Saturday, January 24, 2004

Re-examining September 11, 2001

The attacks on September 11, 2001 clearly is the defining moment shaping the world events that followed, and shaped the lives we followed after that day. This is just like previous attacks such as December 7, 1941 that shaped the events of those years.

Since this attack was clearly so significant an event, and provided justification for the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, it is worth re-examining that day.

In summary, it's clear from the following discussion that the publicly told story about this attack is not what really happened. We may never know what really happened because the truth is buried behind Top Secret classifications and Oaths of Secrecy by U.S. government personnell. Clearly the attacks of that day have greatly affected the following events and are being used as justification for even more acts. The acts taken with September 11 justification are not, apparently, in the best interest of the U.S. citizens, so in whose interest are they?

In the vacuum of not knowing, the mind wants to substitute many possibilities. Browsing through the Internet for related information, you see any number of theories proposed. The truth is that we don't know the truth, and that the Administration is actively lying to us. We can't leap to conclusions because we have limited knowledge, but the knowledge we do have shows the lie is happening every day. The lie is being allowed to continue through the apathy of the American citizenry in not demanding the truth.

By way of example, it's clear the publicly told story of President Kennedy's assassination is a fairy tale (lone gunman, lone bullet, my ass), and the truth is suppressed behind Top Secret classifications. And what of the broad range of theories have been concocted to explain what really happened on that day? The same is happening now as we try to unravel the truth of September 11, 2001.

See books & videos below

Timeline of events (FTW article)

The party line: Mohammed Atta and crew

We all know the official story of that day, because we lived through it and have been subjected to tellings and retellings of the official versions of events. The outline is something like this:

  • Terrorist cells were actively pursuing flight training for several years.
  • These cells ultimately included the 19 hijackers on the four aircraft, with Mohammed Atta being anointed with the role of leadership in this plan.
  • They lived for a time in Hamburg Germany, and for other times in Florida.
  • They were associated with al Qaeda, an organization led by Osama bin Laden and being hosted in Afghanistan by the Taliban.
  • Both organizations had been part of the effort to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan during the 1980's.
  • These organizations follow a fundamentalist and violent form of Islam.
  • The named hijackers are largely from Saudi Arabia.
  • The airplanes used in the attacks were Boeing 767 and 757's, commercial passenger airliners.
  • The airplanes were flown into their targets (the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) by the hijackers. The flight training they had sought presumably was meant to give them skills necessary to fly airliners into buildings.
  • Numerous cell-phone calls are attributed to passengers aboard these aircraft.
  • In one aircraft the passengers staged a revolt and managed to prevent the airplane from reaching an unknown target in Washington DC (presumably the White House?), and instead crashing in rural Pennsylvania.
  • The September 11, 2001 attack was part of a series of attacks that included the World Trade Center bombing conducted in the early 1990's, attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the S.S. Cole.

Political fallout & resulting wars

The events since that day have been most alarming. They include

  • Launching a war in Afghanistan, supposedly with the main purpose to find Osama bin Laden.
  • The toppling of the Taliban and al Qaeda regime in Afghanistan.
  • Mysterious anthrax attacks that have never been publicly solved and are no longer mentioned.
  • A foisting upon the people of a so-called PATRIOT Act, whose provisions were approved in a closed door meeting, and which Congress did not know the details at the time they voted on the bill. This bill contains provisions which greatly erodes personal freedoms.
  • A declaration by Congress which effectively gave the President a blank check to do anything he desired for as long as he wanted to do it. One of the costs is an $87 billion requisition to pay for the war in Iraq.
  • Former Governor Ridge becoming the Secretary of Homeland Defense, a new department put into place by a President who promised to trim government but instead has overseen a huge increase in government size.
  • Nationalizing the airport security industry, by a President who promised to trim government.
  • Several mysterious security warnings and raised terror alert levels.
  • A year of building up Iraq as a serious threat, leading to a war to topple the Iraq government. This despite Iraq having nothing to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks.
  • A national forgetting of the status of Afghanistan, and the apparent resurgence of Taliban effective control over Afghanistan, due in part to being distracted by Iraq.
  • A huge number of lies put forth to justify the Iraq threat and therefore justify the war.
  • The Iraq war was the first unilateral act of war the U.S. has ever perpetrated. Why?

Clearly, given these events, this is a time of great importance. The attack on September 11, 2001 proved to be great grounds of justification for the Administration to take a number of acts on the minds of neo-conservatives for over a decade. Acts which the typical person on the street would not have found agreeable but for the threat of danger as demonstrated by the September 11, 2001 attack.

This danger is purported to be from "terrorists". Given the lies which the Administration is known to have said, how can anything they say be trusted. These mysterious terrorist warnings which occur from time to time, can we trust that the government is telling us the truth? By raising the terror alert level they interrupt our lives, but for what? Is it more lies, or is it credible warnings of imminent danger?

The word "terrorist" is used to broadly label a certain class of activists, but not used to label the same type of activities when its done by others. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, yes? Terrorism is merely an act of war, because all acts of war involve creating terror in the being of your opponent. Are the IRA or the Palestinians terrorists or freedom fighters? Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? And what about the times the CIA has used car bombs against civilian targets? Doesn't that make the U.S. a terrorist state?

Did the attack really happen as we've been told?

It may seem ludicrous to ask this question. After all, some kind of attacks did happen on the day of September 11, 2001. I, myself, witnessed the results of that attack when I visited New York City during October 2001. And there are the millions of eyewitnesses who watched the events live, either in person, or on television, as they took place on that highly eventful day.

On that day I arose and, as is usual, turned on the morning NPR news (Morning Edition; broadcast over KQED). It took quite awhile for the words to sink in, since it was so strange to hear the reporters talking of the World Trade Center having collapsed, and other buildings being in danger of collapsing. Collapse? Say what? This comes from entering a story halfway through (the attacks having occurred while I was still asleep at 6:00 AM pacific time). Needless to say, once it sank in there was a definite sinking feeling in my stomach as I realized the importance.

It cannot, therefore, be questioned whether the attacks occurred. It was live on television, and the World Trade Center is definitely missing in action.

It turns out, though, that the actual story has some holes. The holes then raise doubts as to the truth of the official story. And, in the vaccuum of lacking a reasonable explanation, all sorts of theories crop up as to what could possibly have happened. This is analagous to the abundance of theories about what really happened when President Kennedy was assassinated, another case where the official party line is false (lone gunman my ass).

What are the holes?

Cell phone calls from hijacked airplanes: We were told that many passengers on the hijacked airplanes made cell phone calls. For example, a stewardess who called into the office giving an accounting of the hijacking, ending with screams of "OHMYGOD" as she realized they were flying in low over New York City. Others called home and left messages on answering machines. The most example is the passengers of the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania, that they called home, learned of the other attacks which had already happened on the World Trade Center, realized their airplane was going to be used in another attack, and decided to take matters into their own hands apparently diverting the airplane into the ground.

The problem is that cell phones can't connect to the cell phone system from the altitude airliners fly at.

Consider a few facts of physics. Cell phone towers broadcast for a 5 mile diameter (or thereabouts). You don't notice this in the city because there are so many of the towers, and they overlap pretty well to create the illusion of seamless service. But get outside of the built-up areas and coverage drops off pretty quick, doesn't it? This happens in the upward direction just as rapidly as it does in the horizontal direction. That is, an airplane cruising at 35,000 feet is at a 6-7 mile altitude, yes? Cell phone tower transmissions don't reach that far, which means the cell phones could not have been used from the hijacked airplanes.

For experimental proof, look here:

I'll point out in passing one flaw in the reasoning those researchers follow. Most airplanes nowadays have telephone service built into most seatbacks. Not that it gets used very often, but it's there. Those telephones work from airliner altitude, presumably via some other means than cell phone towers (sattelites?). It is very possible that those telephones are the ones used to make the telephone calls, and the press is just being confused when they call it "cell phone calls".

The damage to the Pentagon too small for a 757 airplane: Basically, the hole in the Pentagon was not large enough to fit a 757 aircraft. Yet, there was no debris lying around outside the Pentagon, so if a 757 did hit the building then the debris must have somehow went fully into the building. But if the hole isn't large enough to fit the airplane, then how could the debris have gone fully into the building? Further, only one engine was found inside the building, while a 757 carries two engines, and that one engine is smaller than 757 engines.

Hmmm, you say? These two articles go over the details

"It is alleged that on Sept 11, 2001 a hijacked Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77, hit the Pentagon. It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it. Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 is missing. But was AA 77 involved in the Pentagon incident? This article presents an analysis of the physical aspects of the incident, and concludes with a brief examination of the issue of eyewitnesses."

A 757 aircraft has a 125 foot wingspan. However the hole in the Pentagon was about 65 feet wide. And that 65 foot hole was after collapse of a section of the Pentagon. As seen clearly in the photo's, the initial hole was much smaller, and the fire caused collapse widening the hole.

Therefore, what happened to the wings? Why weren't there many solid pieces found? The above two pages refer to many pictures of airliner crashes, most of which have relatively intact debris. Airplanes generally do not vaporise when they crash, instead there are lots of debris strewn about. One would expect the Pentagon crash, then, to also have a lot of debris, but it isn't to be found.

Strange pattern of debris in the Pennsylvania crash site: Normally when airplanes crash, the debris are localized to the crash site pretty well. However, the Pennsylvania crash site had debris, including human remains, scattered over many miles.


My take of the details presented is that it was shot down by the air force, but the government doesn't want to admit having done so.

Where were the Washington DC air defenses: Washington DC is (or should definitely be) one of the most heavily guarded pieces of airspace in the country. How could an airplane be, after two were already used against the World Trade Center, allowed to fly into that airspace and be used to attack the Pentagon? Further, why wasn't the squadron at Andrews Air Force base scrambled? Why was the squadron scrambled located in southern Virginia?


How could they identify the hijackers so quickly: Within a couple days we were told lists of names. How was this found? Simply by going through boarding manifests and listing anybody with an arabic name? Were the hijackers stupid enough to go by their real names? Wouldn't they have the means to have an alias name to go by? How is it that Mohammed Atta's passport was found in the World Trade Center wreckage, when it would have been in one of the airplanes, hence in the core of a fire which was hot enough (supposedly) to melt the support girders causing the buildings to collapse.


As noted, many of the people named by the FBI were still alive and living in Saudi Arabia. In one case, the named person had died in Florida a year before in a small airplane accident.

So much is being made over Moussaoui being potentially the "20th hijacker" when, according to the details referenced above, even the FBI Director Meuller has admitted doubt over the accuracy of the hijacker list.

How could they pin the blame on Osama bin Laden so quickly: Ditto. Especially interesting is that Osama bin Laden and his group had previously been in the employ of the CIA, during the Mujahedin war to oust Russia from Afghanistan.

Consider this press release from the U.S. Senate Republican Committee: (cached)

Under the heading "Three Key Issues for Examination" we see this statement:

2. The Militant Islamic Network (page 5): Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors") from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well-documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.

The Third World Relief Agency in question is an earlier name for Osama bin Laden's operations. As late as 1995 the mujahedin, including Osama bin Laden, was heavily involved with U.S. secret services. Note the countries said to be involved are the same ones which, today, the U.S. is actively hunting the evil terrorist threat. Could it be that the U.S. knows where to hunt because we, the U.S., previously created these groups?

No comments:

Post a Comment