>A study of a personal journey of discovery leading to a conviction that
> there is a serious and urgent need for new investigations into the
> attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and to the downing
> of American Airlines Flight 93. That there is also a serious and urgent
> need for an investigation into the words and actions of several members
> of the current US administration and the military, as well as members
> of intelligence services of several countries and the USA, and several
> corporations and media organisations.
>
>
>
> There have been moments when I have seriously doubted my own powers of
> deduction in the past few months, and I have wondered out loud whether
> I might be suffering some sort of mental disorder. Perhaps I am. Let
> the reader decide. Is my reasoning flawed or are we really witnessing
> the most audacious and chilling crime ever perpetrated against the
> people of not only the US, but of the entire world?
>
>
>
> I have not included photographs, videos or diagrams, or links to
> specific items of interest in this essay. I have, however, at the end
> of the essay, listed some of the sites I visited and where I found
> interesting or compelling articles, papers, and photographs, as well as
> alleged video and audio evidence. I have also listed several movies and
> books on the subject.
>
>
>
> The government of the USA, or elements within the current
> administration, were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade
> Centre and the Pentagon, and for the shooting down of American Airlines
> Flight 93, in order to garner support at home and abroad for the
> ensuing illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The official 9/11
> Commission Report, the Federal Emergency Management Authority Building
> Performance Study report, and The National Institute of Standards and
> Technology WTC report all contain serious lies, distortions and
> omissions in support of an immense cover-up, also seemingly aided and
> abetted by the corporate controlled mainstream media.
>
>
>
> How do I know these things are true? I don't. I must rely only on my
> own judgement of the veracity of the information available to me via
> the mainstream media and via the internet. This is essentially what
> each of us must do. I do however have serious doubts as to how much
> help the mainstream media can be, given it has yet to deal with even
> the fact that there are thousands, and possibly already millions of
> people now asking some of these questions. What a scoop! Where are the
> paparazzi now?
>
>
>
> If, after all, 9/11 actually was a false-flag operation, it will be to
> their eternal shame, that the mainstream media has failed spectacularly
> to record and report fearlessly probably the most serious crime ever
> perpetrated.
>
>
>
> But, whilst I do not actually know the truth, I am very certain, given
> that there appear to be serious problems with the official accounts,
> and given the independent scientific analyses and witness reports
> becoming available, that there is a very real and urgent need for new
> and demonstrably independent investigations. There are many others who
> believe so too.
>
>
>
> There are growing criticisms of the findings of the official reports,
> the structure, membership and scope of the commissions, the evidence
> available to investigators, the restrictions placed on investigators'
> access to Ground Zero and other crash sites, the commission's refusal
> to make public much evidence, as well as the confiscation, withholding
> and destruction of evidence. The use of gag orders is also noted.
>
>
>
> The complete disregard shown by the Bush administration for well
> established protocols for the management and handling of crime scenes
> and air crash investigations comes in for particular criticism. It is
> even claimed that the administration's actions in clearing the crime
> scenes and "crash sites" before any forensic examination could be
> carried out were in fact illegal.
>
>
>
> That it took more than a year for the Bush administration to
> reluctantly set up, at the insistence of relatives of victims, the
> so-called 911 Commission, with markedly meagre funding, also comes in
> for widespread criticism.
>
>
>
> There is also much criticism of the refusal by any members of these
> investigating bodies to debate their findings in public, and of the
> apparent ongoing reluctance by the administration to make evidence
> available.
>
>
>
> This groundswell of concern is gaining momentum amongst the citizens of
> the world, and more importantly the citizens of the USA, who, in ever
> increasing numbers, are calling for a new investigation into the events
> leading up to, on, and since the eleventh of September, 2001.
>
>
>
> Some commentators are seriously concerned that if the attacks in fact
> were part of a US managed false-flag operation, used to gain public
> support for the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, along with frightening
> political changes within the USA, and to a slightly lesser extent in
> Britain, Australia and other western democracies, then it is possible,
> maybe even highly probable, that a similar outrageous "terrorist"
> attack in the US or Europe might be planned.
>
>
>
> These commentators believe that the administration's current rhetoric
> to do with Iran is not dissimilar to the rhetoric they were spraying
> about the place regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban, Iraq and Saddam
> Hussein before the 9/11 attacks. They argue that this means the need
> for new, fully independent investigations is extremely urgent. Watch
> out for an "Iranian sponsored nuclear incident" some time before
> the Iranian/Venezuelan bourse scraps the US dollar for the euro.
>
>
>
> In my own reading of the information to this point, there is no way
> that anyone applying even the most basic commonsense reasoning to the
> actions of these groups and individuals as reported could believe
> anything other than that there is in fact a very real need for great
> concern. Of equal concern to me is the veracity or lack thereof, of
> the reports commissioned by the US government, supposedly to truthfully
> explain to the American people what happened on that dark day.
>
>
>
> Basically the official reports would have us believe that the twin
> towers were brought down by a gravity driven collapse sequence,
> initiated by the impact of a large commercial aircraft into one wall,
> taking out several core as well as outer wall support columns, and the
> resulting fires fuelled by jet fuel (kerosene) and building contents
> heating the remaining structural steel components to the point where
> they were so weakened they gave way, leading to the global collapse and
> destruction of the entire structure. The 911 Commission Report does not
> even mention the collapse of Building Seven later in the day, and the
> FEMA report states that the only scenario they considered for the
> collapse of that building did not have much likelihood of occurrence.
> Huh? As well, we should remember no plane hit Building Seven.
>
>
>
> The reports claim the "collapse initiation sequence" they describe
> somehow accounts for the almost free-fall speed of the resulting
> collapses, as well as for the complete pulverisation to powder of well
> over 100,000 tonnes of concrete floors, plus interior walls, doors,
> windows, and office furniture, as well as for breaking up steel
> sections into manageable lengths for removal, and the creation of vast
> pyroclastic clouds of dust and debris which even flowed out over the
> Hudson River.
>
>
>
> Every day there are more people who come to the conclusion that the
> findings of these official documents are entirely unsatisfactory, and
> do not truthfully explain what happened on September 11, 2001.
>
>
>
> The many groups and individuals joining the chorus to demand new
> investigations into all aspects of the attacks are beginning to be seen
> as a movement. As yet a disparate and disorganised movement often
> referred to as the 911 Truth Movement, but a movement nonetheless.
>
>
>
> My introduction to this ongoing search for believable explanations was
> with my, by chance, catching a documentary called "911 In Plane
> Site" late one evening on SBS television some months ago. It has been
> replayed again recently, and the lack of a reported response to it
> again must mean I am the only person who was watching on both
> occasions, or people just do not see the danger now facing the world.
>
>
>
> I came away from that viewing convinced that there really is serious
> reason for concern, and also convinced that it was not American
> Airlines Boeing 757-200 Flight 77 being piloted by an Arab terrorist
> that smashed into the western wall of the Pentagon. However, I was not
> convinced that there was anything too suspicious about the official
> version of the destruction of the WTC, and I was still incredulous of
> the allegation that insiders were actually involved.
>
>
>
> At the time I did not have an internet connection, and apart from an
> occasional rant I would inflict upon disbelieving and incredulous
> family and friends and the occasional stranger, I did not really think
> all that much about it. I had not at that point even surmised that if
> it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon then it was possible and
> even likely that at least some of the other allegations alluded to in
> the documentary might also be worth investigating. At that point I
> think I was still of the opinion that there were some discrepancies in
> the official stories being released, but I supposed that was maybe to
> be expected under the circumstances of what I still basically believed
> was actually an attack carried out by Arab terrorists, and that Osama
> Bin Laden was most likely the mastermind.
>
>
>
> I admit I was already suspicious of the Bush administration due to my
> belief that there are serious issues still to be played out regarding
> what might to all intents and purposes be described as a coup rather
> than an election when they first seized power. I am still amazed that
> the American people allowed that "election" result to stand, and
> that there has to this day still not been any noticeable attempt to
> have that result over-turned. I am assuming that is mostly to do with
> my ignorance of the political process in the US. I hope so.
>
>
>
> I still did not, however, really believe that elements within the Bush
> administration were involved not only with allowing the attacks to take
> place, but were involved in the planning and execution of the attacks,
> and were now actively involved in a very determined, and thus far
> successful, avoidance of free and fair discussion, in aid of a massive
> cover-up.
>
>
>
> That began to change as I read more and more of the written information
> appearing on the internet, and as I viewed more of the video evidence,
> and listened to more audio evidence from that day and days leading up
> to it. I downloaded and watched and listened to seminars, interviews,
> and news updates, and I continued to search online for any verification
> I could find for any of the information I found compelling.
>
>
>
> Sadly there was none of this information being disseminated by the
> mainstream media, and it concerns me that there still is very little of
> this easily accessed and in many cases easily verifiable information
> getting to the masses. This is a serious indictment of the existing
> media organisations, and especially of arguments for any changes to
> media rules in Australia, which will further centralise ownership.
> Especially since such centralisation invariably works in favour of
> groups close to the media owners. Somebody should investigate and write
> an article about how the 911 issue actually proves that a corporative
> and highly centralised media does not work in the best interests of
> society. It merely becomes a tool for marketers and propagandists.
>
>
>
> The first article I read on the internet and the evidence it presented
> and linked to, actually lead me to question the "In Plane Site"
> video, and whether I was right to believe it was not Flight 77 that hit
> the Pentagon, because there was a probability that the "no plane
> theory" was, and is, a straw man being used by the administration to
> create doubt in the community, and to add to the lack of credibility
> attributed to much maligned "conspiracy theories"
>
>
>
> The author asserted that rather than waste time trying to decipher the
> perhaps questionable evidence for the "no plane theory" it would be
> better spent looking at issues for which the amount of empirical
> evidence was growing and which was less contentious.
>
>
>
> Further reading of the information on that first site whet my appetite
> to learn more, mainly because I had not really thought about the actual
> collapses of the buildings, or the fact that the ENTIRE World Trade
> Centre site had been destroyed. Even one 47 storey building that was
> part of the complex, and was owned by the same people who had only
> recently taken over the rest of the WTC, but which was physically on
> another block about 100 metres from the twin towers, mysteriously
> collapsed at almost free-fall speed, and almost completely within
> it's own footprint, several hours after the towers collapsed, in a
> way reminiscent to many witnesses, and as seen on existing video
> footage, of controlled demolitions.
>
>
>
> In hindsight, my missing the point about the evidence of demolition
> might be an example of the straw man at work. Because I was
> concentrating on things that concerned the actual impacts, rather than
> on the actual destruction of the buildings, I had not seen that there
> is glaringly obvious evidence for the possibility that at the very
> least, one controlled demolition of a steel framed high rise building
> had occurred that day.
>
>
>
> Jim Hoffman, the author of the above mentioned article, suggested that
> there was far more reliable evidence for the hypothesis that the twin
> towers and building seven at the WTC were brought down by a controlled
> demolition process than by the very unlikely process described in the
> official reports. Other compelling information on this site included
> Hoffmann's calculation of the energy required to form the vast
> pyroclastic clouds seen billowing over and covering much of Lower
> Manhattan that day.
>
>
>
> My searches for more evidence for the "controlled demolition
> theory" lead me to a number of sites. The most convincing for me was
> the site for The Journal of 9/11 Studies, which presents several very
> interesting and compelling peer-reviewed papers by respected scientists
> and engineers. Reading all of the papers on that site convinced me that
> if the evidence cited is real, and the mathematics can be corroborated,
> then the official reports are severely flawed and that all three of the
> buildings that collapsed that day were brought down by controlled
> demolition.
>
>
>
> Other articles discussed the highly unusual, near free-fall speed of
> all three building collapses, their close resemblance to observed
> controlled demolitions of other buildings, as well as other serious
> anomalies contained in the official reports. Also discussed are energy
> audits considering the physical laws of conservation of momentum and
> conservation of energy, which I found very compelling in their
> descriptions of and proofs for the energy required to achieve the
> several components of the collapse of all three of the buildings which
> did collapse.
>
>
>
> My understanding of the physics involved is limited, but I believe good
> enough to see that the energy required to achieve all of the components
> of the collapses that were witnessed that day is far greater than would
> be available in a gravity driven collapse, initiated by the impact and
> resultant fire caused by the aircraft crashing into the buildings.
> Building Seven is a special case as it was not hit by a plane.
>
>
>
> The articles and papers on this site were to me, at this time, the most
> interesting and compelling I had read. It was at this site I had my
> introduction to the work of Steven Jones, a physics professor at
> Brigham Young University in Utah who claims there is unmistakeable
> evidence for the use of high temperature "cutter" charges in the
> collapse of all three of the WTC high-rises. This implicitly shows that
> the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, not by the
> impact of a large air-craft and relatively low temperature and
> short-lived fires and gravity as stated in the official report.
>
>
>
> Professor Jones' paper points to what could very well be irrefutable
> evidence of the use of a particular class of explosive commonly used in
> controlled demolition. And by the military. There is also a great deal
> of video, photographic and anecdotal evidence showing that there were
> several indicators present, on the day and in the weeks after, of the
> use of this type of demolition.
>
>
>
> In his peer reviewed (three times) paper Professor Jones points to
> flows of molten metal seen, photographed and filmed pouring from the
> buildings. He also cites irrefutable evidence of hot spots under the
> pile of rubble left after the collapse of all three buildings, imaged
> by NASA satellites, and large pools of molten metal under the rubble,
> witnessed by clean-up crews for weeks after 911. Video footage of flows
> of molten metal flowing from windows just before the collapses compares
> remarkably with video footage of a thermite reaction. This does not
> rule out the use of more modern types of chemicals with similar
> properties, as used in advanced military weapons. The professor and
> some of his students carried out several experiments based on
> metallurgical principles and using well established colour indications
> to determine the temperature of the metal and the most likely major
> component of the molten metal.
>
>
>
> It is far more likely that the molten metal seen flowing from the
> buildings and the molten mass at the base of all three buildings is the
> molten iron produced in thermite or thermate type reactions, than
> molten aluminium as asserted by the official reports.
>
>
>
> In what I feel are very disturbing circumstances, the day after I read
> his paper, Professor Jones was stood down from his position at BYU
> pending a further review of his work on this issue. More will come of
> this I am certain.
>
>
>
> Other papers available on the site include equally compelling
> discussions of the physics of the observed collapses, including a
> discussion of the observed evidence for the controlled demolition of
> all three WTC buildings which collapsed and of the implication of
> complicity of elements within the US administration and others, by
> Frank Legge, an engineer from Perth in Western Australia.
>
>
>
> There is also mathematical analyses of the momentum transfer in a
> gravity driven collapse by Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in mechanical
> and manufacturing engineering, which shows that the energy created by a
> large section of the building above the crash site falling onto the
> lower section of the building after the instantaneous removal of a
> single floor dividing them, would not be enough to cause the lower
> section to globally collapse. In a second paper, replying to criticism
> of his original work, Mr Ross easily dispenses with what appears to
> even a laymen like myself to be an inept attempt by a physical chemist
> from Canada, Mr Frank R. Greening, to explain away evidence rather than
> explain it.
>
>
>
> In my layman's view, the initial impact of the aircraft and the jet
> fuel and office contents may have added to very slight weaknesses in
> the building's structural elements, but nowhere near enough to cause
> the large number of the 47 massive core support columns and the roughly
> 75%% of perimeter columns intact after the impact, all fire rated steel
> components, across an entire floor, to suddenly collapse. Even if that
> completely implausible collapse were to occur, there is no way for it
> to account for the complete destruction of a 110 storey steel-framed
> building, twice, and other phenomena seen that day.
>
>
>
> Gordon Ross again, in two excellent articles on another site, presents
> a well researched and completely feasible step by step hypothesis of
> how the observed collapses might technically have been achieved, and he
> also shows that the total amount of gravitational energy available when
> the potential energy contained in the upper section of the building is
> converted to the kinetic energy of the fall and impact with the lower
> section, is not nearly enough to achieve the observed destruction.
> There is no way for it to account for the energy needed to break up the
> main support structures, core and perimeter, into relatively short
> lengths, and pulverise the concrete floors and building contents and
> windows to dust, and to create the explosive ejections seen throughout
> the collapses, and then still provide the heat required to form the
> vast pyroclastic clouds of dust and minute debris which had a distinct
> resemblance to the pyroclastic flows often accompanying volcanic
> eruptions, and often associated with explosive/implosive demolitions of
> buildings.
>
>
>
> To learn also that in the history of steel framed high rise buildings
> throughout the world until and since September 11th, 2001 there has
> never been a complete, global collapse of a steel framed building due
> to anything other than controlled demolition was a revelation. It is
> also a fact that there has never been a global collapse which displayed
> all the characteristics of a controlled demolition that was not a
> controlled demolition. On that one day in September not one, but three,
> steel framed buildings controlled by the same owner/lessee completely
> collapsed mostly into their own footprint, in what to me by this time,
> appeared to have all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition as
> described and as shown in various videos.
>
>
>
> Some articles discussed the implausibility of the findings presented in
> the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA and NIST. All had
> apparently produced reports with the semblance of political
> investigations wherein supposed facts are selected to support a
> pre-conceived conclusion, as opposed to scientific investigations where
> a conclusion is drawn after a study of the facts. On reading some of
> the excerpts from the reports discussed by the authors of these
> articles I am amazed that anyone, especially engineers and scientists,
> actually believed the findings presented in the official reports, so
> obviously flawed from a scientific point of view.
>
>
>
> Learning that the 9/11 commission was composed of people with dubious
> connections under the circumstances, and of all the restrictions placed
> on investigators, plus the hasty and closely controlled removal of
> crucial items of evidence, added to my understanding of why the report
> was held in such contempt by a growing number of people concerned about
> these issues. It certainly added to the doubt I had that a commission
> composed of and chaired by people with either very close ties to the
> Bush administration and/or obvious conflicts of interest could or would
> present findings not consistent with the official narrative.
>
>
>
> By this time I was almost convinced that all the real evidence showed
> that there were real anomalies with the officially accepted theory that
> the buildings collapsed due to gravitational forces acting upon a
> structure severely weakened by intense fires fuelled by jet fuel and
> the contents of offices. Later amended to include aluminium from the
> fuselage and frame of the impacting plane, when it was shown that fires
> fuelled by jet fuel and office contents would not reach the
> temperatures required to weaken the 47 massive fire rated steel columns
> in the core as well as the estimated 75 per cent of the more than 200
> perimeter columns which were not damaged in the impact.
>
>
>
> The way in which the commission especially has not answered critics
> directly, but addresses any embarrassing queries by posing its own
> carefully worded, but nonetheless obviously self serving questions, is
> another example of how many supporters of the official narrative seem
> unable to just come out and discuss or debate the issues in full view
> of the public, to be reported in the mainstream media.
>
>
>
> I also watched video of the collapses again and again, and the evidence
> for explosive demolition is in my view almost overwhelming. Added to
> the scientific studies of the physics involved, the evidence for the
> use of thermites or thermates, and the oral histories of rescue workers
> and others, I was now convinced that the three buildings that collapsed
> at the WTC were in fact brought down by controlled demolition. And if
> thousands of laymen like me can come reasonably to these conclusions,
> using little more than common-sense, this surely is argument enough for
> another in depth and far reaching investigation.
>
>
>
> It should at the very least have a few so-called investigative
> journalists working for the mainstream media asking questions and
> demanding the publication of more work critical of the official line. I
> cannot believe that all journalists have sold out to the extent that
> the current coverage seems to indicate.
>
>
>
> So, after weeks of trolling for information on the internet, and
> viewing, reading and listening to criticism of and support for the
> three US government authorised reports, weighing the mountain of
> observational, empirical and circumstantial evidence for believing that
> WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all destroyed by controlled demolition, and
> the lack of same, plus the obvious reluctance of the administration for
> proper investigations, and the obvious use of gag orders,
> misinformation and ad hominem attacks on people with dissenting views,
> I feel certain that internationally convened panels of experts in the
> relevant fields, reviewing all the available evidence would find that
> the WTC was deliberately destroyed using controlled demolition
> techniques disguised by the deliberate crashing of aircraft into the
> twin towers.
>
>
>
> In conclusion, I will state that I have no faith whatsoever that the
> three officially authorised investigations into 911 are genuine
> attempts to discover and explain the truth about what happened leading
> up to, on, and since September 11, 2001.
>
>
>
> I find that the explanations provided by these reports for the collapse
> of three steel framed buildings on that one day are completely
> implausible, and not based on good scientific research or engineering
> principles. I also find that there are good arguments and good evidence
> for the contention that processes other than those mentioned by the
> official reports were far more likely to have caused the ultimate
> destruction of the entire WTC site. And I believe that until there is a
> full and open enquiry, political decisions being made throughout the
> world, and not just in the US, are open to the charge that they are
> based on a lie, and therefore are not valid.
>
>
>
> This conclusion inevitably raises the questions of why such an attack
> was staged, who had the wherewithal and the capacity to pull off such
> an outrageous attack, and most important, who benefited when the smoke
> cleared.
>
>
>
> It also raises the possibility that other contentious issues for which
> the official reports have highly suspect explanations, and which are
> also being disputed by a growing number and cross-section of concerned
> citizens world-wide are worthy of further investigation, discussion and
> debate.
>
>
>
> In this essay, I have concentrated on my current understanding of only
> the building collapses at the World Trade Center, but there are a
> number of other very serious issues that need to be looked at more
> closely by more scientists, engineers, political scientists, police and
> other scholars.
>
>
>
> In my next essay I intend to detail my own attempts to arrive at a
> satisfactory explanation for what happened at the Pentagon. In other
> essays, I will look at the actual hijackings and hijackers, "war game
> drills" carried out that day, suspected pre-positioning of crucial
> personnel, changes to standing orders, evidence of complicity, and
> reported links between al Quaeda, ISI, Mossad, MI5, MI6, NSA, CIA, FBI
> and other intelligence services, the supposed hijackers, government
> departments and conspicuous individuals.
>
>
>
> The similarities between a plan laid out in the defining document of an
> extreme right wing think tank called the Project for a New American
> Century and recent events is also worth an essay, if not a full-blown
> investigative piece by a respected member of the mainstream media. In
> fact, the implication of complicity inherent in the mainstream
> media's adherence to the official line and ignorance of alternative
> views is difficult to ignore, and is worthy of a book, let alone an
> essay.
>
>
>
> Hopefully somebody will soon also look into our own government's
> jumping onto the US bandwagon, taking political advantage, passing
> draconian "security" laws, making obscene increases in
> "defence" spending, and attacking civil liberties. Such a task is
> yet beyond my abilities as a researcher and writer.
>
>
>
> I could go on. But I'm tired. Just go and have a look for yourself.
> If this essay has been of any help in your own search for the truth,
> have a read of my next essay, "What Actually Happened at the
> Pentagon?" which will be posted on this site soon.
>
>
>
> Postscript: Since completing this essay I came across an interesting
> essay on another blog by 911oz, which put forward good arguments, with
> which I agree, for not pushing too hard for immediate investigations,
> but rather to keep on gathering evidence and witness testimony, and on
> swelling the numbers of ordinary citizens, academics, scientists,
> engineers, and politicians calling for more immediate solutions like
> grand juries for impeachment, and possibly even for criminal
> prosecution on charges including treason and mass murder.
>
>
> posted 02 Oct 2006 01:39 by 911oz2 | Email: trolley56@hotmail.com |
> Comments | Trackback
>