Some of the sources have departed since this essay was originally published on
I tried to be patriotic.
I tried to believe. I watched those quarter mile high buildings fall through their jaw-dropping catastrophes over and over again. I listened to the announcer and the experts explain what had happened. And I worked at my pitiful lack of faith, pounding my skull with the remote control and staring at the flickering images on the TV screen.
But poor mental peasant that I am, I could not escape the teachings of my forefathers. I fear I am trapped in my time, walled off from further scientific understanding by my inability to abandon the Second Millennium mindset.
But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your ignorance.
Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:
North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the
93rd floor, collapsed about 10:29 a.m.
North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor
South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor
|Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also
amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves
the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches,
bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other
elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel,
costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.
Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting from the windows.
Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane's collision with
the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to
pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first
fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot
(carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or
starved for oxygen -- or both.
But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.
And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.
I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire
burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538
degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is about 99% iron;
for melting points of iron and steel, see
I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.
And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics, see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html ).
I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.
Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry that much fuel?
Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ): "Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C -- hot enough to melt steel floor supports."
That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F), (see http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html ), but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).
This might be explained as a reporter's mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, steel, and relevant temperatures discussed at http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm .)
But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold, and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise, "Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit himself to be misquoted in a global publication?
Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston area civil and structural engineers: "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements -- floor trusses and columns -- so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could melt steel -- though he does not venture a specific temperature for the fire ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam ).
I feel it coming on again -- that horrible cynicism that causes me to doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. Please just think of this essay as a plea for help, and do NOT let it interfere with your own righteous faith. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must not become another casualty on America's skyline.
In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm , http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm , and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
Images cached from BBC page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ) and HERA report by G. Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf ). Items indicated in Clifton image (right): 13. Exterior columns; 17. Interior columns; 20. Usable office space
BBC News Image (left) is misleading:
Typical floor plan of WTC tower (from
|The outside shape of the towers was almost square, but the inner core was more rectangular. Pictures from the early phases of construction photos show how the rectangular inner cores were oriented in the finished buildings ( http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi ). Note that the north tower core was aligned east-west, and the south tower core was aligned north-south.|
This drawing shows the two WTC towers (black) and the paths of the attacking aircraft (red). Within the profile of each tower, the shape of the central core is shown by the green rectangle. WTC buildings 1 through 6 are numbered, WTC 7, north of 6, is not shown.
|With the central core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were
tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the outside rim,
closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure. This resulting
structure was so stable that the top of the towers swayed only three feet in a
high wind. The architects called it a "tube-within-a-tube design."
The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below, and so on like dominos (see http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.htmlor: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/harmon ).
Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation for that kind of stupidity -- particularly if there are casualties.
I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades
(and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three
times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x
|This is particularly worrisome since the first plane struck one side of the
north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the
exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the
other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at
an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent
Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry, spewing dust in all directions like a Fourth of July sparkler burning to the ground (http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/DOCS/dustfountain.jpg ).
This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because
in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower
tilted over to the south (
Whatever irregularities caused the top of the tower to tilt, subsequent pictures show the tower falling mostly within its own footprint. There are no reports of this cube of concrete and steel from the upper floors (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 250 ft high) falling a 1000 feet onto the buildings below.
Implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD, was also misled by the picture. Having observed the collapses on television news, Loizeaux said the 1,362-ft-tall south tower failed much as one would fell a tree ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).
I have recently seen a videotape rerun of the south tower falling. In that take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit, tilted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery.
That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower floors as a block of platters WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper floors as the platters fell?
If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.
This model would also hold for the north tower. According to Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel?
In trying to reconstruct and understand this event, we need to know whether the scenes we are watching are edited or simply shown raw as they were recorded.
But let us return our attention to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the boiling point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an explosion that consumes the fuel.
Jet fuel (refined kerosene) boils at temperatures above 160 degrees Celsius (350 F) and the vapor flashes into flame at 41 degrees Celsius (106 F). In an environment of 1500 degrees F, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor, and ceiling would boil off very quickly. If there were sufficient oxygen, it would burn; otherwise it would disperse out the open windows and flame when it met oxygen in the open air -- as was likely happening in the pictures that showed flames shooting from the windows. Some New Yorkers miles distant claimed they smelled the fuel, which would indicate fuel vapors were escaping without being burned.
Note that jet fuel burning outside the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central load-bearing columns significantly. Following this reasoning, the jet fuel fire does not adequately explain the failure of the central columns.
Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) long enough to melt 200,000 tons of steel. And certainly, the carpets, wallpaper, filing cabinets, occasional desks -- nothing else in that office was present in sufficient quantity to produce that temperature.
The WTC was not a lumber yard or a chemical plant. What was burning?
OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of concrete
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/index.htm#why ). No concrete
that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My experience
with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but rarely does it
just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at the pictures -- it is
truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the
The University of Sydney -- Department of Civil Engineering
And the people on the ground see little more than an opaque wall of dust -- with
inches of dust filling the streets and the lungs afterward (
What has happened here?
I need a faith booster shot. I would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground, just as they fell -- has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground floor.
In this picture, the top of the picture is south and the right side is west. The ruined shell in the lower left is WTC building 6, and lower left of that is WTC 7, which was leveled by forces not explained. Picture cached from http://www.eionews.com before it was removed.
Instead, the satellite pictures show the WTC ruins like an ash pit (
I am told by a friend that a man named Dr. Robert Schuller was on television telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building, all was dust. How did that happen?
I have just one other point I need help with -- the steel columns in the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.
Now I know those terrorists must have been much better at these things than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with commercial jets and I would reject it as -- spectacular maybe, but not significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic military target.
But if I were given the assignment of a terrorist hijacker, I would try to hit the towers low in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the people in the top stories were trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots aimed for the water line.
But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a spot just 20 floors from the top ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABCNews ).
And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower -- despite a relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories ( http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/rubble_ny091101.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog )
The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario -- the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse of the building -- phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.
Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for their genius.
Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events -- apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and circumlocutions would make a politician blush:
"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination." ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/wtc.htm#why )
In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.
Is this civil engineering in the Third Millennium -- a galloping case of perfect hindsight?
Scientific American, prestigious journal of cutting edge science, remarked:
Despite the expert panel's preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms
responsible for the twin towers' fall, the definitive cause has yet to be
determined. Reportedly, the National Science Foundation has funded eight
research projects to probe the WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil
Engineers is sponsoring several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural
Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has
established an investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the
Amazing: At least ten independent professional studies for an incident every professional seems already to understand. Notwithstanding the apparent lack of answers and all these studies not yet done, the very next paragraph is headed, "How the Towers Fell," and the reader is treated to a shotgun assortment of speculations, each delivered with the beard-stroking and pipe-puffing certainty that no explanation would ever be seriously challenged.
I have found only one expert candidly admitting his surprise. This was Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD:
Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).
There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.
"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the
towers, he said.
But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the Albuquerque Journal web page.
And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed," too:
Other buildings -- including the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [WTC 7] -- caved in later, weakened by the earlier collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say engineers. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/index.html#why ).
(These ruins are shown in aerial photo http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg , or: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/numbersixafter.jpg ).
It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century, but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.
Pardon me, but this recitation has not given me the relief I hoped for. I must get back to work.
I believe in the President, the Flag, and the Statue of Liberty. I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to America.
And I believe all Americans are so well educated in the basic physics discussed above, they would rise up in fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them.
Hand me that remote, will you? I believe <clonk>. I believe <clonk>. I believe ...
--- J. McMichael
(Celsius/Fahrenheit conversion tool at http://www.vaxxine.com/mgdsite/celcon.htm )
Other links and information about the BUSH Gangs involvement in the September 11th attacks on the Twin Towers and other targets.
Please pass on the information so this crime does not go unpunished.
The truth about Sept 11
The following links are collected by an earth citizen, Gerard Holmgren, who wants the truth to come out on September 11 events. He doesn't have a web site and posts his link on forums,
to mailing lists. I saved his message in html and give it here.
List of links to documented evidence of high level US complicity in the attacks of Sept 11 2001.
(The Web pages below have been backed up. If any links are dead, the backed up page can
be mailed on request.)
THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11
Section 1: Airforce stand-down
1:1 It has become popular mythology in the
media that fighter jets were scrambled to intercept
the hijacked planes. This is completely untrue as
the following research shows.
Guilty For 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers,
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, 14 Nov 2001
1:2 Mr. Cheney's Cover Story --
Section 2 of Guilty For 9-11, 20 Nov 2001
1:3 9-ll: Nothing Urgent, by George Szamuely,
Research & documentation
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Jan 2002
1:4 Planes "did scramble " on 9/11, they just
" arrived late "
1:5 Scrambled Messages, by George Szamuely,
12 Dec 2001
1:6 Air National Guard Mission and Vision statements
1:7 Russian Air Force chief says official 9/11
Scrambling of fighter jets to intercept stray
aircraft is a routine procedure. It happened 67
times in the 10 months between September 2000
and June 2001.
1.8 Use of military jets jumps since 9/11.
Associated Press Aug 13 2002.
1.9 CBS News. Scrambling to prevent another
9/11 Aug 14 2002
1.10 Preventing another 9/11 Military.com
1.11 ABC News Jets on high Alert. Aug 13 2002.
1.12 Military now notified immediately of unusual
air traffic events. Fox news Aug 12 2002
So on Sept 11, 2001 - Why were no fighter jets
scrambled, and why has a cover up story been
In the unlikely event that the airforce failed through
incompetence, ( not once but 4 times! ) where is
the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries
into car crashes at race tracks.
Section 2: Complicit behaviour of G.W.Bush
It has become common mythology in the media
that George W. Bush was at Booker Elementary
School when he learned of the first WTC crash.
This is a lie. Why is Bush lying about where
he was, and what he knew?
2:1 Guilty for 9-11 Section 3: Bush in the open
by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel.
This is not the only lie Bush has told about his
movements that morning. See how many times
he has changed his story.
2:2 Sept 11 attacks- evidence of US collusion
by Steve Grey.
(Read the section called "A tangle of lies")
2.3 Bush gets tangled in his lies Part 1.
A strange press conference. By Jared israel
and francisco Gil-White Sept 25 2002.
2:4 Bush Gets Tangled in his 9-11 Lies, Part 2:
White House Cover-up Creates More Problems
than it Solves -- by Jared Israel and Francisco
Gil-White [7 October 2002]
2:5 The President as Incompetent Liar: Bush's
Claim that he Saw TV Footage of 1st Plane Hitting WTC
Comments by Jared Israel [Posted 12 September 2002]
Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair.
Bush is lying about where he was, what he was
doing and what he knew, during the crucial
period between 8.45 and 9 AM on Sept 11.
Why did the President - after being told "America
is under attack" continue to listen to schoolchildren
reading for another 25 minutes ? Why was he
cheering, smiling and joking even as it was known
that at least one more hijacked plane was on the
loose ? View the TV footage which proves treason
at the top level.
Section 3: The Ficticious Hijackers
If 19 Arabs hijacked the planes, why are there
no Arabic names on any of the passenger lists?
If they used non-Arabic aliases, which of the
" innocents " on the lists are alleged to be the hijackers?
3:1 Passenger and crew list for AA 11 (first WTC crash.)
3:2 AA 77 (Pentagon crash)
3:3 UAL 175 (2nd WTC crash)
3:4 UAL 93 (Pensylvannia crash)
If they are alleged to have been using non- Arabic
aliases (19 obviously Arabic men got on board
using non-Arabic ID, with 100% success rate?), why
did the FBI claim that they were traced through the
use of credit cards to buy tickets in their own names?
3:5 If 9 of the alleged hijackers were searched
before boarding, as claimed in this article
why is there no airport security footage of them?
How did they (allegedly) get on board with knives,
guns, AND electronic guidance systems, while
being searched, but avoiding security cameras
and not being on the passenger lists?
What aliases were they alleged to be using when
they were searched, and if they were not using
aliases, why are they not on the passenger lists?
What of reports that some of the alleged hijackers
are still alive, and had nothing to do with the attacks ?
3:11 According to this article
the FBI now claims that the hijackers used gas to
subdue the passengers and crew. If they used gas
they would have been affected themselves -
unless they had masks. The story gets better all
the time. They somehow got on board with masks,
gas, guns, knives and electronic guidance systems,
in spite of being searched, didn't show up on the
airport security cameras, and were not on the
passenger lists. They left flight manuals in Arabic
in rented cars outside the airport (last minute
brushing up on the way there, about how to fly
the things!) and then crashed the planes in
breath taking displays of skilled piloting.
Just to make sure we knew who they were,
their passports were conveniently found in
spite of fiery crashes which incinerated the
planes and occupants. So they got on board
with false IDs but used their real passports ?
If the mythical Arab hijackers really were on the
planes and airport security systems failed due
to incompetence (not once but 19 times! ), where
is the major inquiry? I have seen bigger inquiries
into racehorse doping scandals.
Section 4: More oddities
Why the official story concerning the hijacking of
AA11 (first WTC crash) cannot possibly be true.
4:1 9/11 Redux: (The Observeršs Cut) American
Airlines Flight 11, Reexamined By David L. Graham
Was an urban rescue team sent to New York
the night before the attacks?
4.4 Former top German Cabinet Minister rejects
official story of 9 11 attacks. Interview with Andreas
von Buelow. Tagesspiegel Jan 13 2002.
National Security Advisor Rice and WhiteHouse
spokesman Fleischer lied in saying that nobody
had ever concieved of planes being used in this
manner, their statements in this article,
4:5 Bush Was Warned of Hijackings Before 9/11;
Lawmakers Want Public Inquiry ABC News
May 16 2002
when the 1994 extract from Time magazine,
quoted in article 2:1 demonstrates that the potential
problem had been recognized for decades.
And there are other examples of this possibility
having been widely recognized prior to sept 11.
4:6 "Omens of terror." by David Wise Oct 7 2001
In article 4:5 Rice also lied in saying that any
threat had been overwhelmingly perceived as
being overseas. The statement she made is in
this press briefing.
4:7 Press Briefing by National Security Advisor
Dr. Condoleezza Rice -- The James S. Brady
Briefing Room May 16 2002 . 4.10PM EDT
But this is the truth about the memo to which she refers.
4:8 August memo focused on attacks in the U.S.
by Bob Wooward and Dan Eggen. Washington
Post staff writers. May 18 2002. page A01.
4:9 What did happen to Flight 93? by Richrad Wallace.
The Daily Mirror sept 13, 2002
Are cell phone calls from planes, of the type
allegedly made by passengers on Sept 11 possible ?