911 – two anomalies

The 911 issue is not one this blog has got into in depth although it’s been mentioned.  From what many people saw, there were anomalies and one was how swiftly the debate descended into slanging and name-calling by one side.

Why was it, to mention an earlier debate, that of JFK, that one side were labelled conspiracy nutters by the other, when you only needed to look at Zapruder to see the shot front and right of the car [from JFK’s perspective]?  Why, when it was reported by many witnesses that there were anomalies with Diana, did the usual deniers label anyone who mentioned these?  Why were those who questioned the Hutton inquiry initially labelled rightwing nuts but now it’s fashionable to question it?

Will it become fashionable to question 7/7 and that bastard Blair?

So to 911.  As just mentioned, having not really got into it before, your [not so] humble blogger needs to come up to speed on the issue and here’s something I neither saw nor understood the importance of before:

These pilots establish that, at best, the government figures on airspeed and given the ability level of the 911 pilots, plus what happens to the airframe at those speeds, are inaccurate and at worst, those government figures must have some purpose.

That alone raises red flags before my eyes, before we touch the secondary explosions issue. Now, one thing I really do not like is all the sombre, clashing music and razzmatazz which goes along with these videos, which make you build dramatic tension before getting to the nitty-gritty, which could actually be put into about 30 seconds of video time.

I also have strong objections to signs appearing, plastered over the screen, saying, “Ultimate con,” or using terminology like, “Total proof that …” If it weren’t that I wanted to see the actual footage of testimony given, I’d have clicked out on seeing this extraneous guff.

Having said all that, try to ignore the white noise and dramatic music [difficult] which intrudes in the following and just try to look at and hear the testimony alone, then make your own mind up:

Thank you, Harry, for those.

Now why would the government deny the secondary explosions?  It would seem to fit the story quite nicely.  Plane impact unleashes fireball which hits the ground floor, building built over electricity sub-station, ordinary fires now become supernovas, building collapses.  Secondary explosions are carefully set off to minimize damage to surrounding buildings – well done, police and firefighters.

Or alternatively, the hijackers were part of a terrorist plan which also saw them have bombs in vans inside the WTC.  If they can hijack planes in modern day America, with relative ease, despite the security services, then they can drive vans into WTC carparks as well.

I mean, the subsequent events after the collisions could easily have been dovetailed into the story.  Yet they chose the denial route and sent out shills to do snowjobs on the questioners:

And so another piece of counterknowledge is eroded by facts. Of course, the ghastly “9/11 Truthers” will challenge the report’s findings and pronounce themselves unconvinced. But the more honest of them will be saying to themselves: “Damn. Back to the drawing board.”

Fine, fine but how about explaining away the impossible flight stats and the secondary explosions first.  Because I saw/heard those in the vid.  All I’m getting from your side is name-calling, without seeing those anomalies explained.

And on another site:

As always, the truth movement ignores the fact that THEY are the ones that need to supply the answers.

Yes, well I’m not a member of any movement except the Albion Alliance and the Witanagemot and I look at the answers given in the two vids above – that the air numbers don’t add up and that there were secondary explosions and I’d like to see them explained away please, particularly as this was followed up with the Patriot Act, vast security measures and broad powers given over to FEMA.

The thing doesn’t seem to add up, pardon me for mentioning it.  For example, what’s the reaction to this?

[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. “My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room,” said Cacchioli. “I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out. … It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don’t agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible.” [Arctic Beacon]

Why then, does he then turn around and do this?

On September 12, 2001, Louie was heading to the WTC site to dig for survivors when he was approached by a reporter from People magazine. The reporter was interested in what Louie had experienced the day before.

In an effort to describe what he saw and heard, Louie mentioned that there were loud noises inside the North Tower that “sounded like bombs going off”. There was some confusion over what Louie had tried to explain and he was misquoted as having said: “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth-floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.

Conspiracy theorists then used that quote as proof that 9/11 was an inside job. Since then, Louie has repeatedly tried to set the record straight that he was misquoted.

Louie even went so far as to cooperate with the with the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine and interviewed for the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts” by The Editors of Popular Mechanics (Hearst, 2006).

Was it that Americans detest anyone who jabbers on about conspiracies, is that it?  Are these people seen as loons and even though he himself complained that they were trying to twist his words at the commission, he then complained that the conspiracy theorists were also trying to twist his words?

And why would it all, as I opened this post with, descend into a situation where nothing can be conceded by either side to the other?  Why can’t there be an open inquiry, with all points of view being freely put?  Do you see what I’m saying here?

OK, so Louis said, in his testimony, that there were loud noises inside the North Tower that sounded like bombs going off”.

Fine, so what’s his beef about his testimony? He heard explosions – how does he explain them away?

WMV video download (698kB)

Who does he think made those explosions – the terrorists? Leaving the Truth movement out of it, what does Louis himself think? It seems he doesn’t want to look at any of the implications of his own testimony but just to commemorate the day, which he continues to do to this day.

Again fair enough but his testimony, if it’s to be believed, would need to be explored, would it not?  What is preventing this exploration over there?

Check these and see what you think.

11 comments for “911 – two anomalies

  1. September 14, 2010 at 09:16

    Fact. The Ignition temperature of jet fuel would not have been sufficient enough to pull the buildings down alone without some other ignition source. I was a firefighter for 7 1/2 years. I don’t care what the media fed me. It was a lie.

    Fact. Four black boxes were missing from four different planes. Ok. Perhaps two were vaporized at the NY site, but where did the other two go and why was there such a failure to do a thorough investigation of the communication systems and, if so, why was this information conveniently left out of the Commission Report?

    Fact. Multiple emergency calls were placed to dispatchers at a time when it was impossible to have any type of continuous signal within the cab of an airplane at any altitude, so how were so many calls placed and received and yet nobody investigated why.

    Fact. It is not standards practice to set up a Command Post so close to areas where debris could fall and harm Commanding Officers, yet nobody asked why. Ok. I will be nice with this one. It was a stressful day. Perhaps tunnel vision set in.

    Little known fact. There were two truncated communication systems set up within the United States in 2001. In fact, I knew the man who set them up. However, there were major glitches in the system if overloaded because, unlike a standard radio channel where a person can switch frequencies manually, a truncated line allows a computer to assign which ones to use. Unfortunately, this also means if the system were to become overloaded, a backup system should also be in place where a person could manually switch and maintain control of command nets versus a crew net. However, who did and where is the information contained regarding the communication systems?

    By the way, none of the above comments I just made involve anything to do with a conspiracy.

    They are all facts which somebody somewhere ignored to cover up the truth.

    I was a police officer on 911 and it would be nice to one day have some closure and some form of truth presented instead of someone using manipulation to get people to believe in a reality which does not exist.

    That is all.

  2. September 14, 2010 at 09:41

    Thanks for that, Shelly.

  3. trippymalcolm
    September 14, 2010 at 10:26

    please watch[ september clues ] it seems that there were no planes,its all computer graphics,photoshop etc.
    tm.

  4. September 14, 2010 at 13:32

    The Ignition temperature of jet fuel would not have been sufficient enough to pull the buildings down alone without some other ignition source.

    The structural strength of steel decreases as its temperature increases (which is why blacksmiths can whack it into shape after heating it). The temperatures achieved by the jet fuel fire were easily enough to weaken the structural members. They don’t need to melt them, just weaken them.

    IIRC, one tower fell because the cross members between the outer shell and the core failed causing the two to separate, and being dependent on one another to stand up. The other one fell because the structural members holding the section of the building above the fire failed causing the upper section to fall straight downwards, slamming into the floors below which, not being designed to take such extreme impact loads, failed in turn and the tower collapsed like a concertina.

    The reason the fire protection on the structural steel failed to do its job was because a lot of it was blown off in the impact (the stuff is only sprayed on an set hard, or nailed on; witnesses reported the stuff lying everywhere) and it was never designed to withstand the temperatures of an aviation fuel fire.

  5. September 14, 2010 at 17:13

    I found this: “Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).”

    And: “Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C”.

    Smithy’s blast furnace: The hot blast temperature can be from 900 °C to 1300 °C (1600 °F to 2300 °F) depending on the stove design and condition. The temperatures they deal with may be 2000 °C to 2300 °C (3600 °F to 4200 °F).”

    This was on an upper floor, of course, not down below and let’s assume that the steel did weaken up there. That’s that floor gone and after some time, another and so on, slowly working down.

    But in this case, there were explosions low in the building and the whole building went down like a concertina.


    “The reason the fire protection on the structural steel failed to do its job was because a lot of it was blown off in the impact (the stuff is only sprayed on an set hard, or nailed on; witnesses reported the stuff lying everywhere) and it was never designed to withstand the temperatures of an aviation fuel fire.”

    Not a problem – so that happened at impact, up in the higher floors. We still have the explosions down low to account for.

    “It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse.”

    “The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses.”

    This was a report at the time:

    “Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape.”

    Still no mention of bombs or explosions one hour after the impact but of course you can hear them in the video.


    Another: http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

    One web page said that it was not the temperature but the heat which melted the corner struts supporting the concrete floors and they concertinaed down. What then were the explosions, sounding like bombs at lower floor level?

    Similar: http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/wtc.shtml

    One problem was that this assumes all struts melted or weakened evenly – if they hadn’t, then the floor would have tipped and even jammed the impact from above.

    It’s not cut and dry by any means.

    And what about those secondary explosions below, at the point where the towers collapsed?

  6. September 14, 2010 at 17:30

    Touched briefly on this when discussing Kelly’s death a few weeks back. The same ultimate question holds. WHY?
    WHY? WHY? WHY? Why would Bush do it?

    Not how, or when, or who, but WHY?
    Surely the most difficult part is to steal airliners in mid flight and fly them to a strike destination. If there is a bomb that can collapse the towers than what are the planes for? Backup?

    And WHY would the USA collapse its economy and push itself into recession, destroy its airline industry and its financial and tourism business to start a war in Afghanistan against the medieval Taliban? And use Saudi terrorists..not Iraqi citizens? Why not just attack Golden gate. Iconic landmark.. blown up by planes. And a hell of a lot easier to plant explosives on the cables. So the world shock effect is felt, the casualties are there, the outrage. yet there are still other ways of crossing the bay.

    This argument for the government doing the deed is a s implausible as the one that said Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbour but did nothing… Right…

    The President engineered the loss of the most modern planes in the USAAF, the deaths of thousands and the destruction of the very fleet that was designed to defend against Japan, in order to get in a war to attack Japan, only now without a navy to stop them over running the South Pacific.

  7. September 14, 2010 at 18:20

    WHY?
    WHY? WHY? WHY? Why would Bush do it?

    Not how, or when, or who, but WHY?

    Bill, the why is the easiest part of all for those who do not see the forces behind the government as benign – such conspiracy theorists include Woodrow Wilson, Churchill, the Queen, Maurice Strong, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, David Rockefeller, Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., Sir Josiah Stamp, Colonel Edward M. House, Louis T. McFadden, Margaret Sanger, John Foster Dulles, Rowan Gaither, Sir Harold Butler, Senator William Jenner of Indiana, President Eisenhower [in his farewell speech], James Warburg, Council on Foreign Relations Study Number 7 [Nov. 25, 1959], Professor Carroll Quigley, Harold Drummon, former President of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Joy Elmer Morgan, former editor of the “NEA Journal,” Nelson Rockefeller, The Club of Rome, Catherine Barrett, former president of the National Education Association, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateral and CFR member Richard Gardner, Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University, Roy M. Ash, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Retired Navy Admiral Chester Ward, to name a few.

    All have the same tale.

    Reagan’s Cabinet members included Secretary of State Alexander Haig (CFR), Treasury Secretary Donald Regan (CFR), Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldridge (CFR), and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (Trilateral Commission).

    They were at the helm.

    In 1975, in Congress, 32 Senators and 92 Representatives signed “A Declaration of Interdependence,” which stated that “we must join with others to bring forth a new world order … Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.”

    Congresswoman Marjorie Holt refused to sign the Declaration saying: “It calls for the surrender of our national sovereignty to international organizations.

    And so on and so on – it is like a broken record and every one of these people [friend and foe] said the same thing about the global agenda. Part of that agenda was the starting of war between the Muslim world and the West.

    It is one of many funded conflicts meant to produce a melting pot, out of which will come a collapse of the economy and the institution – which Gordo has already mooted – of a new system of credits issued by the moneyed PTB to the serf class [including former middle-class].

    If you ask why would they wish to do that, then ask any of the Marxist economists and academics, e.g. those who prepared the Euston Manifesto – one of these is a fellow blogger. They have a vision.

    We can see the early stages of the vision in the former UK.

    The Why is easy, Bill, for those who’ve read the actual words spoken by these people, the sheer consistency of the message. The Why is difficult for those who say, “Rubbish, they never said it.”

    We can see these people directly behind the PM and President, it’s not theory – it’s in the cabinet lists. And now the aim is to collar the wealth of the City and fund the EU.

    STOP PRESS: Just saw this in the Telegraph:

    IMF fears ‘social explosion’ from world jobs crisis

    Fears?

  8. September 14, 2010 at 18:42

    Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

    The temperature of the steel would have been miles hotter than that. A car fire will melt aluminium at about 650° C .

    This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse.”

    I’m not sure what the source is here, but I don’t think this is right. Modern buildings are designed pretty efficiently with as little redundancy as possible. There is no way the WTC towers were built with 100% more structural strength than what was required.

    One problem was that this assumes all struts melted or weakened evenly – if they hadn’t, then the floor would have tipped and even jammed the impact from above.

    In something like a tower, the failure of only a few critical structural members can cause total catastrophic failure of the whole thing or a section. It is pretty reasonable to assume that enough of the steel directly above the fire was weakened to the point that it could not support the enormous weight sitting above it. I think the top section did tip slightly on its way down, meaning the members did not weaken evenly, but there was no way a floor designed to take live loads associated with an office could withstand 20-30 floors worth of building falling on it.

    And what about those secondary explosions below, at the point where the towers collapsed?

    I don’t know, I can’t make them out. But explosions in a tower subject to a serious fire and undergoing a catastrophic structural failure can produce all sorts of strange effects and noises. A pressurised air line will produce a pretty hefty bang if it ruptures, water will to a lesser extent, and when a building comes down enormous quantities of air are pushed away creating a similar effect as an explosion. And I am doubtful that anyone can seriously pinpoint where in the tower the noise was coming from, explosions tend to be pretty low frequency which is a lot harder to locate.

  9. September 14, 2010 at 23:40

    JH: But WHY in this way?
    If you want to start a war on Islam, then why not crash jet liners into Disneyland? That way you got fury, fear and absolubte revulsion at the target enemy. You also don’t cause your economy to collapse, which is a pretty stupid way to begin a war. You also don’t begin the attacks on Iraq by forcing a war on the militarily/resource pointlessness of Afghanistan. Just attack Iraq.
    If the government is so clever as to arrange bombs to be placed into a building occupied day and night without anyone noticing, so dastardly that it can allow Saudi nationals to attack its financial centre,why is it also so dumb as to put the wrong foreigners on its aircraft? Surely some Iraqi pilots on board and the whole substep -10 year waste of a 100 billion $ , manpower and equipment drain, unwilling allies to be shored up in the Kazak’s and Pakistan regions is avoided.
    And lets not go there about a mythical pipeline to bypass Russia. if you control Iraq you don’t need a pipeline. You have oilfields sited on an International waterway.

    JH.. The idea that a government would attack its own people in such a damaging way is scarcely believable, even by people who detest government. The flaws in the logic alone are legion and that’s without the expert technical reasons.
    And if the USA needed partners in its wars, why not bring in the UK? Blair had to use a ‘dodgy dossier’ that was so full of holes it was ridiculed before the war had even begun.
    If Blair really wanted to go to war, and governments are as evil as is suggested, then why not the tube bombings BEFORE the vote on Iraq? Same in Spain. The Madrid bombings that pulled the country out of the war would have united it going in.

    I realise that your post is more about an enquiry than actual fact, but what will that serve? Who believes the Warren Commission report? How many think Oliver Stone’s film is a true documentary? So.. who would believe a ‘Warren commission two’ report either?

  10. September 15, 2010 at 11:51

    Bill, may I address some points?

    If the government is so clever as to arrange …

    Tweren’t the government, lad. It was those behind the government, the Blackwaters, Halliburtons [not them specifically] and those the govt farms these things out to. Those pilots said that either the numbers were wrong or else this was not a bog standard plane.

    The idea that a government would attack its own people in such a damaging way is scarcely believable, even by people who detest government.

    It’s not the government, lad. It’s those behind the government.

    If Blair really wanted to go to war, and governments are as evil as is suggested …

    It’s not the government, lad. It’s those behind the government. I named names above and here is Ike:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pWAGgLSCSQ

    A 2004 Zogby poll showed that 63% of Canadians and over half of New Yorkers believed the U.S. government was complicit in the crime and its subsequent cover-up.

    Here is Senator William Jenner [Feb. 23, 1954 ]:

    “Today the path to total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people.

    We have a well-organized political action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state. It has a foothold within our Government, and its own propaganda apparatus. One may call this group by many names. Some people call it socialism, some collectivism. I prefer to call it ‘democratic centralism.’

    The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.

    This secret revolutionary corps understands well the power to influence the people by an elegant form of brainwashing. We see this, for example, in the innocent use of words like ‘democracy’ in place of ‘representative government.’ ”

    Who are these people? On February 9th, 1950, this occurred:

    The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution #66 which began:

    “Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution.”

    The resolution is introduced by Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho), who later states: “We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves.”

    On March 23rd, 2005, Bush, Martin and Fox agreed to the CFR proposal regarding the SPPNA [NAU]:

    A CFR taskforce recommended that by 2010, a North American Union be created, not as a sovereign state but in charge of:

    # single economic zone,
    # single area of free movements of people,
    # single education system,
    # single defense and security system,
    # single social benefits system

    … within the three countries. The pdf is here:

    http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

    What is the CFR itself committed to?

    On July 1948, Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR’s “Foreign Affairs,” saw “a New World Order” taking shape: “How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?”

    Every one of those people quoted above is either involved in it or is exposing it. Yet it gets no press, Bill, only someone saying, sometime down the track: “Conspiracy loons.”

    All I’m saying to you today is that some pretty reputable people have written and spoken on this matter of the silent government behind the government. In the UK, it is the Tavistock and Chatham House.

    If I am capable of knowing about it, then anyone can know about it, with an open mind, being willing to suspect former colleagues and to do the hours of research. Trouble is, few will take the trouble to find out and even if willing, don’t know where to look.

    Bush and Kerry were members of the same esoteric club, Bill. Opposing sides, same club. They are not interested in their country – they are interested in the global agenda and stacking government and the courts with the silent people – look at Reagan’s cabinet.

    Cameron is one, Clegg is one, Mandelson is one. Brown wasn’t – he was just a useful idiot. Blair is one of the key members.

    To address the specific point you raised: “Why the WTC?”

    This is not claimed as a reason, just as a coincidence:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml

    On September 29, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out:

    “Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and run,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Whoever did this thought the exchange would not be closed for four days. This smells real bad.”

    Or this fax, from David Addington, then-counsel to former vice president Dick Cheney, contained in a letter dated January 6, 2004, addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet and leaked to the ACLU:

    “In response to the Commission’s expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation,” the letter read. “There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross — the line separating the Commission’s proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government’s ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks.”

    … further down …

    “The Commission staff’s proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line,” the letter continued. “As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission not to further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees.”

    More on the cover-up:

    Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

    If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

    But 9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

    Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

    Plus other government obstruction:

    * The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Joint Inquiry of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into 9/11 said that government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses

    * The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements

    * The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times

    * Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

    All of which does not answer your question, Bill – why the WTC? Part of your answer might lie here:

    The original idea for a world trade center in New York is generally credited to David Rockefeller, one of industrialist John D. Rockefeller’s many grandsons. In fact, the idea was proposed soon after World War II, a decade before Rockefeller ever got involved, but he was the one who actually got the ball rolling.

    In the 1950s and ’60s, while serving as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, Rockefeller­ was dedicated to revitalizing lower Manhattan. He hoped to energize the area with new construction, in much the same way his father revitalized midtown Manhattan in the 1930s with Rockefeller Center. As part of his plan, David Rockefeller proposed a complex dedicated to international trade, to be constructed at the east end of Wall Street.

    By the 1960s, he had just put up the expensive 60-story Chase Manhattan Bank tower in the financial district, and wanted to increase the value of the bank’s investment. But he was also driven by the spirit of international unity. A world trade center would bring together people from all over the globe, a noble ideal in the decades following World War II.

    With the help of his brother, Nelson Rockefeller, the governor of New York state at the time, David Rockefeller got The Port of New York Authority involved. The Port of New York Authority, now known as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is a government institution that heads up public projects in the New York and New Jersey port area.

    And:

    [WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions.

    I’m not putting any theory as I just don’t know. All of this is just data in this comment.

    Some other snippets:

    # Dr. Judy Wood postulates that the more likely explanation for the apparent explosions is that they were caused by dissolving of pressurized air tanks inside the buildings that resulted from Directed Energy Weapons. Thus, these explosions may have nothing to do with bombs.

    # Hurricane Erin, a Category 3 hurricane, was parked immediately east of Manhattan on the morning of 9/11 but no one seems to have factored that in.

    # Over four hundred 9/11 victims’ families refused the “hush money” and have filed lawsuits against members of the Bush administration for “complicity” in 9/11 (for example, Mariani, 2004)

    # Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary “America Rebuilds”, aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

    “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

    The Pentagon crash:

    # Boeing 757s are 155 feet long and have a wingspan of 125 feet and a height of 44 feet, including the tail section. If the official story is correct and Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, it would have left about 100 tons of wreckage! The two Pratt and Whitney engines of a Boeing 757 are made of steel-titanium alloy, are 9’ in diameter and 12’ long, and weigh 6 tons each. However, no wreckage of a Boeing 757 or remains of any passengers were ever found or seen on photographs inside or outside the Pentagon.

    # Wally Miller, the Somerset County coroner, described the crash site like this to the Houston Chronicle and the Washington Post:

    It looked like someone took a dump truck, dug a 10’ ditch and dumped trash into it…. I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes. There were no bodies there. I have not to this day seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.

    Well, well.

Comments are closed.