Monday, November 14, 2005

9-11 End Game

We are finally there: the idea that explosives brought down the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center is now starting to go mainstream. Dr. Steven Jones, the physics professor from Brigham Young University, was interviewed tonight on MSNBC's The Situation Room with Tucker Carlson (if you have trouble viewing the video, you can see it here), after being interviewed Thursday by Utah's largest television station. Dr. Jones argues that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition. Jones, along with David Ray Griffin and other writers on controlled demolition, are starting to get exposure throughout the country.

The perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks and their allies undoubtedly long-ago realized that the truth about the bombs in the towers would eventually come out. Therefore, I can guarantee that they've thought of a cover story to deal with this eventuality: namely, that Osama and the boys planted explosives in the buildings.

This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Dr. Jones is not stating who planted the bombs. Therfore, in addition to attempting to smear Dr. Jones, the disinformation agents will likely try to fall back on an argument like this: "we don't think there were bombs (and these guys are crazy who say so); but if there were bombs, Bin Laden and his followers planted them".

I have kept quiet about this for many months, as I did not want to telegraph our punch too early. But I believe that the time is now right to force the issue, and that the harm from discussing the end game is far outweighed by the need to come up with a strong counterargument to the "Osama did it" story. So here are my thoughts:

(1) The story that Al-Qaeda planted bombs logically fails. First of all, a couple of truck bombs wouldn't have done it. It took a coordinated and controlled demolition, involving bombs in the basements and throughout the buildings. Controlled demolitions of large buildings take many months of planning, expert timing, and complete control and coordination.

(2) The Twin Towers were some of the world's largest buildings, and they were demolished with near perfection, causing very little damage to surrounding buildings. This is not something that a bunch of rag-tag terrorists could have done on their own.

(3) Additionally, the sudden "straightening out" of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree could ONLY have been accomplished through very sophisticated demolition techniques. There are only a handful of demolition experts in the world who could have changed the direction of a toppling building in mid-air through destruction of the support structures underneath the falling building, so that the building would not topple sideways and destroy surrounding buildings. Osama and the boys? Impossible.

(4) Security for the trade centers was provided by a Bush-linked company. How did a couple of sent-from-the-cave terrorists, unconnected with the military or intelligence resources of the United States (with help from Israel?), have gained the access necessary to have installed the elaborate network of explosives and triggers required to implement these controlled demolitions?

(5) Even if the first tower had been brought down by Al-Qaeda, why didn't the government jam the radio frequencies or cell phones which would have been needed to orchestrate the controlled demolition of the second tower and of building 7? Why didn't the military send in an AWACS plane and jam all communications signals in the entire area (its easy to do)?

(6) Why did the 9-11 Commission and NIST lie and say fires brought down the buildings? This is evidence of guilt, and a cover-up. "We didn't want to scare the people" does not cut it. Covering up with a lie is evidence of guilt.

9/11 researchers and writers who are better informed than me will be able to add points I missed, and to take points off the list which are weak or unimportant. I'm providing a rough first draft, not a finished product.

If we can refute the coming limited hang out story that Al-Qaeda done it, we can win the 9-11 end game -- getting the full truth out there and imprisoning all of those responsible.


Blogger dz said...

Thank you so much for linking to my site, we are all in this together, and I appreciate your great posts on this blog.

9:57 PM  
Blogger plectic said...

great cold analysis.

2:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would Osama be interested in a controlled demolition that hardly damaged the surrounding area in the first place. Toppling the buildings would have brought way more destruction and add more psychological mayhem.

8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am the co-author of 911 Revealed. We looked into this issue and spoke to an experienced insurance broker. There is another limited hangout they can make. Thay can say the bombs were an insurance requirement in the light of the credible warnings received in summer 2001, which the Kean/Zelikow
commission has quietly admitted to. They can say that the first Tower
started to topple horizontally and they had to pull the plug. Silverstein's famous pull it comment can similarly be explained.

The answer from us could be: why did they pull the second Tower and what
else have they lied about? The first demolition took place just after they received word from the firefighters that the fires were going out. Also we
should demand the release of the Pentagon video footage seized at the
Sheraton. We suspect this will show the plane was not 77. The Air Traffic Controllers should be allowed to talk freely, we suspect this will reveal the detail of the cover-up exercises and maybe that all the planes were followed by fighters as a pre-caution (LIHOP) or (MIHOP) that the planes
were swapped.

911 revealed has some minor errors, but we recommend it as a good
introduction for new people and it has quite a lot of newish stuff in as well for researchers. It is top of the State Department "misinformation" page whose second item is the claim that the Empire did not use chemical weapons in Fallujah (ho ho).

Ian Henshall

9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> The answer from us could be...

Another thing to hammer on RELENTLESSLY is, if ANY kind of internal explosives were involved, no matter rigged by whoever, then HOW could the NIST white-coated, scientific experts and egghead possibly have concluded, after 2 years of expensive sophisticated analysis and rigorous simulation, that impact and fires ALONE brought down WTC 1 and 2?

Please don't keep overlooking the importance of NIST having stuck out its neck on assuring the world it was IMPACT and FIRES and NOTHING ELSE - scientifically proven! Haha.

There's your coverup staring you in the face.

God knows what NIST will say about WTC 7 (final report still pending).

Sad thing is that among the dozens of technicians involved in the NIST report, at least one or more of them knows, deep in his private heart, that he's a pawn in the coverup of a false flag operation.

Therefore, if the political wing of this Neocon cabal suddenly pulls the rug out from under NIST's little scientistic charade with a limited hangout to the effect that "OK we couldn't say it before, due to Nat Sec reasons, but it WAS explosives after all", then that one lonely little NIST mouse is likely to get angry at the total humiliation and maybe he will go public with his story.

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Sitting-Bull said...

But with Kevin Ryan such person exists already:

12:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A related aspect of the previous limited hangout re: insurance requirement is the following:

The stated intention of the 1993 bombing at the WTC by Ramzi Yousef and co. was to topple one tower into the next tower and to have both fall over a large area creating a large swath of damage.

The intention and the determination shown by Ramzi Yousef and the group he was working with (Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, UBL, and others) to return and make sure they got it "right" i.e., knock both towers into surrounding area and cause great damage. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense that the authorities would add "safety" features that would allow them to bring the towers down in a controlled way should it prove necessary in a possible future attack?

In fact, one could even argue that it would be negligent of the authorities to not do this. Imagine the destruction if the both WTC towers (or any other ancillary but still large WTC buildings e.g. WTC 7) were to be toppled over. They could potentially take out many blocks of buildings and kill and injure many more people depending on how they fell, compared to a controlled demolition (where they fall into their footprint) in the event it was necessary after another bombing attempt that threatened to topple the towers.

It is very easy to imagine a covert "public works" operation to have provided the authorities the capability to preempt any uncontrolled collapses of the WTC towers in the even another bombing successfully toppled either or both of them. It would also be very easy for public officials and private contractors to undertake this work in good faith along with the secrecy it would necessitate, simply because it could potentially save lives and property in the event of another attack on the WTC. You certainly wouldn't advertise such a potentially controversial measure.

After the 1993 bombing attempts, significant security upgrades were undertaken at the WTC. This is when the "safety upgrades" would have been done. There were also other "security" and "repair" events done prior to the 9/11 attacks, some as recent as two weeks before. This could have been inspections or tests of demolition wiring and explosives were still viable. Investigators should be looking at who did this work and see what people have to say.

However, it is quite believable that these people would have kept and continue to keep their silence about installing explosives and wiring that would bring the towers down in a controlled demolition even after 9/11. Plausibly, there does not need to be a connection between the "safety" precautions being ordered and the buildings being hit by jets piloted by terrorists. Even though the buildings were brought down by their controlled demolition, it is very reasonable that the workers believe their precautionary efforts actually saved lives and property (relative to uncontrolled collapses). This is why they would hold their silence, even though it unwittingly assists the larger, treasonous, immoral acts of omission and distortion by those persons and agencies that conspired to allow the attacks to happen in the first place and then cover them up (a la Mike Ruppert, Paul Thompson, David Ray Griffin, Ahmad Nafaz, etc).

The only doubts these workers might have is: would these buildings would have collapsed, if the controlled demolition were not done.

In this light, we can better understand how public officials could have had knowledge that the buildings were going to come down but still not be complicit in the wider conspiracy. They will keep their secret for a variety of reasons including some have become “heroes”, others have had political or ideological agendas fulfilled, and still others have gained financially. Of course, it is very believable that they believe they did the "right" thing. Also in this light, any rewards for their silence need not be interpreted as hush money, as instead a reward for a job well done.

Finally though, which person would want to admit to taking part in such a controversial action? It is one thing to order the shoot-down of a hijacked passenger jet threatening to crash into the Congress, but quite another thing entirely to order the controlled demolition of a tower that is not in danger of ever collapsing.

4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A question worthwhile asking then is, How many other buildings in NYC, for that matter in the USA, are fitted with devices to meet with this insurance requirement?

3:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home