Blogged by Winter Patriot on 9/11/2005 9:34AM  
Here's a Major Contribution from a BRAD BLOG Reader

Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

Among the 9/11 "research community" there are those who "like" the "physical evidence" and those who "like" the "other evidence". My earlier post this morning highlights the work of Jeff Wells, who "likes" the "other evidence". BRAD BLOG reader Kraig "likes" the "physical evidence", and he's been researching it long and hard. Recently he sent me an essay detailing the results of his work... I encourage you to read it.

You may notice that it comes from an entirely different angle than does Jeff Wells, and both of them come from different angles than I do. I can't say I agree completely with either Kraig or Jeff. But they both make valid points, and in both cases their work is surely important enough, and rigorous enough, to post here. Here's Kraig:

It has been almost four years now since 9/11 and the dust, literally and metaphorically speaking, has settled. It is long overdue that we as a nation take a look at the events of that day with dispassionate, analytical, objective, realistic eyes instead of just accepting the "official" 9/11 story at face value.

I mean, has anyone else noticed that the "official" 9/11 story just doesn't pass the "smell test"? In fact, it reeks. See, the "official" story isn't meant to be analyzed but simply taken at face value; this is because at even a cursory examination of the details it unravels VERY quickly. Let's take a good look at some of the more salient points that tear the guts out of the"official" 9/11 story:

1. Just in watching the video footage of the "collapses" of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 it is readily apparant they were controlled demolitions. You don't have to be an engineer or an explosives expert to be able to plainly see the explosions, also the "squibs" of dust jetting out of windows near the blasts, and watch as each building comes down in nine seconds, freefall rate, a feat impossible by the laws of physics UNLESS esplosives were used to disintegrate everything holding the buildings up, i.e. a controlled demolition. The Twin Towers came down like they were made of butter, with ten floors "collapsing" per second. For a more detailed discussion as to how physics rules out everything BUT a controlled demolition as the cause of the "collapses", see:
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
...And from more of an engineering point of view, see:
http://www.prisonplanet....21104easilywithstood.htm
http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/soldier5.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm
http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm
...The type of explosives used was likely thermite, as that would account for the otherwise unexplainable large "hot spots" under the WTC rubble still hot weeks after 9/11. The amount of high explosive necessary to "collapse" each of the Twin Towers has been estimated at being at least 14 tons. See:
http://www.hawaii.indyme...rg/news/2003/12/3961.php
...In a clip of footage of the North Tower's "collapse" that was also in the documentary '9/11: The First 24 Hours', the tripod-mounted camera visibly shakes for a couple seconds from the tremor caused by the explosives going off in the sub-basement levels, then a few seconds later we can see explosions about level with the bottom of the pall of smoke, and then the entire building crashes down in nine seconds, a textbook "implosion" or controlled demolition.
Firefighters who survived 9/11 told of hearing, feeling and seeing explosions just before the "collapses". For video of them telling of the explosions, see:
http://www.whatreallyhap...om/911_firefighters.html
...And for other survivors telling of witnessing the explosions, see:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
http://research.amnh.org.../TheHorrorTheHorror.html
...A WTC janitor named Rodriguez was almost killed by explosions on 9/11, but the 9/11 whitewash commission ignored his story because it contradicts the "official" myth they're propagating. See:
http://www.americanfreep.../html/ignoring_9-11.html
...Rodriguez could tell it was a cover-up and began speaking out about what he experienced. Now his life is likely in danger. See:
http://www.arcticbeacon....rticle/1518131/32348.htm
...The WTC security men on 9/11 told the WTC workers who were trying to leave after the first plane struck to go back inside the buildings! See:
http://observer.guardian...ry/0,6903,552730,00.html
...But the quickest way for someone to see that the "official" 9/11 story is a steaming turd sandwich is to simply watch the video footage of the "collapses" of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 [hit by no plane and no significant debris but "collapsed" later in the day]. See for yourself:
http://www.plaguepuppy.n...ollapse%20update/#videos
http://www.plaguepuppy.n...ic_html/video%20archive/
http://www.globalresearc....net/viewtopic.php?t=523
http://www.reopen911.org...s_and_videos.htm#Painful
http://wtc.macroshaft.org/mov/
http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Videos.shtml

2. Bush's behavior on the morning of 9/11 was particularly damning. When Andy Card whispered in his ear that a second plane had hit the WTC then everyone concerned knew it could be no accident, so if the "official" story were true then Bush's Secret Service chief would have had to assume that Bush was a possible target and the Secret Service [who have the "last word" in any matter regarding his safety] would've immediately spirited Bush away to a much safer, less-publicized location. But they didn't. Instead, Bush was allowed to sit there and be read to by schoolkids for several minutes, then Bush gladhanded with teachers and posed for photos with them, and THEN Bush carried out his pre-scheduled press conference plugging the 'No Child Left Behind' act, not leaving that school for almost an hour. This can only mean: Bush and his Secret Service chief had to have known that Bush was not a possible target on 9/11; the ONLY WAY they could have known that is if Bush knew the 9/11 plans beforehand, ergo 9/11 was an inside job. Though Bush's actions of that morning are well-documented (including a press conference!), nobody in the mainstream media dares to mention what Bush's tarrying at that elementary school actually MEANS in terms of evidence.

3. What happened to the world's most expensive Air Force on 9/11? How were the "hijacked airliners" allowed to fly from the time of the first one deviating from its flight plan to the one hitting the Pentagon for an HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES through the most heavily-watched airspace in America, the Northeast, to meander to their targets one of which being the Pentagon (!) all with no interference from the Air Force whatsoever?? The one that hit the South Tower even had enough time to fly PAST its target all the way to Newark, New Jersey before turning around to head back to N.Y.C. to crash into the South Tower! N.O.R.A.D. monitors all domestic civilian air traffic on radar as does the F.A.A. and sees the same things on its radar screens the F.A.A. sees. The Northeast is littered with fighter bases each with at least two fighters and two pilots on standby ready to scramble 24 hours a day, every day regardless of anything else taking place. It is standard operating procedure to scramble fighters to check out an unresponsive airliner, and this scramble requires no higher orders than the airbase commander (since June of 2001 when Cheney changed the rules the actual shoot-down order itself has to come from higher up but there was PLENTY of time for that). So what happened on 9/11 to countermand the standard operating procedure? Every time before 9/11 and since when an airliner deviated from its flight plan or looked in some way like it MIGHT be hijacked, fighters were scrambled and off of the wing of the unresponsive airliner in a FEW MINUTES. In the eight-and-a-fraction months of 2001 before 9/11 this occurred sixty-seven times (each was harmless) and this is not an unusual amount either. So why not on 9/11? Some attribute the Air Force's lack of response to the several highly-suspicious "exercises" the Air Force was carrying out on 9/11 (more about them later), and though that did shift a lot of aircraft to places other than the Northeast in a most incriminating manner, that still doesn't account for the ones on standby at fighter bases in the Northeast that could have most certainly pounced on the "hijacked airliners" with plenty of time to spare; General Myers testified that the "exercises" did not hinder their readiness, in fact he said they enhanced it as one would expect during a time of exercises, when readiness is second only to actual wartime, so we can rule that out anyway, and we can expect Myers was being candid as in that position he would be thought to be "less culpable" for the "failure" if he had "conceded" the "exercises" had hindered their readiness; as for the most part it made him look even more suspicious rather than less, this was likely the truth, as what would be the motive for lying to appear even more susipicious? Besides, the very existence of the"exercises" and their nature are highly suspicious as we'll address a little later, (as a cover for the real-world events) and conceding that should send up large red flags of caution to any "official" story apologists. So we are left with the question, just what are the odds of the world's most expensive Air Force being totally asleep at the switch for one particular day in one particular year, the very day when they were needed the most? Maybe one in a million? For more information regarding the Air Force's incriminating impotence on 9/11, see:
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm
http://www.ratical.org/r...Judge/WrongQuestion.html
http://inn.globalfreepre.../article.php?storyid=387
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0331-11.htm
http://fromthewilderness...071204_final_fraud.shtml
http://www.welfarestate.com/wtc/af-scramble.txt

4. The "airliner" that crashed into the Pentagon didn't hit it on the side from which it was approaching; no, instead it circled around and hit it in the part that was under renovation at the time with much less military personnel present. The part that was hit had just before 9/11 been heavily [structurally] reinforced so that a large fire there wouldn't spread elsewhere in the Pentagon, and it was ALSO the part of the building farthest from where Rumsfeld and the top military brass were and are located. These amazing fortuitous "coincidences" were mentioned briefly in the mainstream media, such as an ABC affiliate:
http://911research.wtc7....ons/abc_nosurvivors.html
Also remember that the Pentagon, seat of the Department of Defense and well-equipped with surface-to-air missile (SAM) launchers fired no SAMs in its own defense! Not even one!! Also note that the "airliner" that crashed into it left no wings, no tail section, no fuselage, no luggage parts etc. on the Pentagon's lawn as would have occurred if a real airliner crashed there. It didn't even put a gouge in the lawn!! Within five minutes of the crash the F.B.I. was seizing the tapes of at least two civilian security cameras that happened to be pointing at the crash site, one being from a hotel's parking lot and the other from a gas station. The tapes were never seen again. For more about the gas station camera's tape, see:
http://news.nationalgeog...2/1211_wirepentagon.html
Furthermore, the original hole in the Pentagon's E-ring wall (not the larger section blown out a half hour later with explosives) was only about 16 feet in diameter, way too small. For some photos of the original hole and the remarkable gougeless lawn with no wings, no tail section etc., see:
http://www.asile.org/cit...pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html
http://212.87.68.69/phpw...r_op=view&ANN_id=26

5. There were no Middle Eastern names on any of the four flight manifests; read them over, you'll find none. Furthermore, by everyone's accounts the "hijacker pilots" were far too inept to even master flying Piper Cubs, let alone flying airliners like fighter jocks, pulling high G-force turns no real airliner will do.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Ppuzzle.html

6. What about the "hijacker's" passport that was "found" a few days after 9/11 near the WTC rubble? How did it survive the "collapse" and the fire so "intense" we were told it incinerated the passengers, the plane and even the plane's 'black boxes'?? (It didn't; it was obviously planted in a hamfisted attempt to "reinforce" the "official" story). If the "official" story were true then we should start making airliners out of heavy laminated paper with a vinyl cover so they can be "indestructable" like that passport!! Besides, if the passport was "found" there wouldn't it mean he used it in the boarding process, thus his name would've made it onto a flight manifest? The "official" story even contradicts itself. For an interview of a relief worker at Ground Zero regarding the reaction (disbelief) of many or most of the relief workers at the "discovery" of the passport, see:
http://www.prisonplanet....300305newrevelations.htm

7. What about the at least seven "9/11 hijackers" that turned up alive and well days AFTER 9/11, wondering why they were being wrongfully accused? Though this was widely reported in foreign media, the castrated American mainstream media largely ignored it, and even today can be heard to sing the chorus of the "nineteen hijackers" as if nothing ever contradicted it! For a few sources, including a BBC article, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/.../middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html
http://911review.org/Wik...ackersAliveAndWell.shtml
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

8. What about the obvious foreknowledge of whoever forewarned some prominent individuals like San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and some military generals to avoid flying and the WTC on 9/11? They promptly changed their plans and cancelled flights. For more information, see:
http://www.rense.com/general66/pre11.htm

9. What about the obvious foreknowledge of whoever placed record amounts of "put" orders on the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter (had HQ in the WTC) in the week just before 9/11? A "put" order is essentially betting that a particular stock is going to drop in value. Though the C.I.A. monitors the stock market for suspicious fluctuations and the S.E.C. can trace whoever placed the "put" orders, they choose not to pursue it. For more information, see:
http://www.prisonplanet....5/140605tenquestions.htm
http://newsmine.org/arch...s-trades/9-11-trades.txt

10. The Air Force had at least five separate "exercises" (wargames) scheduled for 9/11 involving mock "hijacked airliners" and false radar injects. The C.I.A. and National Reconnaissance Office (N.R.O.) also both had "exercises" scheduled for 9/11, the N.R.O.'s involving the premise of "an airplane crashing into a building". The governor of Florida Jeb Bush declared a state of emergency for Florida four days BEFORE 9/11, he said to help to counter terrorism. For that, see:
http://www.welfarestate..../nwo/updates/florida.txt
Remember when I mentioned the WTC security men who were making the WTC workers go back inside the buildings after the first plane struck? The WTC security was courtesy of a company owned by Marvin Bush, "W"'s cousin. See:
http://www.whatreallyhap...ned.com/911security.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
...The new owner of the WTC property (in the only time its ownership had changed hands in its history), Larry Silverstein just two months before 9/11 took out a HUGE insurance policy on the Twin Towers and WTC # 7. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (F.E.M.A.) had an "exercise" called Tripod II scheduled for 12 September in Manhattan and "just happened" to arrive in town on 10 September complete with a triage center, all ready for 9/11. As if all this isn't enough, a company called Controlled Demolitions Inc., specializing in (controlled demolitions and) removal of debris from said demolitions [who was responsible for removing the rubble from the Murrah Bldg. in OKC] also "just happened" to be in Manhattan on 9/11. Their website:
http://controlled-demolition.com/
...The odds of all of this just being a string of coincidences is about one in a googolplex, mathematically impossible. For these and many other "coincidences" of 9/11 that if one wants to believe the "official" story one has to believe are just coincidences, see the "Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11" at:
http://rigorousintuition...orists-guide-to-911.html

11. The Bush regime's actions in the time since 9/11 have shown to be a cover-up. The steel debris from the WTC was all quickly shipped out to China and India to be melted down. Isn't that destruction of evidence? If the "official" story were true then wouldn't they want to analyze the steel to see just how "fire" caused these buildings to "collapse"?? And if the steel debris is so "unimportant" then why did F.E.M.A. put a GPS locator tracking device on each semi hauling it to the scrapyard (and thence overseas) and tell the drivers not to stop anywhere or deviate from the route at ALL or they would be fired? There was of course a government cover-up at the Pentagon crash site as well. See:
http://www.911review.com/coverup/pentagon.html
...The tapes of the New York firefighters' radio communications from 9/11 were classified for years until about a month ago when a court finally ruled that the N.Y. Fire Dept. had to turn the tapes over to the public, but not after first telling the N.Y.F.D. they can edit out any parts they deem "painful" or "embarrassing" [in other words, anything that contradicts the "official" story]. Soon after 9/11, when surviving N.Y. firefighters started mentioning that they heard and felt explosions just before the WTC "collapses", they were all quickly placed under a gag order to not speak about anything they saw, heard or felt on 9/11. The F.A.A. air traffic controllers who were on duty on 9/11 are under a similar gag order to not speak of anything they heard or saw on their radar screens on 9/11. Sound like a blatant cover-up? That's because it IS. As part of this cover-up and in response to the growing disbelief at the "official" explanation for the WTC "collapses" and the rest of the "official" myth, the Hearst-owned magazine 'Popular Mechanics' purged its editorial staff and writers replacing them with hacks and wrote [a ridiculous straw-man-beating contest of] an "article" that purports to "debunk" theories other than the "official" 9/11 myth. Written by Benjamin Chertoff, the cousin of DHS director Michael Chertoff, this article fails to address the REAL questions raised by those having legitimate doubts of the "official" fable and certainly the only ones who thought the article actually "debunked" anything were those who already would believe ANYTHING if it has the "official" stamp on it anyway regardless of evidence to the contrary. For discussions debunking the 'Poopular Mechanics' Chertoff straw man article, see:
http://www.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm
http://www.serendipity.l...to_popular_mechanics.htm
...Bush steadfastly opposed even letting a 9/11 commission be formed, only relenting when he was allowed to handpick its members and dictate its scope and focus (narrow, with a predetermined outcome). Even THEN Bush refused to testify in front of it, instead insisting his "testimony" be behind closed doors, to two selected members, NOT under oath, with his weasel attorney Alberto Gonzales and Dick Cheney present, with no tape recording made and the notes taken were confiscated immediately afterwards and destroyed. Now does that sound like a man with nothing to hide?

12. In the late 1990s a group of right-wing nutcases (Cheney-Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Feith-Perle et al) called the "Project for the New American Century" or P.N.A.C. laid out their plans for what they thought would secure American global dominance for the long term. Part of that plan was a scheme to build an oil pipeline running from the Caspian Sea oil fields across Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan to Pakistan and a port. The P.N.A.C. also unsuccessfully badgered Clinton to invade Iraq in 1998 because of its massive oil resources as the world's second-largest oil producer! They openly stated in a paper in September 2000 called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that the American public would not support huge increases in defense spending and a more aggressive military posture without some large, catalyzing, galvanizing event like "a new Pearl Harbor". When "W" came to power these madmen became his top advisors. In July 2001 they gave an ultimatum to the government of Afghanistan (the only holdout in their pipeline scheme), saying "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we'll bury you under a carpet of bombs". The Afghan government refused, so on 11 September of that year the C.I.A. and highest levels of the military and Bush regime carried out their 9/11 false flag operation, blaming it on "Al Qaeda" and using it as an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan (and tried to use it as an "excuse" to invade Iraq!) and have basically been using it as an excuse for everything else since. 9/11 is their Reichstag fire. For more information about the pernicious machinations of the P.N.A.C., see:
http://tinyurl.com/2kp45
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/PHarbor.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/weiner6.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold02192003.html

So you might ask, "How did they do it?". On this of course I can only speculate and make an educated guess, so here's my best guess:

First let's address the matter of the so-called "nineteen hijackers with plastic knives". Well, we already know as mentioned above that at least seven of them (some say nine or more) turned up alive days later wondering why they were being wrongfully accused, so we can safely say these men were uninvolved. Their passports were stolen abroad by the C.I.A. and collected so they could "add" their identities to the pool of patsies. For more information, see:
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersPatsies.shtml
http://www.theforbiddenk...hardtruth/hey_stupid.htm
... As for the others, we know at least five of them (including Mohammed Atta) were living on the Pensacola Naval Air Station and received very limited flight instruction there. This makes them much more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than "Islamic terrorists". For more information about the "hijackers" living and taking rudimentary flight training at Pensacola N.A.S., see:
http://www.wanttoknow.in...ckersmilitarytraining911
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00085.htm
http://infowars.com/save...ledge/pensacola_link.htm
...In standard C.I.A. compartmentalization, they were kept uninformed of the details of the larger plan, and their job was basically to leave a "trail" of (not-very-believable) "evidence" like taking rudimentary flying lessons (and doing very poorly by the way). Even the government admits their "trail" wasn't very believable. See:
http://welfarestate.com/911/#17
...For information about the fake "last letter from Mohammed Atta", see:
http://welfarestate.com/wtc/fake-letters.txt
...For information regarding the fake "bin Laden" "confession" video, see:
http://www.whatreallyhap...ened.com/osamatape2.html
http://welfarestate.com/wtc/faketape
http://911blimp.net/vid_fakeOsamaVideo.shtml
...For special effects experts telling how fake "bin Laden" "confession" tape was easy to make, see:
http://www.rense.com/general18/ez.htm
...For information regarding the fake "Barbara Olson phone call from Flight 77", see:
http://www.geocities.com...nalsuggestion/olson.html
...In April of 2002 the F.B.I .backpedaled and admitted that the so-called "9/11 hijackers" left no paper trail whatsoever. See:
http://rense.com/general24/paper.htm
http://news.theolympian....ica/20020430/15779.shtml
...At the same time the F.B.I. admitted it also has no evidence actually linking the accused "9/11 hijackers" to 9/11. See:
http://tinyurl.com/2p8f
http://www.blythe.org/ny...inks_'Hijackers'_to_9-11
...Shortly after 9/11 the C.I.A.'s patsy "hijacker" fakes were almost certainly killed off. Their purpose had been mainly to "flesh out" the "identities" of several of the "hijacker" patsies enough to make it appear halfway believable unless you looked directly at the matter, which was long enough to get troops into Afghanistan. They had nothing to do with boxcutters or actually hijacking any planes.

Now let's move to the morning of 9/11. On that morning when each of the four (doomed) real airliners took off, for each of the four a remotely-piloted drone also took off, mirroring its airliner's flight plan but at a considerably higher altitude. Three were smallish in size, about like a large fighter (it is highly likely that at least one if not three were in fact remotely-piloted obsolete A-3 Skyraiders taken from storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, the Air Force's boneyard). The other one was a remotely-piloted Air Force fuel tanker aircraft (based on the Boeing 757 airframe, the tankers having been produced since the late 1970s). All were presumably painted up in United Airlines and American Airlines livery. All the drones were flown by controllers on board an Air Force E-3A Sentry A.W.A.C.S. aircraft. For more information on remotely-piloted drone technology, see:
http://212.87.68.69/phpw...r_op=view&ANN_id=25
http://911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html
http://www.public-action.com/911/robotplane.html
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS
http://pratyeka.org/wtc/wot/plissken.htm
...Anyway, at a certain point in each real airliner's flight, N.O.R.A.D. contacted the pilot of each and told him of a [fake] "terrorist threat" to some unspecified airports, and to turn off his transponder and head out over the Atlantic to loiter there in a racetrack pattern until it could be determined which airports were "safe" for landing. So the civil airline pilots do as they're told, and as each real airliner peels off to begin heading to the Atlantic, its "mirroring" drone turns and begins to head for its target. Meanwhile, fighter pilots patrolling over the Atlantic as part of the Air Force's aforementioned "exercises" see [eventually] four unidentified blips on their radar (which are the four real airliners with their transponders off). N.O.R.A.D. then contacts the fighter pilots and tells them the unidentified blips are really "drones" that are simulating "hijacked airliners", and they are cleared to shoot them down, so they do, and if those fighter pilots are still alive today (doubtful), then they probably still think they were shooting down drones for target practice on 9/11. The real airliners are in small pieces on the bottom of the Atlantic. Then a smaller drone hits the North Tower (hence the early reports of a "small plane" hitting it, and the thing in the Naudet brothers' ameteur footage that is definately NOT a Boeing 757). For the Naudet brothers' ameteur video footage see:
http://www.serendipity.p....net/wot/north_tower.htm
...Seventeen minutes later, when the media's cameras are on the scene, the fuel tanker drone crashes into the South Tower (hence the huge Hollywood action movie fireball, and the early reports by eyewitnesses that said the "airliner" that hit the South Tower had no windows). For mention of the "no windows", see:
http://www.aulis.com/news85.htm
...Then a smaller drone hits the Pentagon (hence the early reports of a "small plane" hitting it, and the absence of an airliner's wings, tail section, fuselage etc.). The fourth drone (also smaller) was likely intended for the Capitol Building or the White House, but since the other three hit perfectly this "insurance" drone was not needed, so another fighter pilot, this one from the North Dakota Air Nat'l. Guard was told by N.O.R.A.D. that the drone was a "real hijacked airliner" that was headed for Washington D.C. so he is ordered to shoot it down. So he does (near Shanksville, Penn.) and if he's still alive today (again doubtful), then he probably still thinks he saved the Capitol Building or the White House.

As for the explosives that were in the WTC, these were most likely installed years before, back in the aftermath of the 1993 WTC van bombing as a secret clause of the insurance companies just in case another bombing or an earthquake etc. ever made the Twin Towers unstable they could be evacuated and brought down right into their footprints with no risk of them toppling over onto other buildings (you know how insurance companies loathe undue risk). They were wired to be set off from the mayor's emergency command center in the concrete bunker on floor 23 of WTC # 7 building, itself rigged with explosives. So on 9/11, when the fire in the South Tower started dying, and their "reason" for a "collapse" with it, they set off the South Tower's charges and "collapsed" it right down into its footprint. Exactly thirty minutes later the North Tower's charges went off and it too "collapsed". Later in the day they set the timer on the charges in WTC # 7 (or remote-detonated it, one of the two) and brought it down as well, destroying the evidence in the command center.

So we have reviewed twelve points that individually disprove the "official" 9/11 story, and taken together shred the "official" story into confetti. As emotion is the enemy of reasoning, I know it may be hard to accept on an emotional level that our own government that milked 9/11 for every possible drop of political clout they could get are the ones responsible, but emotion has to take a backseat to cold reasoning. The truth isn't always pretty, but it is the truth nevertheless and everyone should be made aware of it.
For more websites and pages relating to the 9/11 inside job, see:
http://www.serendipity.li/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.911review.org/
http://www.reopen911.org/
http://911review.com/
http://www.question911.com/
http://www.911weknow.com/
...For former Labor Dept. official Morgan Reynolds saying he thinks 9/11 was most likely an inside job, see:
http://www.pej.org/html/print.php?sid=2736
http://washingtontimes.c...0050613-102755-6408r.htm
http://mayday.blogsome.c...m/2005/06/14/inside-job/
...For British former MI5 agent David Shayler saying 9/11 was an inside job, see:
http://www.prisonplanet....2005/270605insidejob.htm
...For the general in charge of Russia's air force stating that the "official" 9/11 story is an impossibility, see:
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm
...For Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC, mentioning in an interview in 2002 that he had WTC # 7 "pulled" (demolitions parlance meaning "demolished"), see:
http://www.jesus-is-savi.../911%20Cover-up/wtc7.htm
...For information about the Los Angeles county citizens grand jury in November 2004 reviewing six solid hours of 9/11 evidence and unanimously deciding that the Bush regime was behind it, see:
http://rense.com/general59/9111g.htm

Buzz this story! C2NN: Submit it!


READER COMMENTS ON
"9/11: Physical Evidence Contradicts Official Story"
(189 Responses so far...)

COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
... Doug Eldritch said on 9/11/2005 @ 10:11 am PT...


Heres something else interesting...

According to a bio-doctor who has hard evidence, both the OKC bombing and WTC tower attacks were inside jobs, by shadow CIA agents called Mossad.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com

Worth looking at...

Doug E


COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
... Winter Patriot said on 9/11/2005 @ 10:18 am PT...


re #1 Thanks, Doug ... but if you could link to an article rather than the home page of a website site, it would be a lot more useful.


COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
... Mark said on 9/11/2005 @ 11:30 am PT...


I've known that something didn't jive with the 911 issue. It's good to see more people at least look at the facts and not what we were told to look at.

"we had to pull it"
Silverstein on a P.B.S documentary

"I didn't mean pull it"

In the NYP 05

Black boxes never found, NORAD, a passport found on the sidewalk at the base of the towers? Get real man!


COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
... Kraig said on 9/11/2005 @ 11:34 am PT...


To Mark:

You are right, the "official' story doesn't jive at all. It's bizarre that some still cling to it like a security blanket. Sad, really.


COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
... Doug Eldritch said on 9/11/2005 @ 11:37 am PT...


COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
... Kraig said on 9/11/2005 @ 12:07 pm PT...


To Doug Eldritch:

Notice how it says there are threats on the doctor's life? Just like the WTC janitor Rodriguez that is now fearing for his life for persistently telling the truth. It is usually a pretty good indicator that someone's struck a nerve so to speak and are onto the true story if their life is threatened by those they seek to expose.


COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
... MarkH said on 9/11/2005 @ 12:18 pm PT...


It may take time, but the Truth will out.

What this bunch (not just Bush & co, but the entire Ruling Class who managed this affair) didn't count on was the power of the Internet. The information has been assimilated, correlated, cross-indexed and more will be put together in time. This story will be completed and clear long before the criminals have all died (as might've happened in a pre-Internet era).

Maybe "America" is dead. Maybe the idea that the Elite, such as our country's rich founders, can maintain their behind-the-scenes control of everything is coming to an end. Transparency seems inevitable and the criminals, like so many cockroaches, will scurry to the darkness.

Maybe a New America can arise, like the Phoenix from the ashes, to fly again.

Hope springs eternal, but first we must march through the Hell these criminals have wrought on us. Then we can overwhelm them, throw them out, punish them and move on.

Let's do it quickly and legally.

"Follow the money." - deepthroat


COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
... Doug Eldritch said on 9/11/2005 @ 12:22 pm PT...


Kraig: Wayne Madsen has been threatened also, both of them know the truth about the 9/11 attacks....This is what I believe led to the 9/11 investigation now by Kerry/Collins on laundered money.

I think it was a Mossad inside job linked to **SPOILER** Israel and nobody, no one wans to talk about it.....

I also believe Cheney planned the whole thing, and has been working with them since 1979 or so......cutting deals for the expected oil refineries.

But, this is the truth beyond Bush, Rove or Clinton that not even the FBI wants to touch.......That is what is sick.....Fitzgerald probably knows it all too...

Why can't these people take the evidence before the media? Get on Air America/CNN and start blowing the 9/11 conspiracy apart before Curt Weldon blames it on dems!

Doug E.


COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
... Doug Eldritch said on 9/11/2005 @ 1:20 pm PT...


TERROR ALERT!!

Karl Rove's friend Tom Ridge, dressing up like a terrorist again.

"We love peace, but on our terms."

This bunch of loser criminals is totally predictable....Of course Cheney and PNAC love peace....If you give them money and a few billion $$$ contracts for Halliburton, that is! >8-)

Hey wait a minute....they said the video is a shot of Adam Gadahn. It doesn't look anything at all like Gadahn....It looks like Rove in a costume, or Cheney's crony...

THEY ARE COMPLETELY PATHETIC.....IMPEACHMENT MUST BE MORE POSSIBLE THAN EVEN WE KNOW, OR THEY WOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF PEOPLE ABANDONING THEM....

:hehe:

Doug


COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
... Kraig said on 9/11/2005 @ 1:29 pm PT...


CNN just had about twenty minutes of 9/11 stuff and in all of that they showed only about five seconds of "collapse" footage [it happened to be WTC # 7, the building that was hit with no plane and no significant debris but "collapsed" later in the day after Larry Silverstein said to go ahead and "pull" the building. Mr. Silverstein, the owner of the WTC buildings for all of six weeks before 9/11 took out a HUGE insurance policy on them, [collecting about $3.5 or $3.6 billion though he is in court currently trying to get it to be considered two separate incidents, one for each Twin Tower so he wants about $7 billion. As far as I know it is still pending.] CNN did not once mention the word "insurance" in its garbage about 9/11.

As for the WTC # 7 footage showing its very noticeable controlled demolition from various angles, see:

http://www.wtc7.net/


COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
... Kraig said on 9/11/2005 @ 1:41 pm PT...


To Doug Eldritch:

You mentioned you thought it was Mossad, the Israeli spy (etc.) service; while Mossad certainly knew about it beforehand and may have assisted the C.I.A. etc. in some ways, and certainly had a few operatives in Manhattan within visual range (remember the three or four celebrating Israeli "college students" in Manhattan who were taking pictures of it and posing in front of it?) I feel pretty sure it was the C.I.A. that was most responsible for pulling the whole thing off, I don't think it was a Mossad plan but a C.I.A. one (remember Operation: Northwoods?) with possibly some Mossad assisstance along the way, particulary on the passport/identity theft of some totally uninvolved Saudis etc.


COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
... Constant said on 9/11/2005 @ 2:12 pm PT...


Besides the fact that this is the 4th Anniversary of 9-11, are there some particular reasons for the "big interest" in this information now . . . ?

Are there allegations that these types of actions occurred in re Katrina?

Besides what is already underway [civil litigation], how will a "new discussion of this information" generate a different result, investigation, or criminal prosecution?

[Not clear on what you want done with this information . . . use it for impeachment . . . ? ]

From what I can gather, anyone who "dares raise the possibility of an inside job" has a high burden of proof: What's new here; or are we saying that previous efforts to raise allegations [from sources you may not agree with] were inadequate; but suddenly we have new information that tips the balance?

It's all well and good to assert a specific conclusion, but you're being hypocritical --- you have ridiculed others for proposing similar conclusions using the same body of evidence.

You desire to have a very high burden of proof when others assert a conclusion, but you're not demonstrating that the body of evidence is more or less compelling with these new revelations.

Back in your court.


COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
... Neo said on 9/11/2005 @ 2:14 pm PT...


Brad did you mention the anti-aircraft missile system the pentagon has that David Ray Griffin talks about? How the anti-aircraft missile system deploys automatically if any non-military aircraft comes within a proximity of the pentagon and whitehouse. Only a military coded aircraft would be able to fly close unless someone switched off the system. So there's the big problem with the pentagon story.


COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
... raymond said on 9/11/2005 @ 2:20 pm PT...


I think it was BIGFOOT and WONDER WOMEN who did it!

It's so clear to me now!

Its all a conspiricy to keep you sixties rejects, and wannabes, unhappy adolescents!


COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
... Valley Girl said on 9/11/2005 @ 2:38 pm PT...


I don't see much mention of the problematic phone calls (at least some said to be from cell phones), esp. the many from Flight 93 (The Let's Roll flight). Unlike building demolition, using a cell phone is something I'm familar with... and this really got to me. I'll only link two sites, but once you start following links there, you'll find yourself in a deep rabbit hole.

More Holes in the Official Story: The 9/11 Cell Phone Calls

snippets from various parts of the article-----

The 9/11 Commission's Report provides an almost visual description of the Arab hijackers. It depicts in minute detail events occurring inside the cabin of the four hijacked planes....In the absence of surviving passengers, this "corroborating evidence", was based on passengers' cell and air phone conversations with their loved ones.

The Report conveys the impression that cell phone ground-to-air communication from high altitude was of reasonably good quality, and that there was no major impediment or obstruction in wireless transmission.

Some of the conversations were with onboard air phones, which contrary to the cell phones provide for good quality transmission. The report does not draw a clear demarcation between the two types of calls.

More significantly, what this carefully drafted script fails to mention is that, given the prevailing technology in September 2001, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to place a wireless cell call from an aircraft traveling at high speed above 8000 feet.

At least ten cell calls are reported to have taken place on flight 93. According to the Commission's account:

"At 9:32, a hijacker .. made or attempted to make the following announcement...

"Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls between family, friends, and colleagues took place until the end of the flight and provided those on the ground with firsthand accounts...."

9/11 Cellphone Calls - an Overview

Many links on this page. Here's just part of a comment posted on the page (I've condensed the snippet and edited out typos)

snippet----

Hi, I am a senior R.F. design engineer, and have built out systems for Sprint Verizon and other companies.
Interesting that most of the reports were of cell phones, then, they changed to Airphones later, (after a few people said that cell phones couldnt work.) I can accept the fact that some reporters may not have known the difference, or payed attention to the details, but it seemed to be too many reports to attribute to that. GTE/Verizon did state that they handled over 20 calls at a special call center set up just for Airphone.

The problem still remains though. A few victims relatives purposely said cell phones. CeeCee Lyles' husband said that he saw the caller ID, Ed Felt had called from a bathroom, and Airphone cords dont reach that far. Ted Olson first said that Barbara had used a cell phone, then he said she was in the bathroom, then he said she forgot her purse and had to borrow a credit card from someone to make an airphone call. His story kept changing.

If you look at the flight maps, most of the calls for flight 93 "should" have been made at 35,000ft or even above. I seriously doubt that happened. Even Airphones would have had a real problem at that altitude, unless there happened to be a antenna pointed right at them.

Personally, i think some of the calls (or people) were faked, and others may have been real, but from a different craft than flight 93.

-----more a link---


COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
... Marian said on 9/11/2005 @ 2:41 pm PT...


Most people believe the load of cr*p that has been dished out by MSM - that ObL and Muslim terrorists were responsible for 9/11. The "big interest" is that it was, in reality, some kind of an inside job (just exactly what kind of an inside job it was remains to be seen - at least hopefully scientific forensic studies can be carried out and some day we will know for sure what really happened). I am certain that the WTC towers and #7 were controlled demolitions. I'd like to know who was behind it and why. In the last few months, I've been feeling like I'm living in another reality. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the 2004 election was stolen, that ObL is dead, and that the Iraq war was undertaken to get a US corporate foothold in the Middle East. It's weird to see newstories written by people who don't see these truths. I want to say "Wake up, people - open your eyes and see!!!"


COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
... MMIIXX said on 9/11/2005 @ 3:17 pm PT...


RAYMOND I know GWB is GOD, it's a no brainer ,the DEVIL did it.

Is the new building 7 pre-wired for demolition?I watched the CNN International report on 911 and they interviewed Larry Silverstein and at the end of the report he commented that he was 74 years old and intended "to go out with a bang".

"Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html


COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
... Jean said on 9/11/2005 @ 3:36 pm PT...


Constant:
Much info about the inconsistencies of the official story about 9-11 have been around for quite a while. I looked into it for the first time months ago, and found a lot of info. This is not new, but more and more people are learning about it and talking about it.

What talking about it does, is wake people up to the fact that what we are being told is not the truth. This is very important. The powers-that-be find it so easy to fool people who cannot believe that the US would hurt its own people. If you firmly believe that the US would never hurt its own people, and you never read, view, or listen to anything that talks about the US hurting its own people, will you see it IF it happens? If you believe it possible, and that is occurs, would you be more likely to delve into details and look closely at the actions of the govt. Either way, isn't it a good idea to be as informed as possible and always be keeping a watchful eye on our leaders? I think the more people become aware that things are not as we are told, the more people will pay close attention, the harder it will be for it to happen over and over again.

Yes, people are starting to theorize about the truth about Katrina, and I do not believe we are being told the truth. Have you read the article linked here on Bradblog about the levees breaking because exposives were used? People are saying that the "negligence" in the handling of Katrina was all planned. And yes, some people are saying that the technology to control weather exists.

I do not think that the people who believe such horrible things have a heavy burden of proof. Even in the case of the wildest conspiracy theory, the people who cannot believe it are no more correct than the people who can accept it. Do I know that the levees broke due to the use of explosives? No. Do you know that explosives were not used? In the absense of first-hand experience, we all look at the information we receive and make up our own minds. More and more people are seeing that the official story of 9-11 does not fit together well.


COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
... Jean said on 9/11/2005 @ 3:53 pm PT...


Kraig:
A great summary of available info on 9-11. Thanks for taking the time. How long have you been researching 9-11?


COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
... Sam said on 9/11/2005 @ 4:11 pm PT...


Marian # 16

The wake-up call has happened; in the form of the Bush administrations lackadaisical response to horrible tragedy affecting the city of New Orleans.

If the people of america don't realize that this administration is intent on perpetrating a socio-economic cleansing of our nation then they are in for shock when hammer comes down on their little comfort zones.

We must remove these criminals NOW! Any delay only serves to futher immasculate the citizenry. They are diminishing our rights and increasing the burdens on the middle and lower income populace every day. Contact your elected officials, send e-mails leave, voice mails, don't let this coup go uncontested. Make a fight of it. Wake up the neighbors and tell them their country is being stolen slowly but surely.


COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
... texaslady said on 9/11/2005 @ 4:37 pm PT...


A small pocket of us, have doubted the government's story, one an ex-airline pilot. Then when the administration dragged their feet for a commission to investigate the doubt grew.

After all, FDR began an investigation two weeks after Pearl Harbor.

Yes, the commission was rigged and all the phoney evidence. We too, say follow the money trail, stocks being traded just before, who owned the security company Marvin Bush and a cousin.

My only question, it had to take quite a few to pull this off and how do you quiet that many?


COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
... onyx said on 9/11/2005 @ 4:49 pm PT...


"You don't have to be an engineer or an explosives expert to be able to plainly see the explosions, also the "squibs" of dust jetting out of windows near the blasts, and watch as each building comes down in nine seconds, freefall rate, a feat impossible by the laws of physics"

I'm sorry but I AM an engineer, I love physics, and this is bullshit. Complete bullshit. I haven't seen ANYTHING ANYWHERE regarding the supposed explosive demolition of the WTC that can't more easily be explained without explosives. It is the only thing I see regularly on Brad Blog, Whatreallyhappened, Raw Story, etc that I completely disagree with. Buildings fall DOWN, not over. That's how gravity works. I freely associate myself with everything else these websites stand for. Please stop embarrassing me!

The squibs shooting out the sides of the building are obviously compressed air escaping from between collapsing floors and the failure of concrete material in the exterior of the building. Even if there were explosives these jets would be predominately the result of escaping air. It has to go somewhere! Oh, maybe the explosives made the air disappear!

The momentum of the twenty or thirty stories above the impact falling 10 feet would so completely overwhelm the floors below that it is impossible that the remaining floors would not fail instantly in a sequence that would eventually approached the speed of sound as it progressed.

There is no need to "explain" it with explosives. All that is needed is a structural failure on ONE floor and the WHOLE building is history and it is NATURAL that it would fall STRAIGHT down. That's how gravity works. Why on earth would it go any where else when that is obviously the path of least resistance.

Even the molten metal in the basement is a NATRUAL consequence of the jackhammer action of 100 stories failing in sequence. Just try to imagine the energy transmitted through the major structural beams during the collapse. If you beat on piece of steel with a hammer it gets hot. I would be amazed if the steel at the bottom of the structure DIDN'T get red hot. It's impossible to imagine with any engineering knowledge that it did not get red hot.

All this crap about there not being a fire is foolish. I seem to remember a billowing black cloud that was so massive that it was hard to imagine its size. It made Manhattan look small by comparison. Where there is smoke there is fire. NO GETTING AROUND THAT. And it doesn't have to be a jet fuel fire. I agree that the jet fuel was consumed in the first few minutes, but it set tons of other stuff on fire that burns hot enough to reduce the strength of steel considerably. The strength of steel is reduced progressively as it get hotter. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT TO FAIL. Anyone that says the buildings should not have collapsed because the the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel doesn't know what they are talking about. It only has to get hot enough that the designed in safety factor is reduce to zero. I agree the fire alone should not have been enough to initiate a major failure. But, combined with the structural weakening cause by the impact, the destruction of the sprinkler system, and the very sudden nature of the fire it is no surprise at all that the building collapsed. In fact I remember watching and thinking that it would eventually collapse and I remember thinking that it was natural that the south tower collapsed first since the impact was lower and the stresses in the impact area were much higher.

Getting back to the suddenness of the fire, and it was a sudden spread since any walls that would slow the spread were destroyed and the jet fuel probably ignited a very large area simultaneously. I think this was a major contributing factor. Steel expands when it get hot. The thermal expansion coefficient of steel is 12.5*10^-6 mm/mm/deg C. This means that if four stories of steel was heated 500 degrees C it would want to expand 3 inches. As it expands relative to the cooler side of the building it has to carry more and more of the load as it gets hotter and weaker. The cool stronger steel consequently carries less and less load. And the hot steel is already carrying more than it was designed to carry due to structural damage. There was no way to stop the fire until all the combustible material was gone and the fire's effect was a triple whammy on the structural integrity of the buildings steel.

I could go no and on, but I think I've made my point.

IMHO it was an inside job. The neo-cons facilitated it, maybe even planned it, but there is no way they had a team of explosives experts working in the WTC for a year in advance. There simply was no need for it either. WTC 7 is little more difficult to explain, but why bother.

BTW if a fire chief says "pull the building" he obviously means the building is to be abandoned and to pull his men out out, not pull the build down with his men in it. How can you not see that as the most likely explanation?


COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
... Sam said on 9/11/2005 @ 4:58 pm PT...


Texaslady #21

Money. These people wallow in it.


COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
... texaslady said on 9/11/2005 @ 5:09 pm PT...


Sam, good point.

ONYX - then why all the secrecy and foot dragging, if there is nothing to hide except incompetency let all the information out.

How do you explain all the coincidences, mainly the stock being traded heavily, the meetings changing locations, the people warned not to be in the Trade centers that day? Why did it take so long for the Fighter planes to called into play?

And I have seen a building brought down and the implosion looked exactly like this, collapsing inward. An structural engineer with 25 years experience also concurred this was a building brought down, then suddenly changed his story when his Federal funding was jeopardized.

Again, why all the secrecy when there is nothing to hide?


COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
... Sam said on 9/11/2005 @ 5:11 pm PT...


ONYX #22

"Even the molten metal in the basement is a NATRUAL consequence of the jackhammer action of 100 stories failing in sequence."

Could you please cite your reference material for molten metal being created by "jackhammer action".

Also, us engineers check our work purty regular.

Please use spellcheck.


COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
... Valley Girl said on 9/11/2005 @ 5:20 pm PT...


#22 onyx

Your comment made me ponder. Thanks for the info you provided.

What still gets me, however, as I am still pondering your comments, is why there was such an effort (by FEMA if I remember correctly) to get rid of the steel girders (whatever?) from WTC and melt them down elsewhere. I know this isn't a physics question, but that part of the post 9-11 activity does seem highly suspicious.

If they weren't removing evidence, what were they up to? This is not a rhetorical question- I'd like to know what your thoughts are on that part of the story.

Thanks,

VG


COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
... Doug Eldritch said on 9/11/2005 @ 5:21 pm PT...


Kraig: I know the american CIA had a hand in it just like Whitewater, Northwoods etc.

But what I can't get past is the Mossad....Do you think the CIA has really been working with the MOSSAD the whole time!????

I can't believe the RIDICULOUS silence.....even long after this cabal is gone and done away with, there is the prospect of the american empire never ending if this cancer is not rooted out.....

I feel like we'll have to replace everyone, all dems repubs all parties.....and put REAL WORKING PEOPLE into every office, someday just to get an internal investigation into what really went on with israel....

what the fuck is the real story......it sure isn't semitism....there is some ELITE group of evil, terrorist people with israeli blood and they are secretive vampires on the world........

Doug E.


COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
... Perry Logan said on 9/11/2005 @ 5:45 pm PT...


When the conspiracy guys get cooking, it sounds like the perps were trying to leave as many clues as possible!

NO WAY the most incompetent administration in history brought off this operation. I think the catastrophe of New Orleans demonstrates that.

I also question the unspoken assumption of every conspiracy guy: that he's much