The Truth About 9/11

“All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

— Arthur Schopenhauer


“Compartmentalization is an organizational strategy analogous to the old parable of the blind men and an elephant — each of the men is asked to describe what the elephant is, and all accurately describe their perception (trunk, tusk, legs, ears, tail, body), but none of them understand what the entire elephant is. Covert operations succeed by keeping most of the participants focused on their particular task, unaware of the full situation. Compartmentalization means that only key people in key places need to know what their role in a covert operation is — others nearby might not be aware of those ensuring the success of the operation. This practice refutes the claim that too many people would have had to know about 9/11 for a conspiracy to allow it to have been possible.” – Source


Thomas Jefferson once famously stated, “It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”

I am not afraid of the government, of ridicule, of discussions, nor debates; but it is high time to put this to rest, that 9/11 was an inside job.

Meaning, the events of 9/11 show more evidence showing an obvious obfuscation by the government to cover the truth about what really happened. We also see a direct lie about said events from the president about when he knew the buildings were hit (we tried to impeach Clinton for less), as well as the intentionally false reports given in the 911 Commission; which omits and flat out directly lies about numerous events that always create more questions than answers, at least in the official sense.

The 9/11 Truth is that factions within the American government, in collusion with the Mossad and other internationalist agents, created a well-timed heist that coincided with well-placed and methodically articulated thermite and thermate explosion devices in all three 911 buildings (as well as the Pentagon, which was being renovated at the time).

No physicist (nor demolitionist) could ever watch the building collapses without understanding that the physics of a “pancake fashion” would be impossible. No floors explode at free fall speed, leaving the floors below each collapsing one time to hit the one beneath it, which would cause more time for the fall. What we saw instead was a free fall speed, intended to scare the American public and the world into another “world war”, this time with a faceless enemy known as a “terrorist” which as we can currently see, has already begun to shift it’s definition from Muslim to “Homegrown” in the eyes of the government.

The end result? Let us not find out what road this path will lead us, instead please find someone that does not believe this version of events and debate them. Talk to them, debate with them (as long as it is done respectfully and responsibly) because if you cannot debate your position, why is it that you believe in this? Because you were told to and the media kept repeating this?

If so or if not, you should be able to express your reasoning without violence, or deleting someone. or creating more negativity than needed. We are talking about one of the biggest events of our lives and if you cannot seriously have an adult conversation about this topic, then you should keep your opinions to yourself and do more reading, researching, and inner reflections until you can.

A country is like a symbol, and just like all other symbols there is a collective meaning and a personal meaning (a social zeitgeist if you will), that being said we can change or re-empower the symbolism of America. Regardless of its esoteric etymological origins from the founding fathers forward, this country belongs to us because we live here and were born here and we all have a right to reforge the destiny of symbol we were born under.

That being said, take a moment to look at or share the evidence collected below; also watch the documentaries or share them with a loved one. Thank you for your time and serious contemplation over this matter, may the real criminals one day soon be brought before the world to be tried for the real crimes against humanity.

-Eric Anthony Crew

(The bulk of the text in this article were taken directly from the best compilation of evidence I have found:  http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_02.htm)

Natural Skepticism

“9/11 is a highly emotional subject. And people react to it in a highly emotional way. If all we have read and/or seen about September 11 are the images fed to us by the mass-media, and all we know about the story that those images tell is the framing of the events offered by the U.S. Government, then it is perhaps reasonable to think that 19 Arabs, under the direction of a crazed lunatic in a cave in the Middle East, used box cutters and guile to thwart a multi-trillion dollar defense apparatus. But any thorough consideration and investigation into the hard facts of 9/11 will unearth evidence that makes the 19 Arab hijacker narrative a wholly unreasonable consideration. But even so, this highly emotional subject proves difficult to discuss rationally and seriously. There seems to be some kind of emotional investment we have in believing what we have been told by our ‘leaders’, by the people in positions of authority over us. Or, perhaps, we do not have the emotional fortitude to bear the implications of being lied to and duped so easily and horrifically.

A typical example of the common reaction people offer on the subject of 9/11 comes from a professor of physics from BYU. Steven Jones, perhaps the leading scientist actively involved in researching and debunking the government’s official 9/11 story, presented to one of his colleagues for review a paper he wrote detailing a mountain of evidence suggesting U.S. government involvement in 9/11. The colleague responded by saying to Professor Jones, ‘I do not believe in conspiracy theories and UFO’s.’ This type of strongly opinionated, demonstrative response is common. Perhaps even understandable.”


Background and Motive

In the summer of 2000, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank riddled with soon to be Bush administration officials and advisors, issued a document calling for the radical restructuring of U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would, in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power. In the same document, they cite a potential problem with their plan. Referring to the goals of transforming the U.S. and global power structure, the paper states that because of the American Public’s slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom, “this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

PNAC members, and signees to its policy documents, include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Zalmy Khalilzad – men with their hands deep in the private defense, oil, and multi-national corporate industries poised to make vast sums of money and secure huge tracts of power and influence if PNAC policy evolved into U.S. Government policy. Nine months after they rose to power, and assumed central positions of leadership up and down the spectrum of military, civilian, domestic, and international agencies, they got their ‘New Pearl Harbor’. And PNAC policy essentially evolved into the Bush Administration’s official agenda. While this alarmingly convenient coincidence does not prove anything in and of itself, it does establish motive. And it certainly would raise the eyebrows of concern from any serious investigator looking into the facts of September 11.

Another alarming coincidence surrounding PNAC and September 11 has been revealed by attorney Stanley Hilton. Hilton, a graduate of Harvard Law School and former senior advisor and lead counsel for Bob Dole, attended the University of Chicago as an undergraduate in the 1960s. He studied under the infamous Leo Strauss, considered by many the father of neo-conservatism. Fellow students and acquaintances of Hilton’s at the time included Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In an interview with journalist Alex Jones, Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated ‘Pearl Harbor-like incident’ as justification. He further states that he, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different plots and incidents ‘like September 11th’ and ‘flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s’.

In light of these revelations, it is no surprise that Hilton has been trying to blow the whistle on government involvement in 9/11 for years. He has also filed a lawsuit against the government on behalf of a number of victims’ families. As a result of his actions, Hilton has been harassed, threatened, burgled, and hounded repeatedly by the authorities.”


Government Complicity and Intelligence Breakdowns

The first wave of evidence pointing to Government complicity in 9/11 lies in the massive, systematic intelligence breakdown leading up to September 11. Individual stories of ‘intelligence failures’ have appeared throughout the mainstream media over the past five years – detailing the repeated failure of top-level government officials to heed the pre-9/11 warnings of intelligence officers regarding a looming terrorist attack on American soil. Taken individually, these specific breakdowns have been dismissed as unfortunate casualties of the oppressive web of government bureaucracy. But when considered collectively, evidence of intentional suppression and disregard of pre-9/11 intelligence information is overwhelming.


A. Able Danger

Able Danger is one egregious individual example. In August of 2005, Army Intelligence Officer Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer went public with information that he told staff members of the 9/11 Commission that he was part of a military unit that identified Mohammed Atta, and three other alleged 9/11 hijackers, a full yearbefore the September 11 attacks. But military lawyers stepped in at the time and “stopped the unit from sharing the information with the FBI. (Shaffer) was directed several times (by a two-star general) not to look at Mohammed Atta” any further. According to Louis Freeh, former FBI director, if this information had been properly shared, the events of 9/11 would have easily been prevented.

Why would high-level Pentagon officials not want information regarding terrorist suspects and details of their hijacking plot to be shared with the FBI? This is the type of question the 9/11 Commission was supposed to have been formed to answer. But even though documented evidence supports Shaffer’s assertion that members of the 9/11 Commission clearly knew of the Able Danger military unit at the time, they failed to mention any aspect of its existence in their 585-page Report – flatly lying that American Intelligence Agencies had not identified Atta (et. al.) as a terrorist prior to the 9/11 attacks. Why would the 9/11 Commission not want Congress or the American people to learn about these facts? Who is making these policy decisions, why is the 9/11 Commission still referenced as an authority on the subject, and why is no one being held responsible to answer these crucial questions?

For his efforts to bring the disturbing news of Able Danger to light, Lt. Colonel Shaffer, a 23-year decorated veteran, was fired, publicly humiliated, stripped of his pension, and had a legal gag order placed on his right to speak out to the public and Congress. Republican Congressman Curt Weldon, the first U.S. public official to blow the whistle on Able Danger, has rushed to the defense of Anthony Shaffer. He has blasted the U.S. Government’s pre-9/11 involvement in suppressing Able Danger’s discoveries, blasted their subsequent cover-up detailing their involvement in the suppression of Able Danger, and blasted the government’s treatment of Lt. Colonel Shaffer. Video excerpts of his impassioned speech to the House and his scathing interview with Lou Dobbs can be viewedhere or here.

Both Weldon, Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, and Lt. Colonel Shaffer, a 23-year military veteran, believe certain government officials suppressed, lied about, and covered up details of Able Danger in order to thwart efforts to prevent 9/11. In fact, Weldon has called for a criminal investigation into what he says is ‘the most important story of our lifetime’. But the story has been largely ignored by the mainstream media. Another in a long line of alarming revelations systematically disregarded by the public framers of debate and discussion in the U.S. Why?



B. Zacharais Moussaoaui

Another high-level, critical intelligence breakdown occurred in the case of Zacharais Moussaoaui, the so-called 20th hijacker. Moussaoaui was arrested in August 2001. A full month before the 9/11 attacks. When arrested, he had in his possession a laptop computer filled with information and details regarding 9/11. Enough information to easily thwart the impending attacks. But when the FBI agents in charge of his arrest requested a search warrant to investigate his computer, top-level officials within the government denied the warrant. Why would government officials deny the search of a computer of a suspected terrorist? FBI agents Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit together sent more than 100 requests to their superiors attempting to search Moussaoaui’s computer and ring the alarm bells about his terrorist connections. Each time they were denied. And the results are now well-known history. “In the hours after September 11th, FBI agents in Minneapolis (Samit and Rowley included) shared a macabre joke. For weeks prior, they had tried to interest FBI headquarters in Washington in Zacarias Moussaoui, now known as the 20th hijacker. They had begged FBI Headquarters to give them permission to seek a search warrant of Moussaoui’s computer. They were denied. In their frustration, they joked that headquarters back in Washington must be infiltrated by agents of Osama Bin Laden. Why else would their work have been thwarted?” A fundamental question that Time Magazine logically asks, then bizarrely refuses to pursue or answer.


Why Didn’t the FBI Fully Investigate Moussaoui?


C. July 10 Meeting

In the fall of 2006, Bob Woodward, no enemy of the Bush Administration, in his book ‘State of Denial’ brought to light a third, and perhaps most glaring, intelligence failure of the Bush Administration in the months immediately before the September 11th attacks. On July 10, 2001, CIA director George Tenet telephoned then National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice to set up a meeting in which he told Ms. Rice of an impending terrorist attack:

“On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately…..Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment — covert, military, whatever — to thwart bin Laden…..Tenet and Black, however, felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.”


Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice


Rice, with her brush-off, was most likely parroting an official and consistent Bush Administration policy of being wholly and systematically uninterested in any intelligence reports from the CIA citing a gathering al Qaeda threat in 2001. As early as May of that year, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld were leading the charge of constantly questioning and downplaying the veracity of gathered Central Intelligence information regarding Bin Laden and an al Qaeda threat. “Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence.” This now familiar stalling, hemming and hawing, and vague rhetorical questioning tactic of the Bush Administration ostensibly served to shift attention away from the actual gathering storm, and onto whatever agenda Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et. al. at the Pentagon had in mind. It is widely known that the Cheney/Rumsfeld Pentagon cabal was at fierce odds with the CIA and George Tenet – a democrat and Clinton-era leftover that VP Dick Cheney had no intention of sharing power with. And if, as this paper suggests, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their closest allies knew very well about the plans of 9/11 long before they happened, surely they would have no interest bringing an untrusted adversary like Tenet and the CIA into their fold. See PBS’s Frontline expose on Dick Cheney for more info on this topic.

PBS’s Frontline expose on Dick Cheney


When news of Rice’s July 10 meeting with Tenet was first made public with the release of Woodward’s book, Rice initially denied the meeting ever took place “Rice has denied that such a meeting took place, citing the 911 Commission Report, which never mentioned any such meeting.” Presumably she was trying to avoid getting involved in the messy questions about her and the Administration’s behavior in the summer of 2001 that would naturally arise if the press got wind of the details and timing of the meeting with Tenet and Black so soon before 9/11, swirling amidst all the other reports of intelligence breakdowns around that time. And, technically, Rice was correct. The 9/11 Commission Report did not, amazingly, make any mention of this crucial July meeting and subsequent brush-off.


9/11 widows blast Bush Administration over Rice, Tenet meeting

However, when transcripts from the testimony given before the 9/11 Commission were actually reviewed by a number of intrepid reporters, it was proven that the meeting HAD taken place. It was just never written into the 9/11 Commission’s official report. Caught in a lie, Rice then changed tack, saying that, well, yes she supposed the meeting did take place, but at no time in that meeting was the warning about the impending al Qaeda attack specific as to where that attack was to take place. “Speaking to reporters late Sunday en route to the Middle East, Rice said she had no recollection of what she called ‘the supposed meeting.’ What I’m quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told that there was an impending attack and I refused to respond,” she said.”Rice vehemently denied that she ever received a special CIA warning about an imminent terrorist attack on the United States, angrily rebutting new allegations about her culpability in U.S. policy failures before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by al Qaeda.”

All of this allegation and counter-denial and reframing begs the question, if Dr. Rice does not even remember a meeting between she and Tenet ever happening in the first place, how can she suddenly know and detail what was or was not discussed in that unremembered meeting? And why, yet again, is NO ONE in the media or in the public discourse asking such basic questions regarding the absolute absence of logic in the official statements and storyline of the federal government and the 9/11 Commission in regards to September 11?

Soon after Rice’s second attempt at denial regarding the meeting and/or the contents of the meeting with Tenet and Black, reporters and the public naturally became suspicious of the Administration’s version of the story, and they started to turn the heat up on Rice. She again claimed that no information was given to her specifically about an impending attack on U.S. soil, despite the fact that she had recently not remembered the meeting even taking place. Woodward, who until then had been lauded by the Bush Administration for his intrepid and fair reporting, stood by his assertion that Tenet and Black were quite explicit about an impending attack on U.S. soil. And since Rice had already proven herself to be, at best, unreliable, and at worst a flat out liar, more and more credence was given to Woodward’s rendition. He was, after all, privy to all sorts of classified documents and knowledgeable contacts within the Administration itself.

Suddenly cornered and in real danger of having to answer an array of alarming questions regarding her lack of adequate response to Tenet and Black’s ominous reports, Rice, without any kind of intended irony, abruptly changed tack again. Flip-flopping 180-degrees, she now began to defend herself with a new strategy by saying that, in fact, not only had the meeting she originally denied actually taken place, but she had taken the meeting so seriously that she specifically ordered Tenet and Black to brief Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft about the gravity of the news she had just been given. Rice’s press Secretary, Sean McCormack, held a press conference to inform the media of this new revelation about how seriously his boss had taken the meeting she, up until the previous day, hadn’t actually remembered even happening. “Mr. McCormack said the records showed that far from ignoring Mr. Tenet’s warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence and requested that Mr. Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft, then the attorney general.” And this request for a meeting between Tenet, Black, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft was fulfilled, asconfirmed by a number of public reports on the subsequent briefing.

So, to review, in response to Bob Woodward reporting that Condaleeza Rice and the Bush administration did nothing in response to a crucial meeting Ms. Rice had with CIA Director Tenet on July 10, 2001 warning of an impending catastrophic attack by al Qaeda on American soil, Ms. Rice first denied the meeting ever took place. Then when that story didn’t hold water and was proven false, she suddenly remembered the unremembered meeting and proceeded to clarify for us what was and was not discussed at said originally unremembered meeting. Then when people were still alarmed and critical of her lack of understanding of the gravity of the unremembered meeting, she finally decided to fully defend herself by saying, well, listen, don’t blame me, I did take that unremembered meeting seriously, so seriously, in fact, that I ordered Director Tenet to pass on the specific information of this unremembered meeting to my superiors. A long and tiresome diatribe of double speak and blatant contradiction which begs the question for Ms. Rice, which one was it?

If a child behaved like this, that child would be immediately sent to their room and asked not to come out before detailing a more logical narrative. When the National Security Advisor of the United States behaves like this, and her already suspicious looking behavior is suddenly revealed to be, at the very least, criminally negligent, we make her the Secretary of State. A brash kind of Orwellian lack of logic that, though unexplainable to a five year old, we readily accept with an almost grateful relief. Because to pursue the absurdity of the narrative offered by the Bush Administration would, perhaps, unravel a world of which we are unwilling to let go.

The truth, of course, is that this July 10 meeting between Rice and Tenet did take place. Rice both gave the brush-off to Tenet andordered the information passed on to Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. A seeming contradiction unless you consider one thing – that the Bush Administration was not interested publicly in the CIA’s version of intelligence reports because they had no intention of doing anything in response to them, but privately and in-house they wanted to know exactly how much was known and exactly by whom.

If this seems a cynical stretch in analysis, consider that while no policy adjustments were made with this new intelligence information provided by Tenet and Black to protect the American people, John Ashcroft did make some new personal policy adjustments for himself. In July 2001, immediately after being briefed by Tenet about the intelligence reports Rice had quickly and officially brushed off, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft suddenly stopped flying on all commercial airplanes. A chilling and startling revelation when seen in context and within this structured timeline of meetings and intelligence discoveries. “Like most of the Bush cabinet, Attorney General John Ashcroft took commercial jets when he traveled. But on July 24, 2001, he changed that practice and began flying in chartered government jets.” If the perceived threat in the information given by Tenet and Black was significant enough to convince Mr. Ashcroft to make changes in his own personal life, why did the federal government not do anything to further pursue and/or fully investigate the provided intelligence in order to protect the American people? Including 3,000 innocent civilians in NYC who would soon unnecessarily die. So far, no coherent, nor adequate response has been given to this crucial question.

A last crowning and confounding aspect to the story of the July 10 intelligence breakdown is the fact that this meeting between Tenet and Rice, and the whole debacle around who said what, reacted when, delegated resources where, and responded how – details so wholly critical to the overall narrative of 9/11 – never made it into the official 9/11 Commission Report. As mentioned above, allusions to the July 10 meeting were made in the testimony of a number of principals before the Commission in hearings, but these allusions were wholly ignored and written out of the official narrative published for the public’s consumption. Why? Cofer Black, of all people, has taken this guess.

“The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about. Philip D. Zelikow, the aggressive executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and a University of Virginia professor who had co-authored a book with Rice on Germany, knew something about the July 10 meeting, but it was not clear to him what immediate action really would have meant. In 2005 Rice hired Zelikow as a top aide at the State Department.”

Many skeptics, with no knowledge of the mountain of facts and data involved, often dismiss questioners of the official story of 9/11 by calling them ‘conspiracy theorists’ who don’t respect the fact that any real conspiracy or foul play would have been uncovered by the diligence of the 9/11 Commission Report and its investigators. What these people fail to recognize, however, is the fact that the 9/11 Commission Report, if one is familiar with the overall picture of the government’s official narrative of 9/11, reads like a 585-page farce. Not only is the July 10 meeting left out, not only did its executive director become a Bush Administration member and advisor, not only did it fail to mention the fact that a 47-story building in Manhattan not hit by an airplane somehow fell down, it systematically ignores whole swaths of data and information that do not serve to uphold the government’s official timeline and story. And not only is the 9/11 Commission Report not proof against the findings of the so-called conspiracy theorists, but an honest rendering of its contents serves to wholly back up their skepticism and allegations. (The absurd findings of the 9/11 Commission are beyond the scope of this paper, but one of the country’s leading scholars, Dr. David Ray Griffin, has picked apart the 9/11 Commission Report page by page in his seminal book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions.

As of yet, no one in the media, nor in the government, has answered any of the critical questions raised by the disastrous intelligence failures detailed above. Instead, officials and government agents gloss over the details with vague assertions that the charges of systematic intelligence breakdowns raised are ‘serious’ and ‘interesting’ and ‘in need of further investigation and inquiry’. Often, bureaucratic stagnation is blamed for the breakdowns in communication. Excuses are given that the FBI had intra-department squabbles. That the FBI didn’t like to talk to the CIA who didn’t like to work with the Pentagon who was at odds with Congress – a supposedly contentious archipelago of loosely connected government agencies.

But this is an incredibly weak argument. If these agencies were so at odds and incapable of communicating with each other, if they had no prior knowledge of 9/11 and its perpetrators before 8:46 a.m. on September 11, how did they pull so suddenly together to detail the narrative and the names of the 19 hijackers? How did they suddenly detail their addresses, personal histories, photographs, backgrounds, and al-Qaeda connections within hours of the attack? How in the world were DNA samples eventually collected from the crash sites that positively identified the hijackers? Against what existing records were these DNA samples compared? How did the U.S. government have existing DNA information on these men that they had supposedly never heard of? Did the future hijackers, upon entering the country years before, hand over a blood sample each, saying to the customs official, “In a few years time, I’m going to fly an airplane into a building, so here is some blood for your records to identify me after I’m dead.” How could these various agencies claiming to be so at odds with one another suddenly connect dots so fast? When, before, they were described as a collection of individual organizations in supposed ill-communication with each other? And why am I, a relatively uninvolved, unconnected tax-payer, on my own free time and at considerable personal and financial risk and loss, the one asking these basic, crucial questions that any amateur investigator of even the simplest crime would normally grind to a pulp?


WTC Building 7

While these intelligence failures suggest at least the reasonablepossibility of U.S. government complicity in 9/11, there is a mountain of physical evidence that directly implicates high-level government knowledge and participation in the planning and execution of September 11. Perhaps the most damning evidence lies in the bizarre collapse of WTC Building 7. Anyone familiar with the story of 9/11 knows about the collapse of the WTC North and South Twin-Towers. But a third high rise also fell that day. At 5:20 p.m., the massive 47-story steel frame Building 7, untouched by the hijacked airplanes, imploded in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition – at near free-fall speed, straight down, and with scientific precision into a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings.



The official explanation for the collapse is fire – as in fire weakened the building’s structural support steel to the point where it could no longer hold its own weight upright. The magazine Popular Mechanics has tried to posit the theory of lethal structural damage caused by the falling debris of the North Tower as reason for Building 7’s collapse. But no existing public photographs, nor videos, show anything near their claim that 1/3 of Building 7’s façade was gouged out. Furthermore, even if structural damagewas significant, this would not account for Building 7’s eventual symmetrical, box-like collapse, where all four corners, and all four facades of the building fell simultaneously straight to the ground. And most significantly, the official government explanation is still fire. So this essay will stay with fire as the stated cause.

Flames were visible on 3-4 floors of the building, having been apparently ignited by falling debris and ruptured diesel tanks at the base of the structure. And while relatively minor in severity, these fires were apparently responsible for the building’s demise. But fire as the cause for collapse poses a number of significant problems – problems that break fundamental laws of nature. Firstly, fire from diesel fuel and building debris does not remotely approach the necessary temperature required to weaken and melt steel. Steel is melted and forged in sophisticated blast furnaces at incredibly high temperatures. Secondly, even if fire did cause the necessary weakening of the buildings steel support beams, each of those more than 50 beams would have had to weaken and fail at theexact same time to account for the symmetrical downward trajectory of the collapse. A wildly contentious scenario. Dr. Steven Jones, Professor of Physics at BYU who specializes in the fusion of metals, has comprehensively and scientifically debunked the possibility of Building 7 collapsing due to fire (or the minor damage to the building’s façade from the falling debris of the North Tower). A video and transcript of his detailed lecture arguing controlled demolition as cause for collapse can be downloaded here. Or his power-point presentation with audio can be downloaded here



In the spring of 2007, Professor Jones published his second major paper on 9/11 –


“Revisiting 9/11/2001 –Applying the Scientific Method”

Professor Jones’ meticulous research explains why no other steel frame building has ever suffered a total collapse anywhere on the planet before or after 9/11 due to fire (remember, Building 7 was NOT hit by an aircraft). Including WTC 4, 5, and 6, which were more intensely pelted by debris from the Twin Towers’ collapse, and had fires of equal intensity burning for many more hours than the adjacent Building 7. (For more examples of other intense high-rise building fires that did not cause collapse, click here or here.

Jones specifically references the fire at the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain in February of 2005, which did not result in total structural collapse. This 32-story high rise burned fiercely for 20 hours, with flames shooting hundreds of feet into the air, gutting the entire building. And while significantly more severe than the fires of Building 7, which burned for only a few hours on only a few floors, the Windsor Building flames did not bring the building down. The damage from the fire did produce a partial collapse, and this collapse behaved exactly in line with the laws of physics and nature. Part of the building fell in an isolated collapse into the street below, leaving a huge, gaping wound in the middle of the high-rise with exposed rebar and debris hanging hundreds of feet into the air. The inferno did not produce a symmetrical, straight down, box-like, virtual free-fall total collapse witnessed in the fall of Building 7. Strategically planted, well-timed explosive devices are what weaken steel symmetrically and create coordinated downward implosions. Not random fires scattered throughout a building.

Another, and perhaps stronger, piece of evidence for controlled demolition of Building 7 is the speed at which the structure fell. It was a 576-foot tall building, and a conservative estimate of available video evidence shows that it fell in 6.5 seconds. A marble, with nothing but wind resistance in its path, would fall to the ground from the same height in roughly 6 seconds. Somehow, the top of this building fell to the ground in a perfectly symmetrical downward trajectory, with 47 floors of steel, concrete, and thousands of tons of upright standing debris in its path providing huge amounts of vertical resistance, at virtually free-fall speed. Allegedly because of random fires on a few floors. This is a physical and mathematical impossibility, violating laws in the conservation of momentum covered at length in this paper by Dr. Kenneth Kuttler here. Or go to the June 2006, Volume 1 edition of this online journal here.

It is important to note that even if Popular Mechanics is right in its assertion that damage to Building 7 from falling debris of the Towers caused its collapse, this still does nothing to explain the impossible speed at which it fell. Only controlled demolition, as Dr. Kuttler states at the end of his computation, resolves the observed rate of collapse. Because in a controlled demolition, waves of progressive explosions from the top down would remove sections of resistant columns and supports, providing the vacuum-like pocket needed to account for the 6.5-second collapse. No other hypothesis, including the premise narrated in the ‘official story’, accounts for this speed.

Because all available evidence points to this controlled demolition as the most logical reason for Building 7’s particular collapse pattern, serious questions now need answering. To wire a building of that size for implosion requires weeks of careful study and planning. Which means whoever wired the explosives knew far in advance of the September 11 plot. So who? And why? Perhaps Larry Silverstein has an answer. In July of 2001, 2 months before the attack, the new leaseholder of the Twin Towers and Building 7 took out a huge insurance policy on his buildings. In it, there was a special clause ‘in case of terrorist attack’. As a result of the collapse of Building 7, Larry Silverstein pocketed almost $1 Billion, $500 million of it in profits. For the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he also owned, Silverstein argued in court that he should be compensated twice because two separate airplanes flew into his two separate buildings. And this, according to his argument, constituted two terrorist attacks. He won this argument, and was awarded $7 Billion for the Towers’ collapse, quite a return for his initial investment.

A short time after September 11, Silverstein further implicated himself when he made a grave verbal blunder in an interview for a PBS special where he admitted that he and the fire authorities decided to ‘pull’ (implode) Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11 as a way to avoid incurring more loss of life. The video clip of this blunder can be viewed here. But a last minute decision to ‘pull’ by Silverstein and the authorities would have been flatly impossible because of the weeks required in the planning and planting of explosives. When asked to explain these strange, incriminating comments, Silverstein refused, for two years, to clarify. Until finally his office released a statement claiming that what Silverstein meant by ‘pull’ was to pull the firefighters out of the building before it collapsed. But this is another in a long line of nonsensical statements made by principals in the 9/11 debacle. Silverstein and the ‘officials’ to whom he was speaking knew that firefighters had been evacuated hours before the alleged conversation and subsequent collapse took place. For further analysis on this subject, click here: It is worth noting that on the morning of 9/11, all of the buildings making up the WTC complex not owned by Larry Silverstein managed to remain upright, despite equally heavy fire and structural damage.

Perhaps a government official from the CIA, Department of Defense, the IRS, the SEC branch investigating the infamous Wall Street corporate fraud cases, the Secret Service, or New York City’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) knows something about Building 7’s odd collapse. All of those agencies strangely had offices in Building 7. The presence of OEM is particularly disturbing. They occupied a recently reinforced bunker-like space on the 23rd floor. Equipped with bulletproof windows, bomb-proof walls, and hurricane resistant windows, the office housed a sophisticated command center with top of the line military communication and logistical equipment. Perhaps Building 7 was a command center of a different kind, used as the true Ground Zero for the operation carried out on 9/11. A command center that became a crime scene after 8:46 a.m. that morning. A command center that needed to be destroyed.


Perhaps this OEM department could also explain the miraculously coincidental fact that on September 10, FEMA officials, in conjunction with NYC authorities, had arrived in the city and set up a command post near the World Trade Center for an extensive simulated terrorist attack operation to be carried out on September 12. Perhaps Mayor Rudolph Giuliani could shed some light on this subject. He confirmed this miraculous coincidence in his own testimony to the 9/11 Commission, all of which, unsurprisingly, never made it into their ‘official’ Report. “… the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed.”

How in the world is this wild coincidence not front-page news of every newspaper in the country? Why in the world was FEMA in NYC, down on Pier 92 near the WTC, on the night of September 10th ready to ‘go into action’ on the morning of September 11th? Did certain leaders in the U.S. government know full well what was about to happen? Can this ‘terror drill’ possibly be a random coincidence? Did they send in good men and women from FEMA and other emergency services under the guise of a prospective ‘terror drill’ to be at the ready to quickly clean up their mess? Did they orchestrate the entire operation, and then swoop in, fully armed and prepped, to prove and prop themselves up as the ready saviors they have spent the last five years reminding us they are? And if Giuliani becomes President, what grounds, what lasting image do we suppose he will be using to bolster his campaign?

Perhaps this is just wild conjecture. Perhaps there is a simpler answer to the questions raised by Building 7’s collapse. But ultimately these questions are not an investigator’s responsibility to answer. They are the responsibility of the investigator to raise. The responsibility in answering those questions lies with the official storytellers. They are responsible for plugging any holes in their narrative. Questions that arise regarding Building 7 are simply part of the natural speculation inevitably aroused by its suspicious collapse. They are important questions. They are the type of questions that, as stated before, the 9/11 Commission was formed to answer. But, incredibly, the Commission did not even allude to the existence, nor the absurd collapse, of Building 7.

It would seem logical that the collapse of a massive 47-story building (which is as big as the Bank of America Building in San Francisco), the first steel frame high rise in history to collapse solely from fire, which also housed the offices of important government agencies in downtown Manhattan, would warrant an investigation. Or at least a citation by the government commission assigned to thoroughly investigate the events of 9/11. It would seem logical to think that structural engineers, chefs, and wood-burning stove owners around the world would be interested to know that steel has suddenly become susceptible to fire. It would be logical to think that the tell-tale shock wave, ‘squibs’, internal box-like implosion, freefall speed, and neat footprint rubble pile clearly pointing to a controlled demolition of Building 7 would interest those investigating its collapse. But the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention its existence. Nor does NIST, the government agency assigned to investigate the collapse of the Twin Towers. Like the 9/11 Commission, they did not mention its existence, its collapse, nor the bizarre specifics of that collapse – which so contradict official accounts.


Only FEMA has officially reported on Building 7’s demise. And while their report hints at fire as the cause of the building’s fall, even they admit the inherent weakness of that premise. “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” That the necessary evidence to further investigate Building 7’s collapse, (i.e. the steel beams, trusses, and support girders) was quickly and illegally cleared, shipped overseas, and recycled – before photographs could be taken or qualified investigators and explosives experts could be called in to sift through the evidence – only deepens the efficacy of the hypothesis that a well-planned, high-level intentional demolition caused the collapse of WTC Building 7.

It should again be noted here that Popular Mechanics magazine has tried to debunk some of the issues raised by the 9/11 Truth community – both in a feature article in March of 2005, and a recent 2006 book. Besides the inherent absurdity of a magazine tackling the research that should be undertaken by Congress and an independent Special Prosecutor with full subpoena power, their work is riddled with the same inconsistencies and conveniently isolated and selected bullet points they claim undermines the very research they are attempting to debunk. For a comprehensive and specific critique of their work, see the following link.

Update: In an extraordinary development, a 9/11 blogger has uncovered live BBC news video footage from the afternoon of 9/11 showing its reporters detailing the collapse of WTC7 (the Salomon Brothers Building) 23 minutes before that building actually collapsed. The following video is a recap of some of that footage. Notice the extraordinary fact that as the female reporter speaks, the scrolling text at the bottom of the screen confirms what the male lead reporter had been saying for the first 15 minutes of the broadcast, namely that the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC 7) had collapsed, and that very building is standing wholly upright directly over the reporter’s shoulder!

Live BBC news video footage.



How is this possible? Who knew what when? “We might reasonably guess that before making its way to the BBC by whatever means, the information originated among the authorities in New York. And that is the question here: Who was the original source of the information? Did the source also phrase the event in the past tense? How was the source certain the building would collapse?” This is not a suggestion that the BBC was ‘in’ on the conspiracy. They are just passing on a report. So where did that report originate? And how could the sources of that report possibly know a giant building with some peripheral fires was about to fall? There isno historical precedent for that. It is a clairvoyance beyond any reasonable explanation.

For a more detailed, written analysis of this story, click here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070228173157804) . It should be noted that the BBC has given an absurd response to 911truth.org in regards to this strange string of events. And to no one’s surprise, the archival video library in which this massive blunder was discovered has removed the clip in question from its stacks.


A short, well-produced 15 minute video on the smoking gun that is WTC 7. 


The Twin Towers

Marvin bush

Many of the peculiar anomalies violating the laws of physics in the collapse of Building 7 are also present and problematic in the collapse of the Twin Towers. With one obvious distinction – an airplane hit both the South and the North towers. According to official government reports, the collision of the airplanes into the buildings, combined with the intensity of the fire ignited by the planes’ jet fuel, weakened and brought the two massive structures down. While this hypothesis is perhaps feasible in theory, the video and physical evidence of the Towers’ collapse does not support it. Instead, the evidence again points to a number of tell-tale specifics that make an intentional demolition of the Towers an infinitely more viable hypothesis – a hypothesis that has never been considered by official government inquiries.

The first evidence of intentional demolition is the sheer size and power of the two buildings. It is well known that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of jumbo jets. Two hits from Boeing 707 jumbo jets, in fact, is what the architects famously said the towers could withstand. And it is true. The buildings seemed to do just fine after the impact. So the official story had to quickly turn, like with Building 7, to the ‘intense’ inferno as cause for the Towers’ eventual demise.


Inferno Heat, Not Impact, Brought Down Towers, Experts Say.

Bijal P. Trivedi
for National Geographic Today
September 17, 2001


But this official assertion brings us right back to the problem of fire from jet fuel and debris reaching a high enough temperature to weaken and collapse steel. Both Steven Jones, and an engineer fromMIT cover the in-depth scientific impossibilities of fire bringing the gigantic North and South Towers down. But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two? The notion is, of course, absurd. So why is it not also absurd in the case of the Twin Towers – which were designed specifically to support the impact of an airplane?


MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition

It should also be noted that the same catastrophic impact of the airplanes and subsequent raging inferno that supposedly brought two of the tallest buildings in the world down in the matter of one hour somehow spared the passport of one of the alleged hijackers. It is worth clarifying that that passport, like yours and mine, was made out of paper. A well-known, highly flammable material that somehow exited the pocket of a man flying a jumbo jet into a building at 500 mph, then floated unscathed through the initial impact, zig-zagged its way through a thundering firestorm that supposedly burned hot enough to melt steel (approximately 2500 degrees Farenheit), and fluttered unharmed onto a Manhattan sidewalk to be collected by an industrious FBI agent tipped off by a citizen on Vesey St. It is important to note that the author is not making this up. Here is the AP report. We are spoon fed these absurdities by a mass-media whose inability for deductive reasoning is trumped only by our own.

A. Unreasonable Speed of Collapse

Besides the theoretical arguments supporting the hypothesis that intentional demolition, not fire, brought the Towers down, the huge volume of video evidence shows conclusively an array of specific details of the Towers’ collapse that are wholly consistent with the particulars of intentional demolition. The first detail is the speed with which the Towers fell. Despite the huge amount of mass and material sitting underneath them, the tops of both Towers, like with Building 7, collapsed to the ground at close to free-fall speed. To put it more bluntly, if a massive crane hoisted the top 15 floors of the North Tower to the same height at which it sat on the morning of 9/11, and then released the top to fall unimpeded to the ground with nothing but air to block its way, it would have taken approximately 10 seconds to hit down. This is virtually the same speed it took the actual top 15 floors of the North Tower to collapse. With the entire in-tact, undamaged, unaffected 90 floors worth of core building sitting underneath it, somehow providing NO further resistance to the falling building than air itself. (Remember that the impact zone of the aircraft and the subsequent fire was from floor 90 up. No other part of the building could have possibly sustained any serious damage since heat and fire go up. And the government’s official theory is that the top 15 floors essentially destabilized and failed, and its then unsupported weight began to pile drive downwardly onto the rest of the 90 as yet undamaged stories.)

Somehow, in a gross violation of the laws of physics, the remaining 90 floors and core of the North Tower sitting under the damaged section of the building offered little more resistance to impede the speed of the Tower’s collapse than air itself. This is another unequivocal impossibility. The only thing that can account for the speed of the Towers’ collapse is controlled demolition – where cutter charges and explosives were placed throughout the core of the building, timed to explode and pop out sections of floors and beams to clear a path and create the vacuum that was necessary to account for the tumbling speed of the Twin Towers. Almost exactly like these firefighters in this video surmised on the morning of September 11 before the story got officially rewritten.



B. Squibs

An up-close analysis and review of the cascading collapse of the buildings shows more evidence of explosives and cutter charges. One of the exclusive, tell-tale signs of demolition are the presence of what the industry calls ‘squibs’. Squibs are horizontal puffs of debris and smoke that explode laterally out from the side of an imploding building. They are a result of the force of the detonation of the charges that ignite to weaken a building’s core columns, allowing the upper floors to crash unimpeded in the straight-down trajectory of a demolished structure. Of huge importance is the fact that squibs explode far below the level of falling debris, detonating in the seconds before the arrival of the rest of the falling building from above. For an initial example of a squib, click on this video, and observe the lateral explosions just below the main explosion initiating the onset of collapse.


9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001

Defenders of the ‘official story’, like Popular Mechanics and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), are now trying to say that these squibs are the result of a ‘syringe effect’, where the collapsing mass of the building above compacts the air below, building up the air pressure like in a syringe to such a degree that it bulges and bursts out the sides of the building in horizontal puffs of smoke. But this explanation is absurd. The squibs shown in the videos are all small, cylindrical, tight puffs of explosions that are exact replicas of other known squibs seen in official building demolitions. Like this one, whose squibs look identical to the above video of the north tower. How is it possible that the compressing air pressure of a massive building totaling millions of square feet was channeled into narrow, neat cylinders of force that blew little round holes through very localized blast spots, cylinders that just happen to look exactly like those of officially demolished buildings?

Obviously, if the compacting air pressure of this ‘syringe effect’ was a reality, that pressure would have built in massive waves that would have released themselves in huge outward blasts, exploding in wide surges, decimating whole banks of adjacent windows and floors. This is not what happened. The squibs were neat and tight, like in the first example given above, and in the next clip below. Watch on the left façade about 1/3 of the way into the clip, far below the falling debris, the obvious squib and explosive gas ejecting from the side of the building. The clip is especially effective if you pause the video, then use the frame by frame slow motion tabs on the right side of the clip’s tool bar.



Moreover, the next clip clearly shows enormous squibs at the top of the building, at the onset of the initial explosion, before the building had a chance to fall and build up the supposed syringe-like air pressure. Watch the right side of the building and look for the two massive horizontal puffs of gas exploding one after the other laterally and below the falling debris. Again, use the slow-motion tabs for best viewing.



And while squibs take out the core center interior columns that support the external mass of the building, exploding far below the level of the main collapse event to clear a path for the disintegrating mass to fall unimpeded straight down, this clip demonstrates how that main mass of falling building debris was initially pulverized into manageable chunks of rubble and dust. Remember that the mass of a truly collapsing building left alone is not going to fall symmetrically downward. One part of the building will fail first, then the entire remaining mass will lean and yaw to that side and carry on falling in that asymmetrical direction, following Newton’s most basic law of motion. But this is not what we observe in the fall of the Towers. They both fell with almost identical, perfect symmetry. And the only way to account for this symmetry and its violation of the natural laws of physics is to surmise that the buildings, as they fell, were being acted upon by an outside force; i.e. well-timed, specifically placed explosives guiding the fall of the building and its debris straight down.

Look at the clip again. Or this example. This initial explosion is not a collapsing building. This is a dramatic, highly explosive event. Look at the lateral force being generated by the blast. Look at the huge sections of neatly cut steel beams being hurtled laterally in front of the lighter dust particles of concrete, a scenario only possible through some kind of explosive event.

Look at this still photo. How is this massive, multi-colored explosion being generated by the simple collapse of the top quarter section of a building falling in on itself? Imagine cutting off the top section of a massive tree. Would the rest of the tree underneath that falling section explode symmetrically beneath it as the top section rained down? The fall of these Towers was not a collapse. It was a violent, dramatic, almost perfectly symmetrical explosive event.

This aforementioned symmetry of collapse that can be observed in all the video evidence must not go uninvestigated. It is perhaps the most dubious of all the characteristics of the Towers’ collapse. If an airplane was to plow into one side of a building, leaving a big enough wound and fire behind to sufficiently weaken its integrity and initiate the onset of its collapse, then we can rightly guess that the collapse would begin within that wound and fire zone. We can rightly guess that the top of the building sitting above the wound and fire zone would lean and be drawn in the direction of the lateral failure. Again, like a cut, falling tree. And in fact, in the case of the South Tower, this is exactly what happened. Observe in this video how dramatically to the side the top of the building initially leans. Or look at this still photo to see the same.

According to basic laws of physics, the top of that building should have continued to fall to the side, and, unless acted on by another force, it should have landed on adjacent buildings and side streets below. It did not. It was either somehow drawn back into the center of the collapse, or it was pulverized to dust before it hit the ground. Either way, based on this video evidence, the government’s official explanation for total building collapse – i.e. its ‘pancake theory’, or ‘pile driver’ theory, wherein the unsupported weight of the upper sections of the damaged building fall unimpeded down onto the levels and floors below, driving that next floor into the one below it, and then the next one below it, and on and on in a downward collapse – this theory can no longer be of any use. The video clearly shows the building has fallen to the side, asymmetrically, meaning the entire vertical façade of the building away from the airplane entrance hole did not fall straight down onto the floors below itself. It fell sideways toward the hole, and whole sections of the far, undamaged side of the building should have been left sticking up into the air like fractured limbs. Remember, there were 47 massive central steel support beams holding these buildings vertically up. How does theasymmetrical collapse of the material attached to those beams account for those beams being sliced into neat 25 and 30 foot sections, collapsing straight down into nice neat piles of rubble in the buildings’ own footprint? Again, if you sliced the top of a massive tree off near its top, you would not expect the entire tree underneath it to explode into dust and splinters. The tree has vertical integrity. So, too, did these buildings, and something tore them down.

So, the question becomes, what happened to the top of that building? What happened to the asymmetrical nature of the first part of the collapse? How did the falling building, if we are to believe in the laws of physics, regain its symmetrical disintegration. A symmetry that can readily be seen in this video. Remember that if a building truly falls down on its own, without the use of guiding explosives, it is not going to fall symmetrically. It will lean to the side that weakened first, and begin to collapse in that direction. But the two towers, and Building 7, each collapsed straight down in a symmetrical fall.

This symmetry was clearly produced through precisely timed waves of mammoth explosions that ripped the building apart. We have been told that the huge pyroclastic flows of dust and debris exploding from the building were, like the squibs, caused by the ‘syringe effect; i.e. the vertically pancaking building thrusting its excess debris laterally. But how could weakening steel causing vertical collapse produce such MASSIVE surges of horizontal explosions at the top of the building at the onset of collapse? Watch this video again, and play the first 5 seconds in slow motion. Where is the lateral force coming from? The clip is showing explosions near the top of the building, at the start of collapse, long before the huge mass of the building could build up enough power or energy to eject cement and steel with such devastating force. And watch from below again. If, for the moment, we allow ourselves to at least consider that explosives might have been used, doesn’t it look like explosives are being used to pop out the floors one at a time?



Crimes are investigated and solved all the time through observation and inference. And yet not even one of the official investigations conducted by the government ever even considered explosives as a possible hypothesis for the buildings’ collapse. Why? Dr. Steven Jones, a BYU physicist and professor minding his own business in Utah, did consider this possibility. And his work shows that when considered as a hypothesis, explosives and intentional demolition account for all of the seeming anomalies and mysteries of the Towers’ collapse – anomalies left unsolved and uninvestigated by the government’s wholly unreliable and dubious official explanation.

Dr. Jones has, in fact, turned his research focus full-time on to the mysteries and anomalies of the Towers’ collapse. And time after time, in experiment after experiment, he uncovers more and more data that consistently, and without exception, conforms perfectly to the intentional demolition theory. A theory that accounts for the impossible speed of the buildings’ collapse, the appearance of the tell-tale squibs, the symmetry of collapse, the devastating explosiveness of the collapse, the eyewitness accounts of underground explosions, etc. etc.


Dr. Steven E. Jones latest comprehensive, peer-reviewed paper and analysis on this science, Revisiting 9/11/2001 –Applying the Scientific Method.

Dr. Steven E. Jones original peer reviewed paper, “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse”, with full graphics and photos.

C. Thermite

Professor Jones is an expert in thermite, a highly volatile and potentially explosive reaction in which aluminum metal is oxidized with other metals to create an incredibly hot and potent reaction that can cut through metal as thick as steel and iron in fractions of a second. The military uses thermite charges as anti-tank explosives, and to destroy structures like bridges and buildings. Packed properly, civilian demolition crews can also use thermite as primary cutter charges to quickly and efficiently sever the steel support columns of buildings they are intentionally bringing down. Professor Jones believes a well-known explosive version of thermite was used to fell the Twin Towers.

What is of essential importance is that this theory of Dr. Jones can be easily tested. Thermite reactions leave behind identifying markers and traces of specific metal compounds and residues that are exclusive to its reaction. And while most of the source material and would-be evidence of destroyed beams and building debris was illegally cleared and recycled, Dr. Jones did manage to find a piece of a steel support beam from Clarkson University, a section of beam that had been used in a sculpture dedicated to the victims of 9/11. He also acquired dust particles of pulverized concrete saved from an apartment in a building adjacent to the WTC. Testing residue from the beam and dust with an Electron Microprobe, Dr. Jones found compounds wholly consistent with thermite reactions – abundant Iron, Zinc, Sulfur, Manganese, Fluorine, and, perhaps most suspiciously, Barium, a highly toxic substance found in military grade explosives, not in building material, airplanes, or office supplies. For more info on this research, scroll down to page 28 on this website.
D. Lateral Explosions

Below are numerous other clips and stills of the suspicious looking explosions, some of which Jones has argued were detonated with thermite. Conventional explosives were surely also used to dismantle the floors and the standing building debris, and they can be seen below producing powerful lateral ejections of huge, multi-ton steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally from the core of the building. Again, what can possibly account for the generation of this kind of explosive, instantaneous lateral force? Observe in this video, toward the beginning of the clip, the violent, outward trajectory of the beams and core debris. Watch low on the building as the video plays, below the level of collapse to see the ejected beams and the strongest evidence of explosives. Or this video, slightly clearer, showing the same. These lateral explosions are, again, near the top of the building, at the onset of the collapse, long before enough momentum and mass could account for such horizontal force.

In this still photo, it is scientifically impossible, if the official story is considered, to account for the already enormous mushroom cloud of pulverized dust and debris appearing so close to the start and onset of collapse.

Not enough weight from the above floors has yet fallen down on the below mass to create enough explosive power to account for the size and speed of the photographed blast. “First we have explosive ejections of dust and pieces. Thick dust clouds spewed from the towers in all directions at about 50 feet per second. Solid objects were thrown ahead of the dust cloud. That’s a feature of explosive demolitions of structures. Some pieces of the perimeter were thrown laterally as far as 500 feet. Here’s a gash in 3 World Financial Center, about 400 feet away from the North Tower, and it’s several hundred feet up.”“Energetic ejections of dust occurred well below the rapidly descending demolition wave in each tower. Squibs which you can see in animations show rapid ejections of high velocity gases, over 200 feet a second. The aluminum cladding was blown 500 feet in all directions, littering surrounding buildings for considerable distances. It wasn’t as if the towers exploded in a single explosion. They exploded in what’s called a smooth wave. They started exploding and the explosion continued; it sounded like a huge ocean wave roar.”

E. More Videos

Below is a number of other video clips showing clear evidence of squibs and internal detonations:


Watch on the left side, way down low on the falling building the explosion that appears and long precedes the rest of the falling debris.

Obvious squibs can be seen here in a slow motion video, on the front façade, and from the right hand side of the tower.

This clip begins with two huge squib explosions, then 2 more can be seen as the building crumbles – one pops out on the front façade, the remnants of the second can be seen blasting out from the right side of the building. Notice the symmetrical timing and location of the two explosions. Again, use the slow motion option for better viewing.

Watch the corner spine of the building here in slow motion. Observe the massive, cascading explosions below the level of falling debris.

A good synopsis of the squibs can be found in this clip from “Loose Change”.

For a general overview of many, many clips of the Towers’ demise, click here.

And for the best feature length documentary-style production I have yet seen in regards to 9/11 and, specifically, the collapse of the WTC buildings, click here. 

AA Flight 77

(AP Side Note: Other than 911’s flight “11”, there was also American Airlines (or AA, which is numerically seen as “11”) flight number 77 which is also a derivative of the number 11 as well as a master number).

Almost every detail and event in the ‘official story’ of 9/11 carries some element of unexplained contradiction and suspension of logic. The official narrative regarding American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon is no different. First of all, as with all other hijacked planes that morning, it was allowed to fly unimpeded and wildly off-course for an excruciatingly long period of time. According to the New York Times, “within a few minutes” after 8:48 a.m., controllers knew that “American 77 had probably been hijacked.” (NYTimes, 15 September, 2001, Wald, Matthew) Moreover, the flight’s transponder was turned off at 8:56 a.m., a sure sign to controllers, in light of one plane already having crashed into the North Tower and another unresponsive and heading to NYC, that AA 77 had been hijacked.

And yet, the 9/11 Commission Report concludes that the military was not contacted regarding Flight 77’s unapproved wayward path toward D.C. until 9:34 a.m. Forty minutes after the confirmed hijacking, and fifty minutes after the first plane impact. This directly contradicts not only common sense, logic, and standard operating procedures in full effect on the morning of 9/11, it also inexplicably contradicts specific information given directly to the Commission itself in regards to Flight 77. “Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center (at 8:46 a.m.), the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, Command Center, headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies. The US Air Force liaison immediately joined the FAA phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line…The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about unfolding events…including Flight 77. NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about AA Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.” (FAA clarification memo presented by Laura Brown to the 9/11 Commission, entitled ‘FAA Communications with NORAD on Sept 11, 2001’, presented 21 May, 2003)

So this clarification memo means that the military suspected, along with the FAA, at 8:48 a.m. that AA Flight 77 had been hijacked. And the hijacking was confirmed at 8:56 a.m. when the plane’s transponder was turned off. Yet the Commission inexplicably states the military and government leadership receives no official word of Flight 77’s approach to D.C. until 9:34 a.m., four minutes before the Pentagon is struck. Why? Were they trying to explain away the initial lack, then bizarre pattern, of military response? Because while military jets were airborne by 9:30 a.m. – 34 unexplained minutesafter confirmation of 77’s hijacking – they were ordered toward Baltimore, not D.C., to chase down a ‘phantom flight 11’ the Commission Report invented without the use of any corroborating evidence. Then in the minutes before the crash at the Pentagon, the jets are turned east away from Baltimore, again given inexplicable instructions, this time to fly 60 miles out to sea away from Washington and the obvious bearing of Flight 77.

It is essential to remember the testimony of Norman Mineta reviewed earlier in this paper, showing full government and military awareness of Flight 77 and its suicidal path toward D.C. before the fighters were scrambled and given the above nonsensical orders. By 9:27 a.m. (which is when Mineta walked into the scene), Cheney and others were already watching the progress of Flight 77 zeroing in on Washington from their underground bunker below the White House. “During the time that the airplane (Flight 77) was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president ‘do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said ‘Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

Mineta’s testimony proves that Cheney, and other top military officials in the bunker with him at that time, not only knew about Flight 77’s whereabouts and approach, they were giving direct ordersas to how to engage and deal with it. And since Cheney has admitted numerous times that orders to shoot down planes were not given until after 10:10 a.m., clearly Cheney’s orders referred to in Mineta’s testimony were to not shoot down AA77. Meaning the Vice President of the United States, the ranking government official in Washington that morning, ordered that the airplane be allowed to freely enter D.C. airspace, line up the Pentagon, and slam into its West wing. That Cheney did not even evacuate the White House bunker in which he was himself sitting, even though it was surely a potential target, only furthers the suspicion of the VP’s full knowledge of AA77’s intentions. And while the media refuses to connect the dots, Cheney’s deliberate order of non-action in regards to the flight, and his refusal to evacuate the Pentagon, are nothing less than high treason and mass murder. Any reasonable investigator would pull Cheney into an interrogation room, and hammer at him over and over and over to explain his comments, his whereabouts, his meaning, his contradictions, and the highly suspicious nature of his behavior.

But, of course, Cheney believes himself untouchable. And so far, because of our collective inaction, he is.

The Pentagon

911 pentagon 2

As with Flight 77, the story and ‘evidence’ given to the public regarding the impacted target of the hijacked American Airlines plane (i.e. the Pentagon itself), is laced with anomalies, contradictions, confusion, and nonsensical explanations. In perhaps the finest example of skilled, even-tempered 9/11 investigation, Russell Pickering, an ex-crew chief in the Air Force and fire-fighter in Seattle, has reviewed thousands and thousands of photos and documents relating to the Pentagon and 9/11. His website http://www.pentagonresearch.com covers these referenced anomalies and resulting questions in great detail. (Update: his website is being renovated and updated as more information pours in, but it can be archived, and he will be up and running by the end of 2007.)

Why is there not a scratch on the Pentagon lawn after the crash of a large airliner that supposedly came in on a flat trajectory? Why did the detachable wings and tail section of the plane not sheer off upon impact at 400 mph? Why is the impact hole so small? Why in the 1500 reviewed photos of the accident scene is not one seat, cushion, or piece of luggage visible? Why did the US Postal Service not receive one complaint about missing goods and mail known to be carried on Flight 77? Why did the Secretary of Defense of the United States run out onto the Pentagon lawn after the crash for a rescue photo-op when a fourth known hijacked airplane was still airborne and the morning still wholly chaotic? Why did a construction generator trailer create such a massive explosion and fire when struck? Why is there so little conclusive evidence of a Boeing 757 at the crash site? Why did there happen to be multiple war-games being run from the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11 mimicking hijacked airplanes and terrorist attacks, causing confusion and chaos with FAA flight controllers as to whether what being reported that morning was ‘real-world’ or staged? How did five separate substantial lamp poles struck by the airplane cause no adverse effect on the hardware of the aircraft, nor its flight path? Why does the officially released flight data recorder show that the aircraft was hundreds of feet abovethose struck lamp poles as it flew past? These are all serious, important questions that need answering from a serious, independent investigation. Russell Pickering has contributed to that process.

But the two most pertinent questions and anomalies in regards to the Pentagon and the ‘official story’ the public has been fed have nothing to do with investigating grand conspiracies or tracking down mis-represented evidence. They have to do with unreasonable suspensions in basic logic. The first is the fact that while almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. These are two completely different and irreconcilable narratives.

To be explicitly clear, this is what the public has been told: On one hand, in response to the complaint that there is no verifiable plane debris to positively ID Flight 77, the government claims the fire in the Pentagon was so hot that the virtually indestructible titanium engines were melted, enormous metal wings incinerated, detachable vertical tail fins swallowed whole, seats and luggage consumed, every inch of metal framing obliterated, landing gear gone, a whole enormous Boeing 757 essentially vaporized into molten rubble and dust. And yet that same raging, all-consuming inferno spared enough body parts and DNA of 184 individual human beings made of a carbon based material significantly less rugged than titanium, called skin and bone, somehow survived said firestorm in tact enough for positive identification. How is this possible? And why is no one asking this question and shining light on what should be a most distressing and absurd fabrication?

The second glaring absurdity and illogical detail of the government’s narrative is the bizarre ground-level exit hole on the far exterior wall of the Pentagon’s inner ring, some 310 feet away from the impactsite. At first, this symmetrical hole was comically explained as the ‘punch-out’ hole, created by the nose of the aircraft as it ploughed through the building and came to rest. However, that impossible story changed when 9/11 researchers calmly pointed out thefollowing photo, showing what a ten-pound goose did to the similar nose cone of a military cargo plane. The exit hole was then credited to dislodged landing gear (or perhaps some other fuselage debris?), even though no landing gear has ever been produced, nor is it evident in any of the initial photos captured outside the exterior hole.

And besides the lack of evidence, serious laws of physics directly counter the possibility of the ‘official story’s’ explanation of the mysterious exit hole. We have been told to believe matter-of-factly that some mass from the airplane survived the initial impact and explosion, maintained its immense forward thrust, threaded its way through a 300-foot maze of stout reinforced concrete pillars, hit an exterior wall made up of 21 inch square steel reinforced concrete covered with 6 inches of limestone façade and 8 inches of brick backed with Kevlar mesh with such massive force that it punched a huge, neat, circular cut-out exit hole. And then, in a miracle as yet unexplained, that same mass with such potent forward thrust decelerated and disintegrated in the span of 30 feet, leaving not a mark on the next wall in its path, nor a physical trace of its existence.

No official explanation has been given in response to the obvious problems inherent in this given official narrative. None of the engineering or official structural reports that investigated the Pentagon crash and partial collapse, including the 9/11 Commission Report, bother to explain the exit hole. What it is, exactly, is unknown. Russell Pickering has speculated that it was a pre-planned blast hole to help with eventual rescue, evacuation, and fire-fighting needs. But this is just speculation. And again, it is not up to investigators of a crime to explain anomalies and inconsistencies. Investigators uncover and question anomalies in a story. It is up to the official story-tellers to explain and defend any inconsistencies in their given narrative. The story of the exit hole being created by zig-zagging airplane debris does not, like so many other examples on the morning of 9/11, square with the available evidence. Nor with common logic. Why not? Why is no one asking the question? And why is no one being held accountable to explain the ‘official story’.”


Defenders of the ‘official story’ like to point out to the skeptics of 9/11 that Osama Bin Laden was caught on video proudly confessing to the crime in front of a group of his peers. The now famous ‘confession’ video was released in December of 2001 by the Department of Defense under growing international pressure to provide definitive proof tying Bin Laden to 9/11. And the defenders of the government’s narrative present this oft-broadcast video as tidy proof of that narrative’s validity. But as with so much of the ‘evidence’ covered at length in this paper, this ‘definitive’ proof is riddled with conflicting facts, quantum leaps in judgment, and, ultimately, inadvertent support not for the official story, but for the very skepticism about 9/11 that the ‘proof’ was meant to quell.

First of all, Bin Laden’s initial reaction to 9/11 was not to take credit for the crime at all. In fact, he continually denied any involvement in 9/11 up until the ‘confession’ video was mysteriously presented. Almost no one in the U.S. has read Bin Laden’s first statement in response to 9/11, which so conflicts the later ‘confession’. Here it is, from September 17, 2001:

We’ve been asked to accept without question his other statements of ‘confession’. So how do we make sense of the above statement? Or how do we make sense of his second public statement in regards to 9/11, given on October 16, 2001:

These comments obviously do not prove that Bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11. But they do raise a crucial question. Why would a man spend six weeks denying a crime, then suddenly flip-flop 180 degrees and happily start taking responsibility for the originally denied crime? Most people – including scientists, CIA analysts, FBI, and other independent investigators, etc. – who have a working familiarity with the ‘confession’ video, know the answer to this question. And that is that the man in the video making the ‘confession’ is almost certainly not Osama Bin Laden, and the tape is a fake. The man shown in the video, though bearded, Arabic, and of darkish complexion, is much heavier than all known photos and videos of the actual Bin Laden. The man in the video is seen writing something down with his right hand. Bin Laden is well-known to be left-handed. And there are scores of other reasons to question the validity of the tape. In fact, “the FBI’s page on bin Laden as a ‘Most Wanted Terrorist’ does not list him as wanted for 9/11, and when asked why, a FBI spokesman said, ‘because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11’.” (Debunking 9/11 Debunking, pg. 21, David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2007.) For a detailed analysis on the bin Laden tapes, click here or here.

But even if we take the hypothesis, for the moment, that the tape is real, then the government would suddenly find itself subject to an even more damning series of questions than if the tape was a fake. Because according to a recent investigation by journalist Ed Haas, the Bin Laden ‘confession’ video was not, as originally reported, acquired in November 2001. It was acquired in late September 2001,before the invasion of Afghanistan commenced. And if this is true, George W. Bush and Tony Blair could find themselves in deep, deep trouble. Because if this September timeline of receiving the tape is true, based on well-established precedents of international law, Bush and Blair are subject to execution for crimes against humanity.

This is not hyperbole. At the Nuremberg Trials after WW II, the Nazi leaders who were found guilty and later hung for their crimes were not tried for genocide. No one in the world ever stood trial for genocide until 1996. They were simply tried and executed for starting‘wars of aggression’. And this is problematic for Bush and Blair. Because in late September 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan had not yet begun. Only the drumb-beats of war had begun, and capturing Osama Bin Laden was Bush and Blair’s given pretext for this potential war. So in response and in an effort to avoid armed hostilities with the two most powerful nations on earth, the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan responded by saying if proof of Bin Laden’s connection to 9/11 could be provided, they would turn him over to the Americans. And if, as Ed Haas so clearly details in his above report, the ‘confession’ video was acquired not in late November, but in lateSeptember, then this establishes outright that Bush and Blair had the unequivocal proof of Bin Laden’s connection to 9/11 before the invasion of Afghanistan, meaning the war and all its destruction and death could have been avoided.

But as most scholars now agree, capturing Osama Bin Laden was never the actual reason the U.S. and Britain invaded Afghanistan. Gaining strategic and territorial access to the huge reserves of natural gas and energy in the Central Asian countries of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc., then linking a pipeline from those reserves through business friendly Pakistan to the Indian sub-continent, and through the twisted arm of Iran and annexed Iraq to connect with the Persian Gulf to the west in order to prop up certain allies of multi-national corporations competing on the ‘free’ and ‘open’ market – that was the point of the invasion of Afghanistan, and later Iraq. (Here’s a map, connect the dots). And by any reasonable definition or interpretation of international law, these are not viable excuses to justify war. They are crimes against humanity, and wars of aggression. The very same laws officially violated by Nazi war criminals.

No wonder George Bush no longer spends much time thinking about Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Forgotten.

For more on the Haas report, the Bin Laden tapes, and related analyses, click here.


IN PLANE SIGHT – VIDEO EVIDENCE OF 911 (If A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words, What Is A Video Worth?)


RING OF POWER: Empire of the City (Aquarian Philosophy’s choice for best documentary series)


And the classic… ZEITGEIST

Bush Caught in a Lie About the 9/11 WTC Attacks

President Bush has stated on two occasions that he saw a plane hit World Trade Center 1:

Occasion 1:
President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting
[CNN, Aired December 4, 2001]QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you’ve done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?


Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), 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. And 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 use to fly myself, and I said, “There’s one terrible pilot.” And 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 who was sitting over here walked in and said, “A second plane has hit the tower. America’s under attack.”

RealMedia video download of comment

Occasion 2:
President Holds Town Hall Forum on Economy in California

[whitehouse.gov, January 5, 2002]

“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…” [whitehouse.gov]

WMA download of comment

There is a problem with the above statements. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn’t be. Video of the first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit World Trade Center 2.

11 a.m. on 9/11. One of the first broadcasts of Flight 11’s impact into WTC 1.WMV video download (831kB)


Didn’t we try to impeach Clinton for lying about having sex? This is obviously far worse by comparison and yet nothing is being done about this. Please share this article and the aforementioned “hard facts”. Thank you and please keep the light in your hearts going, never let negativity or the folly of others dissuade you from being the best person you can be and in helping others to do the same.

Eric Anthony Crew

(by 911HardFacts)

“There is a whole matrix of information pointing to U.S. Government involvement in the planning and execution of September 11th. From the ominous writings of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), to the scores of so-called ‘intelligence breakdowns’, to the lack of military response and the comprehensive dismissal of standard operating procedures in reaction to a declared emergency, to the bizarre collapse of WTC 7, to the freefall speed and explosive collapse of the Towers, to the miraculous aeronautical maneuvering of the jets, to Dick Cheney’s suspicious behavior in the underground bunker, and on and on. The incriminating data is there, and has been presented at length in this paper. The only thing keeping the truth about 9/11 from emerging is our collective desire to continue to spin the fairy tale we have been fed.

We have an emotional investment in what it means to be American. We have an emotional investment in trusting and believing in the goodness of our ‘leaders’. We have an emotional investment in the correctness of our initial reaction to the events of 9/11, and in the goodness of the justice we pursued thereafter. We have an emotional investment in our belief about the veracity and democratic function of the press. To admit and accept the truth that is illuminated by the actual hard facts and data of 9/11 would unravel the threads of a narrative we have used over the past 5 years to literally define ourselves. To admit to the hard truth about 9/11 would be a literal death of a part of us.

But surely, in upholding this collective myth of 9/11, part of us is dying anyway. A much more central, vital part. All of us know that when we refuse to look at ourselves, and the world, honestly, we suffer. We are forced to live disconnected, unhappy, and wholly stressful lives. For whatever false images and versions of reality we have created will necessarily, and continuously, run up against the immovable certainty of the truth. In response, we will be forced to constantly manipulate our thoughts and actions, rearrange facts, polish our blinders, stick fingers in our ears, and engage in a perpetual state of denial to avoid that truth, struggling mightily to reestablish the more comforting feeling of our chosen myth. It is a full-time commitment, burden, and unequivocal waste of energy that will lead to a life of perpetual disconnect.

Families burdened by the experience of sexual abuse often endure this kind of disjointed reality. Accusations are made, old memories suddenly rush back, various members of the family split into different camps, and an acute crisis unfolds. Often there will be a camp that will refuse to believe the accusations, refuse to listen to the strength of their memories, refuse to indulge their suspicions, refuse, ultimately, to reconcile with the truth. Ready excuses will be given in order to ‘hold the family together’. The perpetuation of ignorance will be defended in order not to face the initial harshness of the truth. But this faction of the ‘family’ will live a life without depth, without real trust of each other, or of life. Because the ‘family’ they are defending does not exist. The ‘family’ they want to save is an illusion, an image they created in their collective minds that does not square with reality. And as such, their ‘family’, and the lives they engage within that ‘family’, will have no meaning. And the very suffering they wanted to avoid by ignoring the truth will only be deepened and made more harsh.

The leaders of the U.S., in this case the Bush/Cheney Administration, are much like the abusive parents of our collective family. They have been entrusted with guiding and protecting us. Entrusted with decision-making responsibility to distribute and allocate our collective resources in order to lead us safely and effectively into the future. And in response, they have wholly abused and betrayed this power. They invented reasons to start an illegal war. They have intimidated and divided this country into two halves more interested in screaming at each other than collaborating. They have funneled vast sums of our collective resources into the hands of their already fabulously wealthy friends and partners in the defense and oil contract industries. They have dramatically energized and amplified an insurgency and a terrorist network they claimed their power, influence, and position were going to quell. And as laid out in the mountain of evidence reviewed and presented in this paper, they, not a nebulous force of bearded Arab men living in caves and annoyed at our ‘American values’, orchestrated the murder of 3,000 of our fellow citizens and family members on the morning of September 11, 2001.

One of the tenets and ideals upon which this country was founded, and still resides, is accountability. Taking responsibility for our own actions, and rendering ourselves accountable for their consequences. In fact, the Republican Party, to which the Bush/Cheney Administration act as leaders, has made this their moral mantra over the past ten years. And indeed, accountability and responsibility are wise ideals to live by. And if 9/11 is, as advertised, the seminal event shaping our generation, then nowhere is it more important to uphold and honor our stated and chosen ideals than in honestly investigating and uncovering the actual truth about that event. And holding the real perpetrators accountable. That those perpetrators appear to come from within the ranks of our own family is a truth that, though perhaps initially harsh, must be dealt with and reconciled. If not, we will live lives without depth, lives wholly disconnected from reality, lives filled with deception and further suffering.

Perhaps change is, initially, painful. Dealing and reconciling with the truth about 9/11 is a big step that requires letting go of certain vines of reality we have depended upon for so long. But as any recovering addict or abuse victim will testify, this reconciliation is the only way to end the perpetual struggle we have locked ourselves into. Because with the truth, there is nothing left to defend. There is no sinking ship to save. There are no illusions that have to be rationalized with fancy language or media spin or public relations campaigns. There is only the truth of what is real. As is. And we can get on with living our lives.

The axiom ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’is a well-known and widely believed moral truism. The current U.S. government enjoys more absolute power than the world of human history has ever known. So what is it, what deeply held conviction, assumed self-evident truth, and collectively held myth keeps us from considering and suspecting that this U.S. government, with its unprecedented power and influence, is deeply and profoundly corrupt?

And finally, to answer the most common and most important question I am consistently asked: So what? Why is it so important that the truth of 9/11 come out. My simple answer is that a significant crime has been committed, and the criminals who so comprehensively benefited from the crime are still running around, setting agendas and steering the course of not only our country, but the future of our shared planet as well. And these people should be sitting in prison, not in the Oval Office and high-rise executive suites. But perhaps more importantly, our continuing choice to remain ignorant about the reality of 9/11 is indicative of a more general apathy and collective ambivalence toward an accelerating global chaos that is quickly, and literally, making our shared planet inhospitable for the coming generations. To whom I believe we have a shared responsibility to grow up and behave like the adults we have been entrusted to be.

The authors of 9/11 have worked tirelessly to franchise the impact and consequence of that fateful morning. A staggering amount of emotional weight has been bestowed upon September 11th. To even mention the word, to even hint that a sentence is about to reference the phrase 9/11, is to elicit an involuntary emotional response of shock and awe from the listener. And while this build-up and extraordinary emotional momentum generated around 9/11 is something the authors are undoubtedly proud of, something they have used for the past five years to shape and cajole and manipulate public will and opinion, there also lie the seeds of a great irony within the surging force of that momentum. Because built in to the force of that heavy tide lie not only the seeds for expanding the plotters’ demented power and influence, but also the seeds of their potential downfall and demise as well. For if we the people can unshackle the fetters we have agreed to carry, if we can turn ourselves into social alchemists and harness the emotionality and momentum 9/11 already carries, redirect its force to wash back over its contriving authors, then therein lies a great potential to generate the much needed, lasting change in the currently destructive course of our collective heading. The proof that the threads of the 9/11 web, in which we find ourselves so entangled, were spun by individuals holding prominent positions within the ranks of our own governmental ‘leadership’ is undeniable. Those who wove those threads will not untangle the knots. This task is left to us.”