some oblivious to their mission until the last moment, to stage the attacks that killed nearly 3,300 people and which prompted the U.S.-led military operation to topple the Islamic Taliban movement for harboring bin Laden. However, the Saudi militant remains at large.
The Pentagon issued the hour-long amateur tape, found in Afghanistan, and provided an English translation in which bin Laden is quoted as saying: "We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower."
The comment apparently referred to hijacked airliners which plowed into and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York. Another plane smashed into the Pentagon near Washington and a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers rushed and struggled with the hijackers.
"We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all," the relaxed and bearded guerrilla chief was quoted as saying, adding the collapse of both towers was more than he had hoped for.
U.S. officials, who believe bin Laden is in Afghanistan despite rumors he has fled the fighting, billed the tape as conclusive "smoking gun" evidence that bin Laden, who has lived in Afghanistan for several years, was behind the attacks.
The Taliban had demanded proof of bin Laden's guilt as a condition for handing him over. Washington rejected that demand and on Oct. 7 began the bombing campaign that enabled anti-Taliban forces to take over most of the country. (Cached at: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/bet_smokinggun_121301.html)
Here bin Laden seems totally at odds with his earlier denials. Strange.
The BBC reported:
The BBC's Katty Kay says the White House hopes the video will bolster international support for the war on terrorism.
"For those who see this tape, they'll realize that not only is he guilty of incredible murder, he has no conscience and no soul, that he represents the worst of civilization," said President George W Bush.
US Senator Ron Wyden, who has also seen the tape, says he hopes it will remove suspicions in countries such as Pakistan that the 11 September attacks were an Israeli plot aimed at drawing the US into a war with Islamic countries. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1708091.stm]
Yet, there were many particularly in Islamic countries that were suspicious about the US-released video tape. Statements were contested that bin Laden was the guilty leader in planning the 9/11 attacks which killed thousands of innocents in a non-war situation -- strictly contrary to Islamic beliefs. And many doubted that the "smoking gun" video released by the Pentagon actually showed Osama bin Laden, claiming that the bearded man in the video said to be bin Laden by the Pentagon and other US officials did not look like bin Laden.
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia -- There was heavy skepticism in Arab and Muslim communities around the world about the veracity of the released videotape of Osama bin Laden discussing the September 11 terror attacks.
The tape, released Thursday by the Bush administration, was dismissed as U.S. propaganda by Malaysia's Muslim opposition. Leaders of Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS), the country's biggest opposition party, said they were still not convinced bin Laden was behind the September 11 attacks. "It is still not a proven case that he directed it, he planned it or he funded it," said Kamaruddin Jaafar, a senior PAS leader, told Reuters news service. "It's not a proven case despite this tape," he said....
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the tape showed that bin Laden was the "personification of evil." (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/12/14/gen.muslim.reax/index.html)
Bush lashed out against contradictory claims:
"It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored," [Bush] said during a brief photo opportunity with the prime minister of Thailand. "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man." [CNN ]
But wait ? we should examine for ourselves whether the fellow who is said to be Osama bin Laden in this tape looks like bin Laden seen in numerous other tapes. Here is the Pentagon-released confessional tape of bin Laden:

Next a juxtaposition of bin Laden from five videotapes, the "Pentagon-bin-Laden" is frame E while other videos of bin Laden are shown for comparison. See for yourself if these are the same man (compare for example the ear in A above with D below).

Inspection of the images shows that they are NOT in fact the same man, considering the nose length, nostril shape, cheeks and eyebrows. Pentagon-released man "E" looks quite different from the tapes released by Al Qaeda before and since "E" was released. A thorough investigation will use computer analysis to compare the facial characteristics ? then we will know for certain. A preliminary analysis considers the photographs with the individuals in approximately the same orientations, and compares facial characteristics:

The ratio of the distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe is 1.1 for bin Laden D (Al Jazeera tape) and 1.7 for bin Laden E (the Pentagon-released tape of Dec. 2001). The ratio of nose-length to nose width is even more distinctive for the two individuals, 2.5 for bin Laden D but only 1.3 for bin Laden E. Prof. Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, an expert on bin Laden, has analyzed many speeches by bin Laden and concludes that the Pentagon release of Dec. 13, 2001 discussed above is not authentically bin Laden, in agreement with our analysis. He writes, "the smoking gun tape is also a fake tape. It was made to appear like bin Laden..." (Lawrence, 2006) He also questions the authenticity of the audiotape released on 1/19/06. (Rupinta, 2006)
It appears we have been lied to again, and made angry as a nation so as to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, enormously growing our national debt and killing tens of thousands of people. Where will it end?


The way Hitler incited the German nation into attacking Poland in 1939 provides an example of how he used the "Big Lie" principle. Hitler's 'propagandist reason' for starting the war had already been arranged by Himmler and Heydrich at the F?hrer's request. The plan was of such importance that it was code named Operation Himmler and involved having the SS stage fake attacks by the Polish Army against German troops along the German-Polish border... [Prison] inmates dressed in Polish Army uniforms would be killed by lethal injections then riddled with bullets and left as evidence of the [staged] attacks, to be viewed later by members of the press.
Preparations for Operation Himmler were fully underway, with the invasion of Poland now scheduled by Hitler to begin at 4:30 a.m. on Saturday, August 26. As a prelude to the invasion, Goebbels' propaganda machine went into overdrive spinning out stories of alleged atrocities committed by Poles ... For several months now, Nazi journalists had also been trying to prepare the German people for the inevitable war in Europe. They had been personally instructed by Hitler to build enthusiasm for war and to counter civilian pessimism.

And so, Hitler incited his people against the "terrorist" attacks by Polish soldiers ? but these were staged attacks and the dead soldiers were actually prison inmates dressed up as Polish soldiers. Operation Himmler was a classic "false flag" operation, in which a staged attack is blamed on another group or country. The "Big Lie" was that Poland had attacked Germany. Hitler had his pretext for war against Poland ? a pretext he had created by ?terrorist attacks? which were performed by the German Secret Service and then blamed on Poland. And thus World War II began.

Have we Americans also been lied to? Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers. Although impeachment seems bold, it is the remedy provided by the US Constitution for resolving and answering such important questions.

There is growing evidence that:
1. Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen, and did nothing to stop it
2. A "catastrophic and catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor" was presaged before 9-11 (in the Sept. 2000 PNAC plan) and acknowledged as such on 9/11.
3. Virtually nothing was done to prevent the 9-11 airplane attacks on three major buildings, including lack of normal air defenses that day. No "escort" planes were scrambled despite ample time, and all three buildings suffered hits with major casualties
4. The WTC and Pentagon collapses were blamed on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, justifying war on Middle Eastern countries, while the evidence for the guilt remains surprisingly weak when one objectively confronts the evidence. A Toronto Star editorial entitled "Pursue the Truth About September 11" serves to underscore the issues raised here:

"Getting the truth about 9/11 has seemed impossible. The evasions, the obfuscations, the contradictions and, let's not put too fine a point on it, the lies have been overwhelming. ... The questions are endless. But most are not being asked?still?by most of the media [or the scientific community one might add] most of the time. ... There are many people, and more by the minute, persuaded that, if the Bush [administration] didn't cause 9/11, they did nothing to stop it." [Toronto Star, 11/17/02]

Independent investigations and even impeachment proceedings are justifiable, to bring answers to these outstanding issues. On the other hand, in time of war, perhaps it is better to just let things go and not raise such questions ? at least unt


It's a busy day here at the hospital, as I inject undetectable ceramic RFID tags (it's more effective than barcoding everybody, trust me) into all the newborn babies and untagged patients, but I thought I'd take a break from my work for a second to make an observation.

This shadow conspiracy which is responsible for not only planning, but maintaining the illusion of the "official story" that is "full of holes" about 9/11... how is this villainous entity any different from, say... the boogeyman?

I mean, I'm an armchair psychologist here, but it just seems so obvious to me that folks who ascribe the world's political ills to some nebulous overlord who is not only pretty much undetectable but seemingly all-powerful and all-evil -- well that's just more superstitious bullshitting to cover up for the fact that some of us around here (ahem) are incapable saying the phrase: "shit happens."

True statement: Sometimes it rains frogs.


Now when we have to describe some way to ourselves to accommodate this occurence with our concept of what we take as what is possible in reality, this is what separates the sane from the not-so. Okay, it rained frogs. If you are superstitious, it is written off as a miracle, caused by supernatural forces. Quick and easy, but ultimately a cop-out. Equally cop-outting as the idea that some evil mastermind orchestrated some crazy-ass scheme to collect, airlift, and then bomb frogs in a certain location, coordinating with accomplices at the site, to make it seem as if the frogs just happened to rain down all by themselves.

This worldwide evil organization... how is it any different from the concept of the devil? For millenia, humans who were incapable of coping with the messiness of life have invented demons to account for the bad things that happen, because when you can personify what you view as detrimental, then you can have some measure of control and maybe even find some way to fight it. To view life as layered and perhaps hopelessly complicated... well, that's just too much for some of us to bear.

So now we have conspiracies and cover-ups. No, JFK wasn't shot by Oswald with a precision rifle like he was trained to do in the Marines -- it was the MAFIA AND OUR OWN CIA!!!! Yes, collusion between hundreds of collaborators, all who kept quiet and stay quiet for decades, now... it all makes sense. Oh, and that report about the "official story" to explain the assassination... "full of holes".

Sound familiar?


so many changed their story after receiving a visit from our friends at the FBI/CIA.


Possible. It could also be complete crap. Do you have any evidence of what you're saying?

For example, do you have two statements made by one person at different dates that differ significantly? Since "so many" where visited, there must be some way to compare previous statements with later ones and see a major turn around.


Maybe someone's posted this before, but he sums it up:


Honestly, common sense people.