Probably one of the most horrendous frauds ever perpetrated by a government on its electorate.
According to official pronouncements on September 11th, 2001, about nineteen Middle Eastern Moslem terrorists highjacked four air-liners, crashing two into the Twin Towers of New York City's World Trade Centre and a third into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., the fourth airliner reportedly crashed in Western Pennsylvania after passengers had attempted to overcome the highjackers.
However, a closer look at the events brings only a maze of unanswered questions. Who benefited from this crime? Who had the means, motive and opportunity, not only to devise such attacks but to circumvent normal security measures and hinder any objective investigation?
Some time between 7.45 a.m. and 8.10 a.m. on September 11th, 2001, American Airlines Flight No. 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were highjacked and by 8.15 both were obviously off course. This was known to air traffic controllers.
American Flight 11, a Boeing 767, with 92 persons on board out of a possible 351, had taken off from Boston's Logan International Airport en route to Los Angeles. United's Flight 17 another Boeing 767 carrying 65 passengers out of a possible 351, also departed from Logan to Los Angeles.
During that same time frame, American Flight 77, a Boeing 757 with 64 passengers out of a possible 289, took off from Dulles International Airport in Washington destined for Los Angeles, while United Flight 93, a Boeing 757, with 45 passengers out of a possible 289, headed for San Francisco from Newark airport.
By 8.43 a.m. the North-East Air Defence Sector (NEADS) of the North American Aero Defence Command (NORAD) was alerted to the highjackings of Flights 11 and 175 and, according to NORAD's statement two F-15 jet fighters were scrambled from the Otis National Guard base in Falmouth, Massachusetts.
About 8.46 a.m., just as the Otis Jets were taking off, Flight 11 struck the North face of the 110-storey North Tower of the World Trade Centre at the 96th floor.
At 8.47, despite having had its flight beacon turned off by the highjackers, air traffic controllers could see that American Flight 77 had reversed course somewhere over Virginia and was moving back towards the east coast.
At 9.03 a.m. with the evacuation of the W.T.C. Towers proceeding amidst fear and confusion, United Flight 175 careened into the north south-east corner of the South Tower at the 80th floor, sending a massive ball of burning fuel into the air over lower New York City.
The F-15s were reported as being 71 miles away according to official sources. The jets arrived over New York City at 9.10, 7 minutes too late.
At 9.06 a.m. President Bush was at a photo-op at a Booker Elementary School at Sarasota in a second-grade classroom.
At 9.31a.m. President Bush declared the disaster in New York an apparent terrorist attack.
At 9.35 a.m. American Flight 77 its transponder turned off, began making a complicated 270-degree spiral turn while descending 7000 feet.
At 9.40 a.m. it reportedly crashed into the west side of the concrete and limestone Pentagon penetrating three of its five rings of offices.
Shortly after l0.00 a.m. the South Tower of the World Trade Centre collapsed, covering lower Manhattan with tons of ash, smoke and debris.
At the same time United Flight 93, also with transponder turned off or disabled, crashed in Western Pennsylvania about 80 miles south-east of Pittsburg.
This event was followed about 23 minutes later by the collapse of the W.T.C. North Tower, the upper floors of which had been burning for about an hour and a half.
At 5.25 p.m. the 47-storey building 7 of the W.T.C. suddenly collapsed. A rather strange occurence often ignored in the official accounts.
How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan, involving many people and probably in the works for many years, have escaped the notice of the F. B.I. and C.I.A.? Why the long delay before NORAD was notified which meant no aircraft arrived in time for a visual check of the highjacked planes' cockpits?
What are the odds for four trans-continental flights of two major airlines, American Flights 77 and 11 and United Flights 175 and 93, having 78%, 74%, 81% and 84% empty seats?
Evidence indicates that planning for the 9/11 reaction was set in motion long before September 11. On May 8th, 2001, the Bush administration was already addressing the problem of terrorists. Bush created a new office dedicated to national preparedness within the Federal Emergency Management Agency and named Vice-President Dick Cheney to head a special task force to study terrorism.
Amazingly enough pre-9/11 contingency planning may have aided the success of the attacks, planning which even included "war games". To begin with the powerful but little publicised national reconnaisance office, the NRO, had scheduled a test exercise for the morning of September 11 2001. The scenario was of a corporate jet, crippled by mechanical failure, crashing into one of the four towers of the NRO headquarters building in Chantilly, Va, which is about four miles from Washington's International Dulles Airport. No actual planes were to be used in the exercise but plans called for the evacuation most of the 3,000 NRO employees. The exercise, later described as a "bizarre incident", was cancelled when the first plane struck the World Trade Centre - less than an hour before the test was due to begin.
It was also reported that in April of 2001, air defence planners proposed yet another exercise, this one involving an air liner actually being crashed into the Pentagon.
In addition, as far back as November 3rd, 2000, the military district of Washington's Command Emergency Response Training conducted a scenario entitled "the Pentagon mass casualty exercise" which simulated the crash of an air liner into the courtyard of the Pentagon.
After the 9/11 attack new, and constitutionally questionable, laws were put into effect. Within days of the 9/11 attacks President Bush declared a "war on terrorism".
One unnamed intelligence source quoted by Internet writer, John Rappoport, said: "there are people within the US intelligence community who doubt that the highjacker list from 9/11 has much truth in it. Al Qaeda is being used as a term to convince people that these terrorists are all connected in a vast, very well organised network that is global in reach and has a very sophisticated and far-flung communications set-up, that issues orders from the top down to cells all over the world. There are a number of people inside the US Intelligence Agency who know that this is a false picture. They know that false intelligence is being assembled in order to paint a picture which is distorted so that the American people would have a single focus on one, grand, evil enemy."
Questions have been raised concerning the highjackers themselves and the people behind them.
FBI director, Robert Mueller, the day following 9/11, announced astonishingly swift police work: "we have taken the passenger manifests and have successfully I believe identified many of the highjackers on each of the four flights that went down."
Yet at the same time Mueller acknowledged that the list of names of the highjackers might not contain their real names. If this was so how did the FBI identify them so quickly?. Not one of the accused highjackers' names appeared on the passenger lists made public by American or United airlines. In fact seven of those named as the culprits in the attacks were soon found alive and well in the Middle East.
Further none of the accused highjackers' names appeared on any of the passenger lists and there was a discrepancy of 35 names between the published passenger list and the official death toll on all four of the ill-fated flights.
To add to this mystery, Dr. Thomas Rolmsted, a psychiatrist and a former naval line officer, noted "no arabs wound up on the morgue slab, however additional people not listed by the American airlines sneaked in. The airline listed 56 persons on Flight 77, yet they listed 64 bodies as passengers on the plane and they did not explain how they were able to tell victims' bodies from highjackers' bodies since none of the listed passengers on any of the airlines had Arab-sounding names. How did the government know who the highjackers were?
The official story of the Pentagon sounded plausible enough. A third highjacked airliner was flown into America's military command centre, creating a fire that killed more than 185 persons and caused a portion of the west wall to collapse.
But a closer look is not so convincing. April Gallop who was at work inside the Pentagon's west side when it was struck on 9/11 and buried in rubble was later visited in hospital ".. by men in suits who said they could not tell me what to say, they only wanted to make suggestions. But then they told me what to do: take the money and shut up. They also kept insisting that a "plane" had hit the building. They repeated this over and over, but I was there and I never saw a plane nor even debris from a plane."
One website even posted numerous official photos of the Pentagon crash and challenged viewers to find any trace of the aircraft.
It is well worth noting that the FBI confiscated all the security videos in the vicinity of the crash within minutes.
The major mystery in regard to the Pentagon crash centres on what exactly happened to American flight 77, a Boeing 757, carrying a mere 64 passengers.
According to official sources the entire plane was consumed inside the walls of the Pentagon. Yet years after 9/11 no one has produced any photographs of the Boeing 757 fuselage, engine, seats or other recognisable debris.
There is also the problem of the holes in the Pentagon. The Boeing 757 has a normal wing span of 124 ft. 10 in. The official version of the Pentagon crash states that the 757 entered the building at a 45 degree angle. This angle would increase the wing span to 177 ft. The overall height of a 757 is 44 ft.6 ins and the exterior body width is 12 ft 6 ins. Yet the hole in the Pentagon, cited as the entry point, photographed before the walls collapsed, was only between 15 and 10 ft. wide. Barely enough to accommodate the width of the craft's body. The hole height was less than two storeys or about 20 ft., less than half the height of a 757.
Just as strange were photographs depicting what officials said was the exit hole. This hole located on the inside of the building's fourth ring is barely more than 8 ft. high.
Several witnesses said they distinctly saw an American Airlines' jet liner coming towards the Pentagon swiftly and at low altitude.
Mike Walter told CNN :"A plane, a plane from American Airlines I thought that's not right, it's really low. And I saw it, it was like a cruise missile with wings."
Daniel O'Brien told ABC News: "The speed, the manoeuvrability, the way he turned, we all thought in the Radar Room, all of us experienced traffic controllers, that it was a military plane. " O'Brien's perceptions were accurate for whatever plunged towards the Pentagon, reportedly starting at 7,000 ft above the ground, was piloted in such a way that it dropped in a downward spiral, forming almost a complete circle in just more than two minutes. This is an extremely difficult manoeuvre for even the most experienced pilot. The speed, the maneuvrability and the high-pitched scream of the jet, coupled with the smallness of the hole, prompted many researchers to suggest that what struck the Pentagon was nothing less than some sort of winged missile painted to ressemble an American Airlines plane.
Could this be why Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, inadvertently mentioned "missile", when describing the Pentagon attack to "Parade" magazine? And if the flight did not hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and its passengers? Did it cross into Washington air space before a missile was sent into the Pentagon? Ditched into the Atlantic as suggested by some? Was the missile or plane guided from an external location?
Why, according to experts and numerous independent observers, did the destruction of the World Trade Centre Towers appear more like a controlled implosion than terrorist-caused destruction?
Van Romero, vice-president for Research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, suggested that explosions were used to create controlled demolition.
Many have wondered about the witnesses who claimed to have heard multiple explosions within the building.
One such witness was the head of WTC Security, John O'Neill, who stated before he himself became a victim that he had helped dig out survivors on the 27th floor before the building collapsed. Since the aircraft crashed into the 80th floor what heavily damaged the 27th floor?
An audio tape of New York fire fighters at the scene, unpublished until mid-2002, indicated that fire officials managed to reach the 78th floor of the South Tower, very near the crash scene on the 80th floor. Transcripts released on the Internet provided this statement: "Battalion 7, we have two isolated pockets of fire - we should be able to knock it down with two lines."
According to the article, the firemen, Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald B. Bucca, both of whom perished, showed no panic, no sense that things were racing beyond their control.
As noted by reporter, Christopher Bollyn, the fact that veteran firefighters had a coherent plan indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable.
Shortly after 4 p.m. on September 11th, six hours after the collapse of the South Tower, firemen turned their attention to Building 7 after someone reported small fires, but no firemen were allowed to enter the building. At 5.25 p.m. the 47-storey structure collapsed upon itself. Unlike the Twin Towers which collapsed from the top down. Building 7 collapsed from the bottom up. The classic form of a typical building demolition.
Challenging the theory that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of crashed aeroplanes and fires, Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year-old fireman's publication, "Fire Engineering", said in its January 2002 issue: "Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official" investigation blessed by SAMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lay far afield of full disclosure."
On October 7th, 2001, the first operational deployment of "Global Hawk" spearheaded the American air and missile attacks on Afghanistan. Global Hawk is the name of the latest version of high altitude, long endurance, unmanned air vehicle (UAD). In other words an unarmed, pilotless, drone plane that can take off, conduct missions, photograph battle fields and land by remote control. The jet aircraft equivalent in wing size to a Boeing 737 commercial airliner has a publicly announced range of 14,000 nautical miles, about half-way round the world, and can fly at altitudes of 65,000 ft for about 40 hours.
So what does this unmanned flight system have to do with September 11?
The former German Secretary of Defence, Andreas von Buelow, on January 13th, 2002, in an interview with the newspaper Tagesspiegel, speaking about the 9/11 attacks, noted : "There is also the theory of one British flight engineer (Joe Vialls) that the steering of the planes was possibly taken out of the pilot's hands from outside. The Americans had developed in the 1970s a means whereby they could rescue highjacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting the electronic flight system. This theory suggests that this technique was abused in this case."
Von Buelow could well have knowledge of this technology as several researchers and websites have asserted that Lufthansa, Germany's national airline, was aware of the possibility of electronic capture and had quietly stripped the flight control system out of American-built jetliners in the 1990s.
Brilliant both in concept and operation it allowed specialist ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on captured aircraft then take absolute control of the computerised flight control system by remote means.
This seemingly outlandish suggestion that remote controlled planes were crashed into American targets is backed by several facts. Beginning with a little noticed item in the September 28, 2001, issue of the New York Times in which President Bush announced his plans to protect passengers. He mentioned "new technology, probably far in the future, will allow air traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote control."
Yet earlier that year a former chief of British Airways said that such technology could be used to commodeer an aircraft from the ground and control it in the event of highjacking.
Could a capture by Global Hawk explain why none of the recordings from either air traffic controllers or the cockpit recorders have been made available to the public? Some reports claim the tapes were blank.
Investigator Joe Vialls also offered the explanation why the cockpit recorders did not send a warning of the highjacking via their transponders.
Technically a transponder is a combined radio transmitter and receiver that operates automatically, in this case relaying data between the four aircraft and air traffic control on the ground. The signals sent provide a unique identity for each aircraft, essential in crowded air space to avoid mid-air collisions, and equally essential for ground controllers trying to lock-on to individual aircraft. Once it has located the correct aircraft it piggybacks a data transmission on to the transponder channel and takes direct control from the ground. This explains why none of the aircraft sent a special "I have been highjacked" transponder code. This is the first proof that the target aircraft had been highjacked from the ground.
To explain the reported cell-phone calls from passengers on the flight, Vialls stated the belief that these calls were concocted after the fact.
Vialls' thoughts were echoed by Donn de Gran Pre, a retired US Army colonel. He acknowledged that the USA, Russia, China and Israel all possessed aircraft that have the capability to utilise electro magnetic pulsing to knock-out on-board flight controls and communications of targeted aircraft and then fly them by remote control.
The 9/11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic reaction on the part of US citizens to pave the way for combined UN activity using the fig-leaf of NATO for striking key targets in both the Middle-East, South Asia and the Balkans.
The goal continues to be the ultimate destruction of all national sovereignity and establishment of global government.
That Bush's first choice to head the 9/11 commission was Henry Kissinger is revealing. Kissinger who has warrants outstanding in two European countries for war crimes and complicity in murder.
After leaving the government Kissinger set himself up as a National Security adviser to many nations. Early on he hired Brent Snowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger , both of whom soon left to join the first Bush administration. Eagleburger has been a member of both the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. It is such secret societies that form a hidden background in the events most Americans only know about from superficial reporting in the corporate mass media.
There are other intriguing sources filling in the picture. General Hameed Gul, former director general of the Pakistani Intelligence Services, who worked closely with the CIA during the fighting in Afghanistan, said in an interview with UPI that it was his belief that the Israeli Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 attack with the support of its own assets already within the United States. Even cherished civil liberties could now be abridged with impunity to protect the expansion of the hegemony of trans-national capitalism.
And, as usual, some gained by the disaster of others.
According to Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press:
"Larry Silverstein (the developer who had built 7 World Trade Center which mysteriously self-demolished at 5.25 p.m. on 9/11) and the former Israeli commando Frank Lowy were the leaseholders of dubious repute who gained control of the WTC property six weeks before 9/11 i.e. on July 24, 2001, and it was Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg who authorised the transfer of the leases.Silverstein and Lowy therefore had control of the l0.6 million-square foot complex, which included the twin towers office buildings and two nine-storey office buildings, and all access to the World Trade Center.
Lowy leased the shopping concourse called the Mall at the World Trade Center, which comprised about 427,000 square feet of retail space.
Simultaneously,wrote Paul Goldberger in the New Yorker, of May 20, 2002,'the retail space underneath the complex was leased to Westfield America, the US division of an Australian company that is one of the world's largest operators of shopping malls. Silverstein and Westfield were given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed and Westfield has the right to expand the retail space by 30 percent.'
Silverstein is suing for some $7.2 billion in insurance money for the loss of the destroyed World Trade Center - and his expected earnings - for property he had leased with a down payment of $100 million - of borrowed funds."
Another interesting point is that one security company, ICTS International, an Israeli-owned company, had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which the "high-jacked" planes departed on 9/11.
In addition an Israeli-owned company, Odigo Systems, with offices near the World Trade Towers received warning of the impending "attacks" before the "high-jacked " planes had left the ground.
"Hours before the house version of the first Patriot Act went to vote, technical corrections were inserted into the body of the legislation whereby foreign security companies - such as ICTS - International - could be immune from law suits relating to the events of 9/11. This Patriot Act legislative sleight-of-hand occurred before the inception of the 9/11 commission when George W. Bush was resisting the very idea of an investigation into 9/11. Hence in the face of an institutional cover-up citizens were denied the possibility of a discovery process. Without such a discovery process ICTS-International would never be compelled by a court of law to give testimony and show evidence relating to the missing video airport surveillance tapes of 9/11 or any other aspect of security measures in place." (rense.com)