9-11 and the IMPOSSIBLE
World Trade Center Collapse

            “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth!" - Doyle


Part Three of An Online Journal of 9-11



 

A simple stop-watch tells the horrible truth of the World Trade Center - "Free-fall"

Intelligent thinking requires one to go to the very basics of the 9-11 truth.   In the case of the WTC, three buildings collapsed onto their own footprint - at nearly free-fall velocities; in record time.  That’s not “fire damage.” No steel structure has ever been collapsed by fire, before or since; with two post 9-11 high-rise fires giving the matter the proverbial ‘best shot.’

Witness testimony of the WTC explosions is backed by physical evidence, including broadcast network video captures of demolition “squibs” firing in sequence.

The collapse of WTC-7 is undeniably a controlled demolition.   The building owner admitting that they decided to “…pull it.” Who in the middle of the 9-11 WTC chaos is going to round up the explosives and carry them into a burning building? How does one account for the materials and expertise to magically appear, on 9-11?   The charges would need to be pre-planned and pre-placed.   Again, ‘time’ tells the tale.   Then there's a nagging question, "Why would you want to destroy the building? What purpose would it serve?

The cover-up efforts are the most damning testimony.

The more one reads about the World Trade Center collapse, the more skeptical they should become of the “official” account.   Given the lack of any remaining "hard" evidence, the following presentation is speculation, but well worth reading and thinking about.  

WHY?

Because the investigators at the WTC site were hampered to the maximum, documentation efforts were equally hampered; and the debris was too quickly – and profitably - disposed of; overseas.  

LOOK TO THIS VIDEO!

Just for starters, 9-11 represented the first collapse of ANY steel-framed building, allegedly from fire.   BUT – there were three such occurrences; not just one.   The third building, Seven World Trade Center (7-WTC), was not hit by an aircraft loaded with jet fuel.   Its collapse wasn't accompanied by a fireball, representing the alleged tank of diesel fuel burning or exploding - (which it didn't).   That’s asking too much from ‘coincidence,’ just by virtue of two separate architectural styles; within an eight-hour period of time.   Most spectacularly, no ‘official’ questions were asked.  

WHY?

COVERUP is the unique legacy of ALL of the 9-11 events, as is true of subsequent events.   That leaves the obvious question, ”SO, what’s being covered up?   The planes hit the buildings, they burned & collapsed.   What’s the big deal?”

One may be sure that such is the intended question.   Few even give any thought to 7-WTC; at all.

One must first go to the reports and descriptions of the molten steel at the base of all three buildings, including 7-WTC.   It is also necessary to go to the assumption that the accounts are factual; as, there have been no denials - and certainly no investigations, relative to the reports.   Those reports are too strange to ignore; particularly given the associated thermal imagery of the post-collapse WTC site.   Those reports are not limited to a single individual, or any “group.” The ‘pools of molten steel’ descriptions quickly lead the military mindset to something on the order of massive Thermite charges.   There is no amount of mechanical energy associated with the collapse, which could "melt and pool" any steel.   Bending steel with horrendous mechanical energy is one thing, melting it is another.  

Certainly, a "demolition" would be a major undertaking; there's no argument available on that point.   Forty-seven center-core steel columns (or a high percentage) would have to be rigged.   But, just the obvious and well-documented “official” deceptions of 9-11 were massive undertakings.   Thus, the term ‘impossible’ is not particularly appropriate, here.

Steel will do all kinds of “tricks,” but melting requires the basic melting temperature – or greater.   Melting also requires the element of time, proportional to the thermal energy buildup and 'peak' melting temperature.   To obtain the melting temperature for steel - not iron - one needs the external temperature of approximately 2,900 degrees (F) with enough time for the metal to convert from a solid to a liquid.   The process can be accelerated, but only with a much higher temperature – such as Thermite – approximately 5,400 degrees (F).   That's almost twice the needed heat.   All the pooled jet fuel in the world won't burn hot enough to produce molten steel - under any conditions.

Relative to the 'temperature' argument, the imagery of the WTC does NOT reveal the aluminum siding of the WTC towers deforming.   Thus, given the constant exposure - over time - to any escaping heat, it is difficult to imagine the fires being so hot as to cause either catastrophic or abrupt damage to the WTC vertical support structure.   None of the images of the outer steel structure show the otherwise expected red-hot glow.   All images show the outer shell mechanically destroyed, versus any suggestion of collapsing from thermal cause.   Given the mechanics of the heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage.   No matter what fire dynamics were going on within the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns.   Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns should have been the structural 'weak-link.'

Or, if one cares to argue that the core structure (elevators or stairways) were acting as a chimney, it is necessary to realize than any catastrophic temperatures which "chimneyed" would have caused the contents of the upper floors to burn violently - which is not seen in the images, versus the predominant brown and white smoke, indicating a relatively cool temperature.

While one is given to concluding that the jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts, it must be noted that the WTC towers had three independent elevator levels/segments, with only one elevator shaft going to the top.   Thus, the ONLY other top-to-bottom avenue for central destruction were the 47 core steel columns.   If there were "inspection ports," or with a few holes cut in the core columns, the necessary charges could be lowered into place.

The Naudet Brothers videotape/DVD demonstrates the lack of any prominent lobby smoke or sooting to suggest any amount of jet fuel pouring down the single elevator shaft & burning.   Again, one must remember that the elevators were broken up into three distinct modules.   That only leaves the possibility of demolition charges.   Strangely, in the Naudet documentary, the North Tower lobby windows were all blown outward - requiring a huge pneumatic force in a lobby of that size - OR - a settling of the building!.   The associated burn victims leave the source of the flames in question.   The inherent nature of fire suggests that the fire/blast came from below the lobby.  

There is an interesting report from Engineer Mike Pecoraro, working in the sub-basement level of the North Tower, on that morning.   He describes numerous ground and sub-basement level explosions in the on-line publication " Chief Engineer." The article describes, from D level "The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working.   When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.   'There was nothing there but rubble, 'Mike said.   'We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ?   gone!' The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone.   'There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything' he said.

In the evidence of the WTC collapse, the North Tower antenna starting down first was second only to the infamous tattle-tale blonde, in the FEMA report, standing in the impact hole of the North Tower.   Her presence attests to the fact that the fires were obviously too cool to collapse the towers, let alone abruptly.

A few sentences in the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) report [Chapter 2] add to the 'mystery' of the collapse:

"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building.   A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs.   The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact.   The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings."

Thus, one quickly has to assume that the buildings were designed to NOT collapse from 'normal' fire temperatures and return to the question of the reality behind not only a collapse, but an abrupt collapse.

Look to the compelling photos below.   (Also used in the FEMA report.) In the center of the impact hole (look very closely) there is a blonde standing there, leaning to the right.   Thus, one must contemplate just how cool the pre-collapse temperatures were, at the impact - and presumably the hottest - point.   The second picture shows her standing fully upright, attesting to the authenticity of the photo image, versus a photographic aberration.  

 

SEE - http://www.skfriends.com/wtc-woman-hanging-photo-06.htm


The woman would have to come from the stairway, in the center of the building. Her white pants indicate that it wasn't a very messy area. Just how much damage could have possibly been done, at the most vulnerable point, given her obvious origins?

When one wishes to argue "controlled demolition," then it is necessary to address the topic of 'explosives.' The WTC collapses do not yet leave an overwhelming documented audio legacy suggesting explosives.   Note the use of the term "overwhelming." There are arguments claiming that explosions did occur.   If so, they were incredibly controlled; that's to leave the issue as being 'possible.' Where one would anticipate such explosions as factual, it is reasonable to expect at least a radio report of explosions, among the last transmissions of the firefighters who were trapped in the buildings.

Increasingly, those reports ARE coming forward!

Initially, those communications got quite a "security" lid clamped upon them, as well.   So, one must also ask what is true, in that picture.  Why is the truth so frightening?

In any event, a simple stopwatch screams "controlled demolition!"

One must remember that each building had 47 steel columns at its center.   It's possible to imagine the cement floors dislodging themselves; but there is no rational accounting for the ABRUPT collapse of the core columns!

It should be noted that the audible noise of the explosions of any demolition "squibs" would be rather easily disguised in the noise of the collapse.   The predominantly horizontal nature of these charges would be difficult to discern in seismic data, as well.

   

The jetting material indicated in this picture is out of proportion in length and shape with any "collapse" damage.   These "squibs" are also obviously too far below the progressing collapse section to be a function of the collapse, itself.   Such imagery is too commonly discovered on the Internet and personal videotape collections to be reasonably regarded as "faked."

Another major focus is the reporting of the "pools of molten steel," discovered at the very base of the WTC towers.   The issue being that between the molten steel reports and the relative silence, Thermite is the best probable candidate for such sabotage.   It is vitally important to realize that if the metal had been heated by ANY conventional fuel, it would – by the dictates of physics - have to be heated from below - ONLY!   Again, jet fuel, burning in open air, will reach roughly 1,100 degrees - insufficient to actually MELT steel.   Certainly it can weaken the steel, but not melt it down.   The WTC jet fuel did not burn in open air, thus a lower temperature may reasonably be assumed.

That also means that any lesser temperature would have taken days to weaken the steel to the catastrophic failure stage - if at all!

We may be certain that - in the best case scenario - the jet fuel didn't find a "magical" equivalent of a burner mechanism or "Blast Furnace," BELOW the steel.   Hence, a device on the order of a Thermite charge is the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION as to how the molten metal could be found at the bottom of the debris, as opposed to being melted OVER or AMONG the debris.  

Anyone who has seen a military Thermite grenade melt through the block of a jeep engine - in approximately ten seconds - will attest to the melting properties of Thermite.  

As to the "why" of using Thermite - in particular - the "quiet" destruction of any significant percentage of "basement" column segments would diminish the requirement for explosive charges, above.   Gravity would provide the required destructive energy.   Also, the melted/melting steel would ADDITIONALLY act as a "seismic shock absorber," hiding the reality above.

ONCE AGAIN – in the bizarre legacy of 9-11 - No questions were asked!  

Too many sources acknowledge the molten steel.   However, the major mystery is that some incredible and enduring temperatures were recorded, for approximately a week after the collapse.   So far, there is little to account for such reports.

The level and duration of the temperatures (evidenced by the documented molten steel and the satellite thermal imagery) points to what is referred to in military circles as "Super Thermite," a radically hotter substnace than what is conventionally found in the military inventory. However, at the time of this writing, little is known about the substance.

While there is a suggestion of a new - and secret - high thermal energy military grade weapon; there is nothing in the realm of some kind of "ray-gun," as argued on some 9-11 sites; otherwise claiming to be credible. There is also a certain amount of suspicion concerning "micro-nuke" weapons, however, the possibility of such is dissuaded by the lack of radioactivity reports.   Admittedly, one would have to first test for such, in order to eliminate that possibility.   Comparably, such should have seismic data glaringly suggesting the event(s).   Add lateral blast damage, imposing witness accounts of light flashes, loud explosions, etc.

The laws of physics tell the ultimate tale, as said before, “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth!"

The center-section supporting structure of the WTC tower buildings broke apart as it collapsed.   Therefore, an argument for ‘mechanical energy transmission’ doesn’t hold up.   It’s not the same as hitting a nail with a sledge-hammer - producing/transmitting tremendous heat from the impact.   Comparing the mechanics of the collapsing buildings, a ‘shattering’ nail would not transmit the impact force to necessary to ‘heat’ the opposite end of a nail.   In other words, the force of the collapse couldn't/didn't melt the bases of the core columns.  

The URL video clip, below, displays the two ocurrences of "cutter" jets - shooting to the right - of a classic controlled demolition -

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wmv/demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv

The south WTC tower is most representative of the collapses.   Remember that it lost its “cap”-

- therefore the energy from the structure above would – in theory - be adequately diverted so as NOT to induce a continued - and total - vertical collapse of the remainder of the structure, below.   In theory, the “cap” should have torn loose and independently fallen.   However, if there had been an independent - and nearly simultaneous - collapse of the core, the collapse would continue - vertically.   The “cap” tilted by approximately 22 degrees, but did not fall off; it collapsed – "in formation” - with the rest of the structure.   The simultaneous "fall" of the two sections tells a story, by itself.   The 'center of gravity' of the "cap" abruptly found a vertical path to the ground!   The most probable reality being that the core collapsed, inducing the tilt - and fall - of the "cap."

If the "cap" had tilted first, the mechanical tilt of the “cap” should have relieved a major portion of the purely vertical stress from above; alleviating any tendency for the immediate lower structure to “pancake;” as was witnessed.   It is not difficult to imagine the floors collapsing over a period of time - but NOT simultaneously!

With the outer walls being vertically self-supporting, any interior dynamics (action) would be hidden from view.   Remember that the shattering of the outer walls progressively followed the collapse of the building core.  

It is worth noting that there was an expected delay in the core collapse, as evidenced by the videotapes and pictures illustrating heavy free-falling external debris gaining a slight lead on the building collapse.   Again, a stopwatch is a key forensic instrument.

The basic mechanics of the collapses offer another major clue - BOTH buildings were damaged so as to create a segmented "cap." Yet with a radical difference between the mass (size) of the "caps," both towers collapsed - identically!

In the extreme, the individual floor "plates" might have been able to let go (“peeling” from around the columns and the outer walls), but - as a minimum - the lower (ground level) segments of the heavy steel inner columns should have been left standing, somewhat vertically, like stray swizzle-sticks.   Yet, clearly something major also happened at the very base of the building - a search warrant is required to find the strongest vertical components in the surviving structure - but not so with the weakest!  

Given that the lower columns were radically thicker steel, and obviously stronger, some of the columns should have still been standing – in some significant number.   Yet, from the post-collapse photographs, the outer walls appeared to be the strongest vertical sections; which they were not.   Still, the lower outer walls were left standing; not the more massive “core” columns.   The magnitude of both vertical and lateral forces - even considering location - doesn't make sense; not even in the context of 'chaos.'

It IS certain that not all of the columns collapsed at their base, evidenced just by the blessed group of survivors caught in the remains of the sole-surviving stairwell.

While there are pictures to show "stubs" of some core columns, the numbers of the core columns are few.

Depending on the size descriptions of the “molten steel,” available, the suggestion goes to the idea that there might have been 'over-kill' Thermite charges at the very bottom, guaranteeing the total vertical collapse.   Strictly as a guess, one might estimate an eight-foot section abruptly melted down – or was taken down by some form of Thermite “shape charges.”

In the videos & pictures of the collapsing segments, it is clear that the lower windows were exploding significantly below the collapsing section above.   That imagery should not be confused with the more prominent "jets" indicative of demolition squibs.   The window expulsion would be a “plunger” effect, expelling the air as the core collapsed - independently of the outer shell.   In simple terms, those images represent the differential between gravity accelerating the core, versus the outer walls, resisting collapse, with their independent vertical support.   As the core collapsed, the outer shell segments let go from the lateral forces, which they were not stressed for.   The images also demonstrate the unique force concentrations in TWO events - not just one; with a third such collapse to follow; 7-WTC.

Digress a moment to reflect on the "official" position.   Remember those "heated and deformed bolts," which we're to believe gave way, almost simultaneously?   In chapter two of the FEMA report, it is revealed that the bolts of the "weakened" floor beams were lateral (sideways) supports; not vertical.   The vertical support plates (L-shamed "hanger brackets") for the floor joists were welded!

By inference, we are to believe that the 'corner' bolts (presumptive heavier 'corner' insulation with greater adhesion) ALL lost their thermal insulation, that no heat was radiated away by the steel-on-steel contact; and that no significant volume of heat was ventilated out through the shattered windows - along with all that smoke.   The "manufactured presumption" is that the heat totally accumulated to produce the cited temperatures - not from burning jet fuel, per FEMA - but from burning furniture, interior finish materials and paper!   With all that 'contained' heat, the cooler outer steel walls are supposed to have heated and expanded sideways - independently of the heated & expanded steel floor joists!   - That's not how fire physics operate.

FEMA also glosses over another detail - the analysis/emphasis should have been on the stronger MAIN floor trusses, not the "transverse" (90-degrees to the main joists) floor joists.   The floors were supported by an "x-y" grid of vertical supports, not a single row of parallel trusses - as otherwise suggested.

The reality is that the expansion of the heated/expanded floor trusses and joists would have initially added strength, not taken it away!   Until the heat reached approximately 700 degrees, would there be any weakening of the trusses & joists.   The heated floor structural elements would have "snugged-up" to the cooler outer walls.   The outer walls [cooled by external convective air currents], being vertically channeled, would not have "expanded-away" from the steel floor joists; leaving the floor panels to pull away from their supports and collapse.

While any expansion of the trusses and joists would have definitely affected the outer walls, the effect should have been negligible.   The imagery of the outer walls being the last to collapse attests to the validity of that argument.

This brings us to another interesting point - the windows ran to the top of the full ceiling - thus the heat accumulation would have been relatively negligible, given the open ventilation from the volume of broken windows - evidenced by the wind carrying the smoke away.   The internal components and the outer walls would not have been subject to a massive and uniquely "contained" (non-ventilated) "heat treatment," relative to a reasonable time which should have been required to cause ANY significant collapse.

These counter-arguments radically diminish the proposition that the rigidity of the cement floors and their deeply corrugated steel containment 'pans' were somehow 'destroyed,' with the subsequent 'dead weight' causing the floor joists to abruptly 'bow' downward and inward and collapse.   The 'official' presentation also ignores the insulated steel pan acting as a contact 'firewall' for the cement floor, as well as an effective 'heat-sink.' It must not be forgotten that the deep corrugation of the steel pans constituted additional vertical support, similar to rebar.  

Again, the obviously limited time of intense heat exposure limits the inevitability of a collapse - in part; or in whole.

A heat induced floor collapse may be possible - for limited numbers of local floor segments, affecting one floor at a time.   Given the surviving thermal insulation - in some part - around the steel, the heat could NOT have been universally distributed over an entire single floor, let alone over ten floors - in the case of the North Tower, in particular.

It's elementary logic that any significant heat would have caused a weakening of the steel.   However, it's ludicrous to believe that the heat uniquely accumulated, versus ventilated, so as to disastrously diminish the strength of industrial steel - in such a short period of time.

It must also be considered that the elevator shafts and the stairwells acted as chimneys.   The fires on the floors above the impact floors attest to the probability of those fires being started by the "chimney effect." What started as a conduit for flame, later became a conduit for ventilation.

Such ventilation would also have acted to cool the 47 vertical columns, diminishing any tendency to weaken & buckle - to any appreciable extent.   Again, it's necessary to remember how quickly the collapse occurred - if the purported cause-and-effect was factual.  

In evidence of the heat escape, one picture of the events shows the blonde woman STANDING at the edge of the burned-out North Tower entry hole (Illustrated in figure 2-15 of the FEMA report).   If she could have stood upright at that station.   She would have come from the interior of the building.   Therefore, it's academic that the interior temperatures couldn't have been hot enough to produce an abrupt event - such as the nearly instant collapse.

To be fair, the pictures do show what is apparently a well-fed conventional fire on a floor approximately two stories upward from the woman.   Again, the building was designed and 'rated' to deal with that temperature level.

The aircraft impact would have taken out approximately 30 exterior shell columns, weakening the face of the building.   However, it is clear that the exterior collapsed in consequence of the building core collapsing, with the interior material having enough lateral energy to shatter the outer shell, as the core collapsed - with the cement flooring shattering into so much dust.

Returning to the argument of the mechanics of a basement "core collapse," the lowest floor in the buildings would only have traveled the distance of the missing “basement” segment - whatever that level may have been.   [For the sake of argument, again, let’s call that eight feet - literally at the last level.] The lower floor would have traveled eight feet, then stopped.   However, with that collapse (transmitted the full length of the core – to the very top of the building) the upper segment would experience an acceleration effect in the classic ‘mass-times-acceleration’ equation.   Thus, with the aircraft impact and fire damage, at the top, the weakened and ‘segmented’ upper portion would be dynamically converted into a “plunger.” Gravity did the rest.    

To keep the concept of such an operation simple, it’s necessary to entertain the idea also that ONLY the base of the columns were rigged with Thermite charges.   With enough induced force (collapse), the upper “core” column attachment joints (bolts/welds) could conceivably shear/shatter in a vertical 'accordion' effect from the downward accelerating mass.  

However, such a collapse could not take place at the "free-fall" velocity.   Remember that without some kind of major lateral force, 47 steel columns would NOT have abruptly failed!   There is no escape from that fact.   A cheap stopwatch gives the whole thing away.

In all the images of the collapse, there is nothing seen to suggest that the segmented upper "caps" (in their entirety - including the outer walls) collapsed onto the lower floors (making contact with the lower floors) - until impacting the ground.   The South Tower "cap" tilted onto the lower floor, it did not pancake onto that floor.   What is NOT seen is a solid initial "crunch," of the upper floor collapsing onto the lower segment.

Ordinarily, one would expect to see a solid initial "crunch." Absent such an event, logic goes to the argument, "No pancake from above; no pancake below." The "caps" could only BOTH fall - "in formation" - if the lower sections were falling at an equal speed - identically timed.   Both sections would need to be subject to the same "trigger event" for that kind of timing.   TWO such occurrences are too much for coincidence.   With respect to this argument, the collapse of the North Tower gives a remarkable example.  

PLEASE NOTICE -

In the online images, 'freeze-framed,' during the collapse of the North Tower, it is observed that one FIRST sees the antenna collapse by approximately 10 - 20 feet.   It is necessary to compare the top right corner of the building exterior, versus the first "segment line" of the antenna.   Note the wind-driven 'trail' of the smoke, versus the smoke being ejected into the wind - from an 'event' inside the building.  

Next, (looking through the general smoke) an intermediate set of "puff lines" of smoke are uniquely seen - ABOVE the aircraft impact entry hole - from the top floor, down to the impact point.   The "puff lines" extend along the entire floor line, escaping from the windows, of course.   Those unique uniform linear "puff lines" are the smoking gun, as the "puff line" can ONLY occur, if the floor BELOW the "puff line" is solid, allowing the necessary compression, which pushes the smoke outward.   No solid floor = NO "PUFF."

Any significant fire would have been at least one floor below the last "puff line!" That indicates the collapse of the cooler upper floors; (core column collapse) not the heavily fire damaged floors - immediately above the fire.  

Note that the corner post in the images is rigid, relative to what is obviously happening within the building.   The additional outer structure which helps stabilize the antenna, accounts for the upper external walls being particularly resilient to independent collapse.   The collapsing internal floors from the TOP of the building caused the entire cascade; not the fire-damaged floor - uniquely.

The nearly simultaneous occurrence of the "puff lines" - and the light smoke color - indicate that the alleged fire/heat would need to be uniform to the top-most floor.   That is, independent fires burning on multiple floors; producing simultaneous and identical temperature profiles.   IMPOSSIBLE!

Again, in the images, the fire below is not "fanned" [billowing flames escaping] until after the event of the "puffs," indicating the factual sequence (core collapse).   The antenna collapses by about 10-20 feet, the "puff lines" occur, then the fire gets "fanned." The collapse of the antenna, says that the events started in the core columns - not the burned floor, immediately above the impact! All forty-seven columns could NOT have given way at once - from fire damage!   VISUALLY- everything started from ABOVE!

Again, in the images of the North Tower, the antenna is shown collapsing, independently of the outer shell.   That says that the forty-seven core columns collapsed - FIRST.   The floor panels didn't arbitrarily 'flake off' their mounts from fire-induced heat damage.

If that had been the case, there would have been some period of time, where windows could be seen blowing out, with the naked columns still standing!

The roof (furthest from the heat) obviously collapsed FIRST.  

PAUSE FOR A MOMENT!

The North Tower antenna weighed 353 TONS!   Thus, the 47 core columns would need to be strong enough to not only support that weight, but be able to endure the effect of wind (100 Knots - plus) swaying the antenna, in addition to some value for earthquake shock.   Any such 'safety factor' would have otherwise served to also guard against thermal damage (loss of vertical support) from a fire.

On the engineering end of the antenna mounting, its weight would have rested upon some type of "plate," thereby distributing its weight over a broad area.   The antenna weight would not be limited to something on the order of a single 'pole.' In some fashion, that 'supporting plate' area would have been distributed over a high percentage of the 47 columns.   That design would protect against both gravity (vertical forces) and wind (lateral forces).   Thus, the early - and near vertical - antenna collapse singly attests to nearly the ENTIRE 47-column core collapsing FIRST!

Additionally, later images attest to the antenna landing almost vertically; it didn't topple.   (The top of the antenna was standing so vertically that the fire fighters used it for a flag pole.) That image attests to the LACK of any significant resistance until reaching the ground.   Such does NOT attest to a "progressive" one-floor-at-a-time collapse, versus a near simultaneous collapse of ALL floors - at the central steel core!

ONLY DEMOLITION CHARGES COULD DO THAT!

To additionally support the antenna, the outer shell was fitted with "outrigger" segments, extending for approximately the top ten floors.   These added vertical support and protected against lateral wind-loads on the antenna.   Thus, the outer shell was designed to carry part of the antenna weight.   Hence, the added rigidity of the upper floor walls attests to a radical and rapid collapse of the core - as opposed to the outer walls.  

In the "official" account, the floor-plate attachments are supposed to have let go, (on cue - given the images) causing the accelerating cement "pancake" mass.   According to that theory, only the first floor above the fire initially collapsed, causing the floors below to progressively collapse; one-floor-at-a-time.   That requires a sequence of delays - however brief.

Again, according to that presentation, the core columns would be left standing - however briefly; as the floor panels released from their attachment points.   In theory, as the floor panels let go from their mountings, the load would be relieved from the core columns - leaving them to stand/balance, momentarily.   We can be certain - just from the timed duration of the collapse - that such was NOT the factual collapse progression.   In the case of BOTH buildings, everything let go at once.   Thus, with the core columns obviously collapsing first, there had to have been SOMETHING to breach the vertical integrity of the 47 steel columns - EARLY in the collapse, not later.

Think to not only the impossibility of three steel buildings failing from fire - within hours of each other, but that the very center of all three buildings was the first segment to collapse!   BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE!

Given the undeniable sequence, the floors fell as a consequence of the core column collapse, not the reverse.   The pictures simply don't lie!

Remember that THREE buildings collapsed in this fashion.   Beyond the description of the collapse, it should be noted that ANY mechanical dynamics which approach this description betray an extensive and remarkable engineering and operational feat; make no mistake about it.   Such an effort couldn't possibly have come from the "Loyalist Islamic Caves of Afghanistan!"

Regress for a moment -

If one puts themselves into the shoes of a terrorist hijacker, certain thoughts are apparent.   The "hijacker's" last mission on Earth is to induce "terror" into the heartland of America - the "evil Satan" of the planet.   So, what better way than to attack the symbol of America's wealth and power - The New York Stock Exchange!   The blow would induce a radical and global economic depression and take years to recover from!   But, it would somehow seem that NO! images were more important - mass-media prestige somehow being the key.   So, that left the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

But, with that decision, the mass casualties are the key, along with the visual effects of the toppling of the towers.   It's academic that as the towers fell over, more thousands would be killed on the streets below, and still more within any additional "financial" buildings which could be struck down by the falling mass!   (So they hit them at the top??) Why?

ONLY - if they wanted minimum physical damage and loss of life! That's called the "Least-Risk" point.

That is well worth a moment of thought.  

The world was left to believe that three amateur Cessna 172 pilots crashed three complex jetliners into three buildings, flying at over 300 Knots, at the "Least-Risk" point - on the very first attempt!

Imagine the thought processes of the second pilot.   The "theory of the situation" was that an airliner's speed and inertia could knock the towers over.   BUT, "Mohammed the ham-handed" just disproved the theory, managing to do minimal damage to the first strike on the North Tower.   So, what's the logical decision of the second pilot?   He's not likely to emulate the result (failure) of the first pilot.   Logically, the second pilot would go for a low hit, attempting to topple the second tower, in an attempt to at least trap thousands in a guaranteed inferno. Instead, the second pilot also came straight in, flying high and level.

Just give that thought an honest, "What if...?"

THEN:

Author David Ray Griffin cites the statement by Rudolph Giuliani, then mayor of New York City;

.... while talking to Peter Jennings on ABC News: "We were operating out of there [the Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of WTC7] when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

No steel-framed building had ever before collapsed, due to fire - of any sort; yet Rudy knew!

For an impressive video collection, go HERE !

ABOUT “Seven World Trade Center”….

In all the “coincidence” associated with 9-11, imagine the probability of three vertical collapses (two WTC towers + “7-WTC”) by buildings under the same person’s or group's control/ownership!   AND - two different structural architecture styles.  

Just the 7-WTC collapse takes any person to the TV imagery of commercial demolition.  

Yet, nothing has ‘officially’ been said regarding the obvious.   No official questions have popped up – STRANGE!   WHY?

Nobody wants to go near the “coincidence” of the 7-WTC collapse, not even FEMA, in their WTC report.   The collapse is "talked-around," but no viable cause is offered.   The video captures of 7-WTC display every characteristic of a controlled demolition collapse.   Once again, the core of the building led the collapse of the outer walls (below).

Additional video of the collapse is available at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/videos.html

Note - quickly - in the action sequence, the "cap" of the building (the elevator motor housing atop the roof) falls first, then the building "breaks" and sags in the middle, as it falls onto its own "footprint." Notice also that there is no accompanying surge of smoke to accompany the collapse.

THEN, there's that tattle-tale "...something missing." - FIRE - There is no fire visible at the back of the building; not even a significant amount of smoke!   So, why didn't the building fall on its face??

Remember that, 7-WTC was a 'standard' I-beam 'grid' structure - seen below - not the innovative 'tube-within-a-tube' design.   So how did it collapse within approximately eight hours of burning?   Or, if one considers nefarious motives, why wouldn't fire be enough?   Specific property destruction?   Evidence destruction?   Who knows?   It's enough that none of the buildings should have collapsed, let alone all three - identically; in record time.

PULL IT!

Let's say that the term "...   pull it," as in "...   pull it down," means just that - dynamite the building!

1.   Why would that be necessary, given the different architectural style - and zero probability of the building failing?

2.   How simple would it be to just clear the area?   On 9-11, no one would doubt any warning.

3.   Imagine anyone carrying explosives into a burning building!

4.   When did the NYFD obtain the expertise - and materials - to do controlled demolition?

5.   How did they rig WT-7 in record time??


About WTC-6 -

For some bizarre reason, FEMA took "no" for an answer, by not examining the collapse of WTC-6.   While that's certainly suspect, the occasional assertions about the collapse of WTC-6 don't offer any viable suggestions of "...more wrong." By any reasonable examination, one would easily conclude that the collapsed holes in WTC-6 came from above - WTC-1 debris.   By all clues visible, WTC-6 had quite a lower garage system which collapsed, leaving the deep 'cavern.' In the images shown, the alleged 'detonation smoke' color & texture is consistent with the powdered cement from WTC-2 - so timed as to apparently get caught in the horse-shoe enclosure of the plaza buildings, such that it shot skyward; as it lacked a horizontal path.   Any curved path would have increase the speed of the 'wind' associated with the collapse.   There are no reports of explosions, sufficient to account for the damage and there is no seismic data to suggest any explosives were involved.



TRULY WILD
"CONSPIRACY THEORIES"

REMOTE CONTROL??

While the “remote control” possibility is sometimes viably - certainly 'passionately' - argued, there is no known suggestion which allows the aircraft to be taxied among other aircraft; or taken off – via remote control - particularly at a busy public airport.   Just the required human communication with ATC would be on the edge of impossible.   Once airborne, yes, remote control is possible.   However, the imagery of the second aircraft striking the WTC demonstrates a bank angle beyond the limits of the autopilot system; it was hand flown.   Any guidance on the order of GPS-only wouldn't permit the bank angle.   Could a "special" autopilot or control program be installed?   Yes, that is "technologically" possible.   Still, the required video camera would be too noticable to the "regular" flight crew (with a record of objections & investigation).   Then, the pilots would need to be killed, as they would otherwise have the ability to override any electronic takeover of the controls, whether they manually grabbed the controls, or shut down the electrical system.   Not to mention that they would be on the radio, declaring an emergency.  

Any related remote control, via a remote "joystick," lacks the realistic eye-hand coordination.   To be brief, reasonable probability is not contained in the Remote Control scenario.


The "Mystery Bulge"

Many images found on the internet suggest a prominent bulge/pod on the right-lower fuselage of the second aircraft striking the WTC.   The "pod" is located next to the right main landing gear of the aircraft.   If it was solid, the landing gear could not operate.   Its size defies any suggestion of an antenna, relative to the capabilities of modern electronics.   Anything "functional,"of such size, could easily fit inside the cargo compartments of the aircraft.   Anyone wanting to argue that the "bulge" or "pod" represented a missile must face the fact that the aircraft WAS a missile.   Any required explosives in such a plan would easily fit in the forward cargo compartment.The video sequence typically shown suggests that the "pod" develops in size, as it approaches the building; suggestive of an optical illusion.   The greatest possibility being an optical illusion created by reflected light.   Certainly there exists the possibility of tampered imagery.   To any responsible pilot's mind, the image is somehow too phony to take seriously.

Scientifically, there is a high likelihood that the "bulge" was the visual effect of moisture being condensed by the last-second "pitch-up" of the aircraft.   This is a relatively common phenomenon, typically observed at the "takeoff rotation" of any airliner, given ideal temperature and moistrure conditions.   If the aircraft speed was great enough, there is also the distinct possibility of a visual effect from the "shock wave," produced by locally super-sonic airflow in the vicinity of the wing root curvature.

There is certainly the intellectual position that whatever was observed was not to be reasonably or responsibly considered as "significant," versus being simply "interesting."


THE "FLASH"

The WTC crash videotapes have been examined in detail, with observations/descriptions of a reddish-yellow "flash" seeming to precede the aircraft impacting the building.   The "flash," while interesting, lacks function in the form of any "weaponry." Common sense dictates that if explosives were desired, they would have been too easy to get loaded in the cargo compartments.   Any amount of explosive mass in the aircraft nose cone would create cockpit display radar imagery problems, and probably be detonated by the radar RF energy.   The element of probability goes to the flash being a matter of penetration impact energy, by virtue of ordinary friction, potentially coupled with electrical discharge from the high-power arcing of the radar antenna circuitry.


HOLOGRAMS??

Yes, even holograms are suggested, as though the buildings never collapsed, or the impact hole was a clever photographic fake.   To be brief, holograms are the 'stuff' of laboratories.   The required projection and accessory gear (not to mention the required power source) would be huge, impossible to conceal and highly memorable in the minds of hundreds, if not thousands.   "Rubbish" is the only responsible response to the suggestion.


"Blue Screen" TECHNOLOGY?

There are those who would argue that the mathematics of the video imagery suggest aircraft moving too fast to be factual. Therefore, it is argued, the imagery of the aircraft strikes on the WTC are factually impossible. The argument becomes that the imagery was pre-recorded, using Blue Screen technology. The debate ends with the 'cutout' of the metal siding on the WTC towers, evidencing the forward-moving impact, quite consistent with a 767 crash profile. Add the forward-moving fireball of the second strike, in particular. As to the image analysis, it must be considered that the imagery is blown up from a complex video-recording algorithm, which defies such analysis by less than high-end scientific investigators.


SCALAR WEAPONS??

Yes, "Ray Guns" have been suggested as the WTC destructive force.   Similar to holograms, the power and equipment requirements - alone - make such a possibility ludicrous.   Further, such 'weaponry' (if it even existed) would leave fried bodies all over the streets.


BACK TO REALITY .....

FEMA - again!

FEMA’s association with the WTC should be instantly regarded in a jaundiced light – period.   Few know or appreciate the "military" capabilities of FEMA.   One is quite mistaken to exclusively associate FEMA as a "federalized" version of the Red Cross.   The jaundiced position is particularly inspired by FEMA's "influenced" report on the Murrah building bombing in Oklahoma City.   The report was based on the force from a blast crater of 28 feet, in diameter.   The photographic evidence shows an 18-foot crater; clearly far too small to uniquely account for the damage to the building.   The families of the OKC bombing victims were allowed to stand at the edge of the exposed crater for a PR occasion, but the report investigators were never allowed to see or go near the crater - take appropriate note.

The OKC seismic data demonstrated two blasts, not one.   The argument of the secondary “reflected” (echo) signal doesn’t hold up, as the magnitude of a “reflected” signal would have been diminished, which it was not.   Two seismic stations show identical timing between the blasts.   A reflected” signal would have shown an increased time differential; between the close-in station, and the distant station (20 miles away).    

Returning to the World Trade Center towers, the one unexplained WTC issue is the continuing fire from below the collapsed debris.   That was NOT jet fuel, just by virtue of the smoke color.   Any residual liquid fuel would have been burned or dispersed - essentially evaporated, on the way down.   Refer to FEMA's statement above - if jet fuel couldn't have induced the collapse, there could not have been enough remaining liquid fuel to account for the subterranean temperatures; jet fuel doesn’t “leak-down-and-smolder.”

By all evidence, and pragmatic thinking, the smoke was smoldering debris and escaping residual heat.   BUT the post-collapse temperatures (gathered by satellite heat imagery) were radically too high to be just smoldering “building debris;” even with any remaining jet fuel being factored.   Buried debris will not burn at a temperature hotter than its open-air temperature.   Remember the millions of gallons of water which were constantly being sprayed on the 'pile.'

That takes us to the last reasonable question, "Then, what WAS fueling that kind of temperature?"

About all that can be said is "Damned good question!"

To be fair, it is necessary to honor the challenge, "Give me one good reason to NOT believe that the aircraft fires brought down the towers!" Such a challenge begs common sense, more than scientific proof.  

Once again, statistics alone demonstrate the obvious - to a reasonable mindset.   The reason that the firefighters bolted up the stairwell was that they were totally certain that there was no danger of collapse.   They had no fear; one may go to the transcripts of the radio traffic for evidence of their associated faith and courage.   Steel buildings just don't collapse from fire damage.   Now, the world is expected to believe that there were three such collapses on 9-11; one building receiving no impact or affected by jet fuel.

A reasonable mindset finds it simply impossible for three buildings to have done an identical collapse on the same site, within hours of each other, with two architectural styles, two distinct fire sources with all three structures being financially controlled by the same individual/group.  

Then, one may go to the history of the insurance policies & claims.  

Then, stopping momentarily at "No Questions Asked," try to imagine a million tons of steel being hurriedly sold - overseas - with no opportunity to do a reasonable forensic examination.   Then, one may go to the question, "Who authorized the sale; and who collected the profits?" Ask Donald Trump how quickly municipal decisions are made in New York!

By all that's "typical" in America, the Justice Department should have prohibited the sale of that material, until it had been examined; yet...  

If that's not enough, one should note the 'more-than-just-interesting' 'cause-and-effect' blank spot on the 7-WTC collapse in the FEMA report.  

Most importantly go to the absence of any competent investigation.   The OKC Murrah Building bombing report should have sent FEMA officials to prison, just over the crater size specification.  

Yet, FEMA was sent back in to do their "control thing."

History will record 9-11 as the ultimate limit/test of "Plausible Assertion," in the media & the world of PSYOPS.   The "experiment" is still in progress for the test of "How much will the public actually buy into?" And; "....for how long??"

The obvious answer - "...   Long enough!"

To many, 9-11 immediately and clearly displayed three strikes at the "Least Risk Point" - by amateurs; allegedly.

Beyond a certain point, it comes down to "If they said it, I refuse to believe it; that does it!"

Unfortunately, speculation is the best anyone can do at this point; there simply isn't enough remaining “hard” evidence, to say conclusively.   Yet, the description above goes to the core issue, that the “official” account is far too inadequate - methodically so.


THOSE PHONE CALLS

Look just to the phone call of Barbara Olson, wife of the Solicitor General.   A few days after the event, he violates what had to be “national security” and blabs to CNN that his wife called him collect on an aircraft cell phone to provide details of the hijacking.  

COLLECT?? The "Airphone" system requires a credit card.   Yet, we're to believe that she reversed charges!   Whatever becomes of the associated debate, the assertion is ludicrous – yet, what did the world read in the news?  

Aircraft are designed as a "Faraday Cage." Electronic signals are not supposed to be able to get in or out; at least not easily.   The windows are the gaps in that "cage." Cell phones can be used within a certain range of a cell tower - 2 miles - on the ground.   The phones use FM - extremely subject to interference.   Once airborne, a personal cell phone instantly loses capability by virtue of the loss of "line of sight" signal reception; the aircraft floor contains too much metal.   Add altitude/distance - if one had a cell phone in a window.   Remember that this was 2001 technology. In theory, the Cell towers have a range of approximately two miles; equating to approximately 10,000 feet.   Below that altitude, reception is possible, subject to the obvious variables.   Add speed; the tower switching complexity would be phenomenal for a hand-held cell phone.   Clear communication from a cruise altitude well above 20,000 feet?   IMPOSSIBLE!

Propaganda?   PSYOPS?   “Perception Control?” Whatever the label; it worked!  

AND, nobody in "official" capacity has yet to ask any questions - not even the conventional media.


ANOTHER QUESTION -

For the sake of argument, if there were no aircraft at the Pentagon & Pennsylvania, why were the other two aircraft hijacked - in the first place?   Remember that the best evidence of any al Qaeda involvement in 9-11 is the phony videotape of the "fat" Osama.   Think about it; discounting the phony videotape and the passionate "plausible assertions," no one took credit for 9-11.   Factually, Osama bin Laden DENIED involvement.  

So, again, what is the 'deal' with the second pair of aircraft?

Answer - One must speculate that they were backups, in case anything got screwed up with the first two.  

Think about it.  

The aircraft strikes had to take place, in order for the WTC controlled demolition to be "sold," as terrorism.   If the first two aircraft were successful, there was a disposal problem, with the last two.   But, from the advance Pentagon & Pennsylvania "crash" staging, we know there was an incredibly involved "plan B." Yet, there is another "clue" in front of us: "Why didn't the second pair of aircraft 'second' the strike of the first two - or find a secondary target; for a bigger terror statement?" Clearly - and strangely - there was a limited mission, with a prominent element of "conscience." Terrorists with a conscience; interesting!   No, revealing!

Think to, the cheering Israeli "art students" film crew.   They were released as Mossad - and friends.   The Mossad just happened to be in town to film 9-11!   "Friendly spies" or not, notice that nothing has been said about their photography - nothing!

As with the first two aircraft, no factual radar track - or satellite imagery - can be shown of the second two aircraft.   There is zero radar data on any of the flights - just the computer-generated emulation imagery.   Where did that emulation imagery originate from?   What was the basis for it, beyond unadulterated propaganda?   The D.C.   area is smothered in defense radar.   No radar data??   Impossible!


THE PRESIDENT

Return to Booker Elementary School.   Andrew Card whispers in the ear of America’s President – “There’s been a second strike on the World Trade Center; America is under Attack.” Great PR!   What a fabulous choice of words at a time like that!  

Imagine that no further details were provided to the President!   Likewise, there was no demand for details, from him.   There was no reaction from the supposed leader of the free world.   Instead, the “President” sits there listening to a story of a goat!   Ten minutes or thirty minutes, it makes no difference.   Either Bush knew in advance – or he was being herded as a counterfeit President.

We're to believe that the Vice President was forcibly moved to a safe location, but the President was allowed to listen to a goat story?

Presumably, in that time frame, there could be no known end to the “attack,” by the staff, yet they just let Bush sit there.   That was the worst possible PR!   Eliminating the impossible, one must conclude that the “attack” limits were, in fact, known.   The entire staff couldn’t have been so incompetent as to remain calm, in the face of two terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center – NOT fearing that more attacks were not on the way - somewhere.   The President’s location was public information.   At least two “alleged” aircraft were still off course & presumed to be hijacked – yet they let the President just sit there.   Just IMPOSSIBLE!

No reasonable person can believe that Andy Card said anything more prominent than "We need to leave in 20 minutes." But, WHY?

Yet, that’s probably exactly what happened!

Certainly the Booker Elementary video will join the “Zapruder Film” in history.

Bush’s later claims as to having witnessed the aircraft strike on TV don’t hold up under elementary scrutiny.   His statements (presumed reasoning) support other evidence of a serious a mental problem.  

Specifically, at a public appearance, Bush gave the following response to a 7th grader –

“Thank you, Jordan.    Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack.    I was in Florida.    And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works.    I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on.    And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot.    I said, it must have been a horrible accident.  

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it.    And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."


THE SECOND STATEMENT:

“Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building.   There was a TV set on.   And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake.   And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack."

( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html )

For starters, just note the verbal chaos in Bush's descriptions (plural) of events - clearly poorly constructed lies.

1.   The Booker Elementary teacher said there was no TV present.

2.   The first attack was known, before Bush entered the school, itself.  

3.   Remembering that the second strike was described to Bush in the classroom, he is implying he saw the first aircraft hit the WTC - impossible, of course.  

4.   The video coverage showed clear weather.   No pilot is going to have such an ‘accident’ in clear weather.   As a pilot himself, Bush should have recognized that as elementary logic.  

5.   Given the 1993 bombing of the WTC, it would be natural to assume more terrorism – not an ‘accident.’

6.   He wasn't "whisked" anywhere.

So, at Booker Elementary, with America "under attack," his staff was content to just wait to take the President to Air Force One; thereafter flying him all over the country – incommunicado, for all intents & purposes.   BUT, we’re told, the hijackers were believed to have both the digital codes for Air Force One, along with the coded identity of Air Force One.   What a frightening state of affairs!   Air Force One was a target.  

Excuse me ....!

For nearly two weeks after 9-11, the world heard Ari Fleicher repeat the “Psychido” terminology – “real,” “specific” – and of course the standard PSYOPS whopper - ”credible!”

[Notice the universal propaganda application of that particular term – in everything!   Never “verified,” “highly reliable” or “documented;” always ”CREDIBLE”]

So, in perfect logic, they took the President straight to Air Force One.   No fighters are scrambled to protect Air Force One.   IMPOSSIBLE!

And yet…..

Just imagine the hijackers being so arrogant that they would warn the White House that they had the codes.   Killers don’t telegraph warnings! Imagine the White House being unable to trace the calls.   Just try to imagine the effort it would take to get through to the white house on 9-11 for anything! All that on the hijacker’s way to paradise!   IMPOSSIBLE!

AND, what would any terrorist do with such codes?   The television stations gave the location of Air Force One; what more could be desired by terrorists?

Most importantly, imagine how such a tale would just disappear – even a bogus claim.   No investigations, reprimands or prosecutions of those in charge of the codes or communication channels.   Not even a statement that the “message” was bogus; not even a statement that the chaos of the day causing an over-reaction.   IMPOSSIBLE!

By the 26th of September, there were a few tongue-in-cheek deflections of the issue; then it just faded into history – almost.

But, the press was onto a major issue -

Why did the President turn tail and run??

Ari tried his best to cover for the President; he failed.   Despite the avowed ‘real’ and ‘specific’ threats to Air Force One [fictitious], Ari said that the threat was transmitted to the President, while he was aboard Air Force One.   So, that leaves the President as having skipped town BEFORE the “threat” was received.   So, either the President is being portrayed as a coward on the run, or the obvious lies got jammed up, in the obvious “compartmentalization” of the supposed ‘truth.’ It can’t be both ways.

"Officially," Bush was on his way back to Washington when the codes were discovered to have been compromised.   So, Air Force One diverted to Barksdale.   A truth-readout is badly needed here.   When Bush departed Florida, where did he "officially" go?   Apparently, Bush did go directly to Barksdale.   And the reason he was high-tailing it to Barksdale, instead of D.C.   was....?  

Amazingly, it could easily have been described that in the heat of battle, an unpredictable move was elected.   No one would ever have questioned the tactic - no one!

In hindsight, it's clear that there was never any "threat." That leaves the third possibility – the most probable – that Bush was being kept quiet, until the day’s events could be analyzed & a subsequent set of political assertions could be assembled.   Imagine the ‘system’ having the power to shush the President!   So, there's the rub - who is factually in charge?   It can't be George W.   Bush!   The "President" shouldn't be required to be covered by - and to personally indulge obvious lies of that type.   Those would not be the only lies, as we now know.


THOSE PESKY HIJACKERS!
(and other matters)

SO, what became of those hijackers with the codes?   They just disappeared in the myth of 9-11.   Nobody went looking for them.   All those Saudi names & nobody went to Saudi Arabia to track their “associates.” Many of the same names came forward and said, “Hey, I’m alive; what is this?” No one 'officially' asked questions or clarified the issue.  

We now know that the supposed hijackers were not on any passenger manifests - of four flights.   Thus, where did the magical and overnight identification of these monsters come from?   When at least seven of the "names" were discovered to be still alive, why didn't the FBI go after the "real" identity of this fictitious bunch??  

Does anyone remember former FBI Agent, John O'Neil?   He was forced out of the FBI in the midst of identifying al Qaeda terrorism and threats to the United States.   He was steered into the Security Chief job at the WTC, by another former FBI agent.   O'Neil died in the WTC.

Not surprisingly, anymore, there is no record of the FBI securing his personal files, attempting to "make" the al Qaeda connection; WHY?

Beyond belief, after the incredibly “abbreviated” investigation of 9-11 was published, the Saudis’ involvement became a “national secret.” Remembering what happened to Iraq, why would the White House cover for terrorists - to ANY degree?  

Regress a moment here -

Bush said that he'd ordered a full investigation of 9-11.   Quickly, the White House asked for a shallow investigation so as NOT to divert needed resources from the revenge of 9-11.   So, with all this "threat" of "terror" and "evil," why would you NOT want answers?   If "terrorists" could produce one 9-11, why couldn't they produce another, while the U.S.   was seemingly on the run?   The answers could have only been unwanted, if the answers were already known!   Think about that!

In the early report of 9-11, certain material regarding the Saudis was announced to have been left out.   The Saudis publicly dared the President to “spit it out;” not a chance!   The Saudis’ demanded the “secret” material be published.   So, WHY NOT?

The White House obviously doesn’t dare say why!   Anyone with a knowledge of Bush’s background knows that he owes his soul to the Saudi Crown.One doesn't have to be named "Michael Moore" to learn that.

Returning to the hijackers, no airline pilot will tolerate the thought that ANY combination of the alleged hijackers could have hit three precision targets at their “Least-Risk Point” on the first try – no matter how intense their “studies.”

Think for a moment.   If you want to take down a tall object such as the WTC, you hit it low, toppling the buildings; thereby multiplying the “terrorist” damage.   Still, the pilots of two aircraft hit high – the “collapsing pancake fix” was in!

That takes the world back to that pesky collapse “mystery.” There is no known history of steel buildings collapsing from fire; even after days of burning.   Since 9-11, there have been two such fires - with no hint of collapse.  

Yet the two WTC towers collapsed within an incredibly short span of time.   The color of the smoke from the towers indicates that the jet fuel was burning very rich – and cool.   Steel - not raw iron - melts at approximately 2,900 degrees (F).   The jet fuel was probably burning around 1,000 degrees.   One would think that the temperature had to have been too cool to shatter concrete or melt steel, particularly in that short a period of time! Still, on both the WTC structures, the supports all gave way simultaneously – and both buildings came crashing down; VERTICALLY!

Add 7-WTC; yet a THIRD case of the same 'coincidence.'  No way!


Let’s get back to those alleged pilots-

One of the little-known aspects among the general public, is that it’s quite a challenge for an experienced airline pilot to descend so as to be in position to readily set up for a landing.   Thus, the alleged pilots – famous for their incompetence (factual) - are going to successfully get three of four jets down so as to hit their intended targets, at the least risk point?   That’s what the world is intended to believe.   [Sorry, only two aircraft were involved.]

Even the aircraft navigation computer requires a high degree of competency - which the hijackers could have POSSIBLY studied.   However, in the human experience of being in a jet flying at approximately 500 - 600 Knots, the task of orienting one’s self left them with one hell of a challenge.   That assertion hinges on the brink of impossible.   Highly improbable, certainly.

A famous, but tattle-tale news video, portrays a secret in plain sight in the second WTC strike.   That video screams volumes.   In the last seconds, the aircraft is banked by approximately 60 degrees – a 2 “G” turn.   However, the video sequence shows something incredibly revealing – the nose falls, then is pulled upward, compensating for a loss of vertical lift, as the aircraft banked.   One may note the resulting upward flex of the wingtips.   The 60-degree bank angle also attests to the aircraft being manually flown, as the autopilot limit on its bank-angle control is approximately 30 degrees.

That maneuver is the mark of a skilled jet pilot!   The pull on the control column would have been a professional reflex. At that point, who would care that the aircraft would hit in a descent?   Only a professional jet pilot with ingrained reflexes!

A side note -

It is commonly speculated that the hijackers might have "gassed" the passengers.   While there is a design "flaw" which would make that possible, it would be far easier to depressurize the aircraft; accomplishing the same effect, with the hijacking pilot(s) able to use cockpit emergency oxygen.   Again, pull the correct circuit breakers on the passenger oxygen system & the masks wouldn't even drop in the back.   After 30 minutes at the very most; everybody in the back is guaranteed dead.   That's obviously speculation, but quite viable speculation.

As to the obvious question of the carefully planned suicide, it can only be noted that America has seen more than its share of the “Manchurian Candidate Formula.” It’s terribly naïve to think that the CIA “MKULTRA Project” (psycho-active drug experimentation) was actually terminated.

Still, there's little chance that a drugged pilot could produce the obvious eye-hand coordination.   That leaves clear-minded and skilled idealists as the pilots.   There are few causes on this planet to motivate such a suicide; Islam isn't indicated; given the lack of a viable responsibility claim.   Anyone who has worked with Arabs on technical matters will typically laugh at the idea of Arabs being capable of such planning and execution of the 9-11 events.   That's not intended as any form of racism, just pertinent fact.  

The history of 9-11 reveals that the Israelis (Odigo) were warned of the imminent attack; Islamic terrorists would never dream of such decency.  

The lack of a viable claim to 9-11 leaves one to ponder the possibility, if not the probability, of some cause associated with the infamous "New World Order;" the keepers of the true secrets.   Those players are clearly not "State sponsored," versus powerful and tight-knit network of corrupt forces, operating in a corporate "Connected Crime" arena - not to be confused with the "Organized Crime," of gangster fame.

The multi-billion dollar money trail leads directly to those players. Yet, no matter how one cares to think of the 9-11 events, it’s obvious that they required one hell of an intelligence and operations team.   Still, only the alleged hijackers are cited as culprits, with a few scattered illegals being arrested in the very fashion of the infamous and random ”…usual suspects.” “Illusions of Grandeur” aside, the “hijacker theme” falls apart - badly.   The vast majority of the "terrorism" trials leave suspects set free, with the rest awaiting their propaganda cycle through the "system."

Strangely, no one even speculated that there was a "terrorist cell" with the required manpower & sophistication to go after.   EVEN when the hijackers turned up missing on the passenger manifests!

Somebody at the highest levels knew the limits of the "threat" - precisely!


THE SMOKING GUNS

One of the most curious statements of the 9-11 history is the “slip” of Tom Kenney, the infamous FEMA Urban Search & Rescue worker.   According to his statement to Dan Rather, the FEMA team arrived the night before 9-11.   Most convenient, if you’re planning a “9-11” and want the politics and/or PR from it!  

Certainly, some debate as to his statement to Dan Rather is available – until you realize that as a minimum, in such a debate, they would have gone to the hotel on the night of 9-11.   RIGHT! On 9-11, a contracting Urban Search & Rescue team – in New York City - demonstrated their heroism by going to the hotel???   On 9-11, the argument for "shift-work" doesn't account for the discrepancy.   IMPOSSIBLE!

FEMA’s Tom Kenney:

"We're currently one of the first teams that was deployed to support the city of New York in this disaster.   We arrived late Monday night and went right into action on Tuesday morning."

That statement was made on Wednesday/Thursday (depending on your source of information) to Dan Rather.   Even Thursday would not give credibility to the alleged "error."

Unless someone was there; having gotten personal pictures of 9/11; the world has to rely on the preponderance of reliable probability - starting with Kenney's statement.

It’s true that days can be mixed up, but these two days?   Mixed up on Wednesday?   Granted Kenney is human, but it’s just not all that likely that Monday and Tuesday could get perfectly mixed up.   Further, why would Kenney – presumably on his second day on the 9-11 job – find the motive to call - or answer to - Dan Rather?

It’s also true that Kenney’s wife denied the statement; but not Kenney.   FEMA also refused the accurate information under the FOIA law, with the usual style of “No data responsive to your request.” Or, more specifically, from June of 2002, "Liaison with cognizant personnel reveals that no responsive documents exist within the files of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relative to your request." In other words, there was no electronic search, even under a mistaken name.   The FOIA request was 'conveniently' submitted under the name of "Kennedy," not the correct name, "Kenney." Garbage-in; Garbage-out!

As to any rational measure of government accountability, given the obvious and typical burial of facts involved in 9-11, there is little chance that “hard” facts can be tracked down, without certified pictures of the day of 9-11.   In all likelihood, the FEMA Search & Rescue team would be found setting up camp – on 9-11.

HERE'S THE KICKER!

In the caption - "The all-volunteer Task Force was the first team at Ground Zero in New York City on September 11th.

Remember Kenney's statement as to his own team - "....one of the first..."

Can ANY reasonable person doubt that kind of detailed corroboration??

FEMA has had years to straighten out this matter.   What are the facts, as God knows them?


RUDY BLEW THE WHISTLE!

In the 9-11 hearings on May 18 & 19, 2004; Rudy Guiliani spoke to a FEMA "exercise" force which was in place on 9-11, addressing the location as Pier 92.   The exercise was called "Tripod." That having been said, it challenges anyone's imagination to think that FEMA would be less than candid about the matter.   They denied the Kenney statement, but failed to elaborate on the obvious facts, regardless of what they were.   That's not the decision of a responsible agency; not when it comes to the subject of 9-11.

By any rational account, to date, FEMA clearly had quite a 'convenient' team in anticipation of 9-11!   Had FEMA been promptly forthcoming, "coincidence" might be considered as a reasonable explanation.   Lacking that forthrightness, "coincidence" is simply improbable.   Honesty doesn't require a research team.  

Anyone who paid attention to the FEMA report on the Oklahoma City bombing will never again trust anything which FEMA has anything to do with.   Again, the FEMA report was predicated on a 28-foot crater - the reality was 18 feet.   Not enough for the street bomb to have done half as much damage.   However, one has to note the effectiveness of the mainstream media, in suppressing the more probable account of the truth.

Going, again, to 'official' accountability, given the little-known fact that the FBI was in on the planning of the 1993 WTC bombing, using an Egyptian informant, Emad Salem.   The original URL was "http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/1990s/nyt102893.html" - no longer available.   The same information can be found HERE - and also HERE.   There is too little which can be trusted.

And, then…

The most damnable piece of history of all, is that of the favoritism shown to the American segment of the bin Laden family.   In 1999, one of the brothers was identified by the CIA to Congress as facilitating the finances of al Qaeda, on Cyprus.   Multiple international political battles were fought over that issue.   In January of 2001, the White House killed an investigation into the bin Laden family funding of al Qaeda.   In May of 2001, family members successfully received Swiss citizenship.  

Immediately after 9-11, the bin Laden members were assembled – some by private aircraft - and evacuated via private aircraft – destination unknown.   The FBI did the “exit interview.” The evacuation flight supposedly left from Boston - the airport originating the first WTC aircraft strike.

It must not be forgotten that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were U.S.   products; as was Saddam Hussein, and Manuel Noriega and….

It's well worth a moment to think about it!   The bin Laden family was assembled by private aircraft and evacuated – BEFORE private aircraft could legally fly.   Medevac flights were grounded, but the bin Ladens could fly.   Even if one slips the dates, private aircraft were still grounded, even if airliners could fly.  

Next, the question is begged, "When did that final EVACUATION aircraft land to pick up the passengers?" Was it standing by, just for 9-11?   Or, was it also given "special" permission to land?   If so, WHEN?   Those are not minor questions.

Imagine the Kamikaze plans of al Qaeda being known since 1995, from the discovery of “Project Bojinka” in the Philippines.   Even the OKC bombing traces to those roots, as well as TWA-800.   Even the EA-990 suicide crash received top-level “management” – and “quieting.” It all worked!   Content to be ignorant, America still asks no questions.

One no longer links the mass media with any quest for 'truth.'

The Kamikaze seriousness was particularly demonstrated by the Muslim extremist hijacking of Air France Flight 8969.   Does that particular event bring anything to mind?   No, because the details were hushed by a magically compliant media.   For all that was quite certain about the Kamikaze plans and their history, the airline pilots were not advised.  

But the most important aspect of this bin Laden “evacuation” is that it demonstrates the extreme degree of selectivity of the infamous bureaucratic “fog.” From at least as far back as 1995, the warnings of 9-11 were suppressed to such an extreme, that whistle-blowers were forcibly created out of the absolute refusal of the various agencies to respond to known & real threats.   “Bureaucratic Fog?” – Bloody IMPOSSIBLE!

In a nutshell -

1.   The 9-11 warnings were known since at least 1995.  

2.   The known Kamikaze plan was demonstrated to be serious by the hijacking of Air France Flight 8969.   The hijackers attempted to commandeer an Air France A-300, then fill it with fuel for a target in Paris.   The details of the hijacker intentions were suppressed from the public - and the airline pilots.   That event 'conveniently' failed to turn up in the official 9-11 Report.   The most damning piece of evidence that the Kamikaze attacks were known - AND DEMONSTRATED - to be in the works; and it didn't receive as much as "honorable mention.'

3.   The airline pilots were NOT told - until after the Filipinos blew the lid off "Project Bojinka" - that the US agencies damned well knew of the seriousness of the Kamikaze plans.   THAT revelation, from the Philippines, after key U.S.   personalities passionately tried to pander – ‘no warnings.’ Amazingly, it was one of the warnings which was known and factually "credible," for a change - cemented, in no uncertain terms, by the foiled Air France Flight 8969 hijacking.

4.   Professionals within the appropriate government agencies were hammered for trying to illuminate what became 9-11.   The investigators-turned-whistle-blowers continue to be hammered; after 9-11.   They should have become major resources for 'what went wrong.'

5.   The White House blocked an investigation into the bin Laden family funding of al Qaeda – in January of 2001.  

6.   With that 'killed' investigation in the immediate background, if the bin Laden family could be evacuated - by private aircraft - immediately after 9-11, the "bureaucratic fog" claim is a blatant farce.   IMPOSSIBLE!


One must stop to contemplate the magnitude of coordination it would take to evacuate the “bin Laden” family, with that name on the tongue of every American.   By any reasonable expectation – IMPOSSIBLE!

Yet, it happened!


Later, the bin Ladens’ were allowed to withdraw their investment & profits, when they were discovered to be part of the “Carlyle Group” investments, of the Elder Bush fame.   There was no self-reporting by the Carlyle Group.   Similarly, nothing is said about the association of the bin Laden’s ongoing business relationship with the Bechtel Corporation – and their ‘preferential’ profiteering.  

There was no ‘official’ accountability demanded.   WHY?

With the “impossible” eliminated - to a highly acceptable degree - what remains?

Don’t answer, just yet.   Take a moment to breathe; there’s more which cries for rational examination.


| THE BIZARRE POLITICS OF 9-11 |


| HOME |