Uncomfortable Facts About 9/11—No Conspiracy Theory, Here
What if you found out that thousands of scientists, engineers and architects disagreed strongly with the official 9/11 conspiracy theory? Yes, the Bush White House gave us their own conspiracy theory and treated it as fact—the Osama Bin Laden conspiracy. But was it really fact?
Was it a lie or merely another in a long string of incompetences that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq? If the government is incompetent about going to war, can we trust them to be competent about anything else? But if it was a lie, can we trust them to tell us the truth about 9/11? And if they were complicit in 9/11, can we trust them with anything at all? No conspiracy theory here; only questions!
If you suspect someone of stealing your wallet and you go up to them and beat them up, demanding your wallet back, what do you do if you find out that you had merely dropped your wallet nearby? Do you apologize? Do you back off and stop beating them up? Do you refrain from sticking your hand in their pockets? Do you go to jail?
What if the one doing the beating is the United States of America—beating up Iraq and its people—terrorizing them? We are so busted! Only we did not apologize or remove our troops when we found out that there were no WMDs and no Al Qaeda camps in Iraq. And no one on the planet is big enough to put America in jail. But judgment will come.
"The 9/11 Commission was set up to fail."
"We haven't gotten the materials we needed and we certainly haven't gotten them in a timely fashion. The deadlines we've set have passed."
—Gov. Thomas Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission
The chairman of the 9/11 Commission complained that the Bush White House did not answer all of their questions and did not supply all the documents that they had requested. One commission member quit, saying that the project was a whitewash. Certain insiders pointed out that there were several conflicts of interest with members protecting the backs of those who they represented in the Bush administration. Suddenly, the commission doesn't sound so transparent and unbiased.
The Bush White House had delayed the start of an official investigation for over 400 days! For many a tragedy before this, investigation began within weeks, if not days. In fact, the official investigation might not have begun if it had not been for a group of 9/11 family members who had become the squeaky wheel that would not go away. When finally compelled to do something, the Bush administration chose who was to be placed on the commission and then controlled the sluggish cooperation given to the commission by the government. The initial choice for chairman, Henry Kissinger, was met with outrage for his internationalist connections and the high potential for conflicts of interest.
One former executive of the product testing company, Underwriters Laboratories (U/L), filed an affidavit that the company's testing did not support the 9/11 Commission's conclusions, but in fact contradicted those conclusions regarding the weakening of the steel beams.
Many critical witnesses were not interviewed. And many of those who were interviewed with information which conflicted with the official conspiracy theory did not have their testimony included in the official report.
It's not exactly science if you throw out data that doesn't fit your theory.
What Are the Facts?
Three (3) buildings were brought down on 9/11 by controlled demolition. That is a proven fact. (See: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth website for the scientists', engineers' and architects' data and methodology.)
Perhaps one of the most startling facts is that a third building collapsed on 9/11, about 5:20 PM. One thing that makes this so startling is the fact that it started off at perfect free fall for 8 floors. Even if you know nothing about physics, you know that solid objects offer at least some resistance. In other words, they slow down an object trying to go through them. Solid steel offers lots of resistance -- much more than air. But free fall means ZERO resistance. Think about that for a moment. More than 80 columns would've had to have vaporized or snapped in two simultaneously for the building to have gone into free fall. Not only that, the columns would've had to have vaporized or snapped in unison on each floor in sequence. You only get that in controlled demolition. And since controlled demolition takes months to prepare in buildings of this size, 9/11 was an inside job. That's just simple logic (unless you invoke fairies, wizards or Martians).
The implications of this fact are staggering. One implication tells us that we might have gone to war and trashed the Constitution for the wrong reasons. At the very least, this fact raises some extremely uncomfortable questions.
*thermate—an incendiary substance with its own, built-in source of oxygen (thermite) plus sulfur for more rapid melting of steel. Unspent nano-thermate was found in the debris of 9/11, a substance requiring a highly-specialized laboratory for its manufacture—not the kind of setup available to terrorists hiding out in caves half a world away.
Could Al Qaeda have had unfettered access for the required weeks to fit all 3 buildings with the necessary explosives and thermate* cutters?
It seems unlikely. After the 1993 bombing in the World Trade Center (WTC), security there was heightened greatly. In fact, the security company which oversaw the WTC in the years leading up to 9/11 had two Bush family members on its board. One of them was Marvin Bush, the president's younger brother. There are two possibilities with the security company: (1) extreme incompetence, or (2) treasonous complicity.
Months before 9/11, the towers had their elevators upgraded. The key supports within the building stand adjacent to the elevator shafts. Also, before 9/11, there were several instances of unusual activity in the buildings—excessive dust from construction, sounds of heavy moving and one long weekend without power wherein security was entirely disabled. What all was going on during these unusual, and out-of-the-ordinary activities within the World Trade Center?
Conservation of Energy
One rule of thumb scientists have long used involves the conservation of energy. Einstein extended this to include mass, with his famous E = mc2. It simply means that you can't get out more than you put in. It's an equation that is always balanced.
Each of the 3 WTC buildings—each of which catastrophically collapsed—possessed a certain amount of potential energy (PE) which was converted to kinetic energy (KE) at the onset of collapse. That potential energy could be converted only once into kinetic energy. Ten units of PE could only perform ten units of work (KE).
Each of the 3 WTC buildings collapsed through the path of greatest resistance. The 2 towers collapsed at about two-thirds free-fall. Their PE was converted largely into the KE of acceleration due to the force of gravity. WTC7 collapsed at near-perfect free-fall, converting practically all of its PE into KE of that free-fall.
Architects are intimately familiar with the formulas for determining strength of materials. If they weren't, we would likely have many more buildings collapse. One architect calculated that the amount of work performed on 9/11 within each of the 3 buildings was on the order of 50 times the original PE available. That energy had to come from some place other than the collapse itself.
Please understand this. This is the important part: The potential energy from height and mass of the buildings could not have performed all of the work done on 9/11 by a factor of 50!
The above video points out one of hundreds of anomalies that suggest something else was going on with the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11. The only way for this to happen is through controlled demolition.
What is this mysterious extra work?
- Bending or breaking all of the cold, undamaged steel beam supports (below the point of impact on the 2 towers, and above the level of fires on WTC7).
- In the case of the towers, ejecting with great lateral force parts of the towers weighing several tons each, up to 600 feet away from the towers.
- Pulverizing to a fine, powdery dust all of the concrete in all 3 buildings.
- Pushing the several thousand tons of concrete dust into the air and covering all of lower Manhattan.
- Heating that concrete dust as felt by witnesses near the collapse.
Each of these takes energy—lots of it. Where did it come from?
Looks Like a Duck, Walks Like a Duck...
There's an old saw that goes, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck. Not exactly scientific, but similar reasoning can be found in science. If you find all of the critical criteria and all of them match, then the two items must be related. Simple!
All 3 buildings followed the pattern of a controlled demolition.
- Straight-down, symmetrical collapse into their own footprints.
- Demolition waves removing column support.
- Near-perfect free-fall through path of greatest resistance.
- Total dismemberment of steel structure for shipping.
- Minimal damage to adjacent structures.
- Sounds and flashes of explosives.
- Enormous pyroclastic clouds of pulverized concrete.
- Pools of molten iron.
- Chemical evidence of thermate cutter charges.
All of these were shown to have occurred for each of the 3 buildings. In fact, on 9/11, more than one television reporter noted that the collapses each looked surprisingly like controlled demolitions. After that day, no national news anchor or reporter ever mentioned this similarity again. Why? This mystery remains.
A controlled demolition could supply the needed extra energy required to remove all of the steel beam supports (bend or break them), to pulverize concrete, to send that concrete dust into the air as a high-speed pyroclastic flow, and to heat up that dust as felt by nearby witnesses. Only explosives could explain the high-speed, lateral ejection of material from each of the two towers as they collapsed.
Tiny Iron Spheres! Proof of Controlled Demolition!
Perhaps the most damning fact against the government theory, and against the debunkers, is that of iron droplets in the concrete dust.
Debunking the Debunkers
Debunkers (people who try to disprove the hypotheses of independent 9/11 investigators), and Bush conspiracy fans, like to point out that an airplane hit each of the twin towers. Well, that was obvious. But was it merely a distraction for theatrical effect and a false flag for blaming the event on someone else?
Are the debunkers and Bush fans making a bigger point out of it than is warranted? The designer of the towers, Leslie Robertson, indicated that the towers had been intended to withstand a direct impact of a fully-loaded commercial jet—the largest of the day. Enough redundant support was designed into the building to make it immune to the kind of damage received by the Empire State building in World War II when a plane collided with what was then the tallest building in the world.
Debunkers also like to point out that the fires started by the airplane collisions were sufficient to soften the iron and that there was no need to melt the iron in order to initiate collapse. The architects and engineers will concede that if the steel was softened enough, collapse of the two or three floors could have occurred, but that the heating was isolated and off-center. Because the fires were not floor-wide, collapse should have been lopsided instead of symmetrically straight down. With such lopsided collapse any further damage would have remained off-center, and increasingly so, all the way down. But this did not happen on 9/11.
Perhaps more damaging to Bush's and the debunker's theories is the fact that dozens of floors below the area of damage had steel supports that remained unheated and at full strength. Why did that strength suddenly disappear? Without controlled demolition, the top section of each tower would merely have dropped the 2–3 floors and stopped or possibly toppled off of the structure as a whole unit.
Decapitated, the "heads" of the buildings would merely have dropped off and crashed to the ground beside each of the buildings. Each of those "heads" would have lain greatly deformed, but complete units of bent steel and broken concrete slabs—not completely dismembered and partially melted steel beams, as was found, and entirely pulverized concrete without any chunks, as was scattered all over lower Manhattan.
One other uncomfortable fact about the collapse of the two towers is that the conversion of the concrete to a fine powdery dust started right at the top of the collapse and continued with the same high rate all the way down. In every other tall building collapse, nearly zero percent of the concrete was pulverized and the building merely toppled as a relatively whole unit. Where pancake collapses occurred, a favorite theory of the government for 9/11, the concrete remained in whole slabs, stacked like pancakes (thus the name). On 9/11, none of the concrete remained as whole or even fractured slabs. Virtually 100% of it was converted to a fine, powdery dust—flour tossed to the wind, not pancakes!
Also damning to the government and debunker's theories is the fact that the concrete added no impetus to the collapse, because all of the concrete was being blown into the air as the building collapsed. All of that extra weight was doing none of the work to force the building to collapse. It couldn't! It was already dust and in the air!
Perhaps the most damning fact against the government theory, and against the debunkers, is that of iron droplets in the concrete dust. The quantity of iron in each sample of concrete dust indicates that several tons of iron were included in all of the dust which covered lower Manhattan.
How do you get iron into the form of spherical droplets? First, it has to be heated beyond the point of melting and then forced into the surroundings by a blast of air. Like any liquid, the surface tension of the iron would force it into a spherical shape before it cooled. But even the debunkers admit that the temperature of the visible fires was not hot enough to melt steel. Therefore, something else was happening besides the visible fires—something far hotter.
Why did Mayor Giuliani commit a felony?
He had all of the steel removed from the WTC site before an official investigation could be performed.
Another indication of controlled demolition were two of the steel beams amongst the pile of debris which had a straight angle cut, exactly as would occur from cutter charges in a deliberate controlled demolition. Steel beams don't accidentally break in such a neat and straight angle cut with evidence of melted and re-cooled steel along the edge.
Many big questions remain: Why did Mayor Giuliani commit a felony? He had all of the steel removed from the WTC site before an official investigation could be performed. Why did President Bush seemingly resist an investigation? He blocked attempts by independent investigators. He did not start the "official" investigation until 9/11 family members created a big enough stink in the press. Why did it take over 400 days to start such an investigation? Why was it so under-funded? More care and resources were given to the Monica Lewinsky investigation.
Isn't it normal procedure to investigate a crime scene before evidence is removed or destroyed? Even the positions of iron amongst the debris pile would have remained evidence which should have been thoroughly documented.
Why the rush to clean up the site? When a single person is murdered, the officials don't come in and order the crime scene cleaned up so the family members can get on with their lives!
World Trade Center 7 was only 47 stories high. Many states of America, though, don't have any buildings this tall. And yet for New York City, this skyscraper was merely mid-sized. On 9/11, WTC7 collapsed at perfect free fall for 8 floors and then near-perfect free-fall acceleration similar to its sister towers, WTC1 and WTC2.
One of the tenants of WTC7 was the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Their offices were investigating corporate fraud by a number of companies, including WorldCom and Enron. Much of the evidence and work on those investigations is now lost forever. How very convenient for the guilty parties. Coincidence? This certainly speaks to motive. Were certain corporations motivated to destroy the efforts of the SEC? (Please note: This is a question, not a conspiracy theory!)
The Pentagon Attack
An independent group of investigators interviewed a number of witnesses, including police officers, a trained pilot and the Pentagon officer in charge of Heliport operations. They did not let any of the interviewees know the full purpose of their investigation. It is quite possible that those witnesses would not have spoken on camera had they known that the investigators were researching the possibility that the official theory was a hoax. In fact, many refused to speak to them after the investigators had publicly released their findings. (For more information, visit the Citizen Investigation Team website.)
Each of the eyewitnesses corroborated, independent of each other, that the path of the one airplane which approached the Pentagon could not have been as described by the government or by the physical evidence (light pole damage and pattern of building damage). In fact, one eyewitness saw a plane banking and pulling away from the Pentagon moments after the explosion. According to all eyewitnesses, there was only one airplane near the Pentagon within moments of the explosion. None of them saw the impact. All of them, except the last, assumed the plane they saw had crashed into the building. Assumptions make poor evidence.
The FBI had confiscated all video footage which could have shown what happened. Not only did they take footage from government cameras, but also private cameras, as well. Only one view was released and it did not show enough to be conclusive. Why did they confiscate the evidence? Why did they not release it all to the public? This alone is suspicious activity on the part of the FBI. Why wasn't the evidence made available to the 9/11 commission? This is more than curious!
If the one airplane which approached the Pentagon could not have crashed, then what did?
The day before, on September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld had held a news conference to reveal the fact that the Defense Department had lost $2.3 Trillion! Many of the personnel killed at the Pentagon were accountants. What were those accountants working on? Could the work of those accountants have been motivation enough to have them killed and their work destroyed?
Ah, you see? We almost went down that dark and evil path toward "conspiracy theory." Shame on us!
Implications of Tyranny
Explosives and thermate cutters could not have magically appeared all by themselves in the 3 WTC skyscrapers. It takes weeks to deliver and to place all of the tons of explosives and cutter charges required. Someone would have had to have permission of security to do all this. When security gave permission, did they know what was being done? We don't know the answer to this. We could speculate, but it would be only that: speculation. But if security did not know that explosives were being placed, then they were not very good at security!
So much happened on 9/11 that seems, by the official theory, to have been incompetence on a massive scale. So many instances of incompetence aided the final end result, including the apparent incompetence of Vice President Dick Cheney when he told the military to stand down regarding the plane approaching the Pentagon and its sensitive air space. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta witnessed and later reported this puzzling behavior.
A far more important implication is that America went to war on false pretenses!
We already know that there were no WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq. We know that there were no members of Al Qaeda in Iraq before we attacked, at least not enough to pose a major threat.
We also know that Osama Bin Laden denied having anything to do with 9/11. Only years later did he seemingly say something about his own involvement in 9/11. I say "seemingly," because a German investigator had the same video independently translated and found no such reference by the Osama look-alike in the film.
Why would Bin Laden deny being the source of 9/11? Wouldn't a terrorist leader grab the chance for notoriety for their cause? This was the largest terrorist act in history, breaking through the defenses of the most powerful and incompetent military in the world. (Or was it incompetence? Those responsible were promoted afterwards.) Why wouldn't he take credit? Could he have been telling the truth? If he was so religiously devout, wouldn't he view lying about something like this as an abomination? From the known facts, we are left with some very dangerous questions.
If Osama Bin Laden didn't do this, then who did?
It may prove to be only a curious coincidence, but on 9/11 former president, George H.W. Bush, was having a meeting with Saudi royals and representatives of the Bin Laden family at a hotel in Washington, DC, sponsored by the Carlysle Group. Perhaps it's only a coincidence that Bush Sr. was once head of the CIA and that Osama Bin Laden was once a CIA asset.
All of the post-9/11 laws meant to "protect" us have been based upon a lie. We were supposedly being "protected" by having the government remove the protections of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights. Some trade-off! Benjamin Franklin warned us that those who would give up liberty for a little security deserve neither.
If you know your history, you know that Adolph Hitler and his gang of thugs did something similar in 1933. The Nazis set fire to the Reichstag and blamed it on the Communists. Then, Hitler trashed their Constitution and invoked feelings of patriotism to make the curtailment of liberties seem more palatable. The Reichstag fire was a "false flag" operation. The Nazis did it to provoke fear and then they blamed it on someone else to evoke the feeling that something needed to be done about it. Problem—Reaction—Solution. They had the solution already prepared before the problem—Reichstag fire—was created. If the events themselves were similar, were the motivations similar? Could people in the government have perpetrated 9/11 in order to grab more power from the citizens? Again, this is a question, not a theory.
I can feel conspiracy theorists bristling with ideas by now. But those who deny what conspiracy theorists can't help but wonder, likely don't believe that the United States government could do such a thing. Yet they only need look at the March 13, 1962 plans of General Lyman L. Lemnitzer to know that indeed, the American government could do such things. Those once classified plans were named "Operation Northwoods" and involved American military and government agents murdering American citizens and then blaming those acts on Cubans—all to stir up public sentiment against Cuba.
We won't theorize, here, if the Bush government pulled a "Hitler 2.0" on us. That's for conspiracy theorists. All we want to do here is raise the specter of doubt concerning the official theory. There are too many unanswered questions about 9/11 to leave it alone. Only someone with something to hide would not want those questions asked. There is too much damage to the world and to our precious America because of it to allow those questions to remain unanswered.
9/11 ==> Burning the Constitution
If the erosions of our liberties were based on a lie, why should we let the government continue to erode those liberties?
And the erosions of the Constitution continue! If the impetus for those erosions was false, then why should we allow those erosions to continue?
Can we let the American government continue to erode the liberties for which our founding fathers fought so hard? Can we let them continue along this path of treason without finding some satisfactory answers about the event which made all of these dark changes possible?
Treason? When Bush and Obama swore their Oaths of Office to protect the Constitution and then proceeded to shred the very same document and its Bill of Rights, that constitutes a very real treason. Very similar to Hitler's treason nearly a century ago.
So, was 9/11 also treason or merely a long string of incredibly coincidental instances of massive incompetence? If the government was complicit, they would like us to believe it was only incompetence. Could the bumbling, good-natured Bush have been elected to project this aura about the government? If it was indeed merely massive incompetence, then heaven help us all that we might suffer at the hands of these imbeciles. And now, with Obama's "kill list," including some American citizens, can we be sure that incompetence won't find one of you on that very same list?
Now that you have the facts, what are you going to do about it? There are many questions which demand answers. Don't let them go unanswered.
Several "truth" groups consist of professionals who have added their expertise to the investigation. They are calling for an independent investigation, authorized by Congress with subpoena power to force any individual or government agency to testify under oath. Some have petitions on their websites—sign them. Add your voice of support.
Conspiracy theories aside, we need to get to the bottom of this and find out the truth as much as is possible, wherever that truth may lead.
One investigator worth following on YouTube is James Corbett of the Corbett Report. The following video is a sample of his work on 9/11.
9/11 Suspects: Rudy Giuliani
Four of the Many Investigative Websites
- Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
Nearly 2000 scientists, engineers and architects have studied the evidence and now agree that the official conspiracy theory doesn't work.
- Pilots for 911 Truth
Professional pilots examine the government's evidence and finds their conclusions lacking.
- Citizen Investigation Team (CIT)
A group of independent investigators examines the evidence and interviews the witnesses of the airplane approach to the Pentagon. The government's version doesn't add up.
- Journal of 911 Studies
A peer-reviewed, electronic-only journal covering research related to the events of September 11, 2001.
My Book on the Subject
September 2015, a new book has been published on the topic. It brings to light much of the information in this article and touches on many new elements, too. Buy your copy, now:
Title: Favorable Incompetence: Shining a Light on 9/11