Parallels Between Pearl Harbor and 9/11

While it occurred some 60 years ago, the attack on Pearl Harbor provides vital information for understanding current events.

Intelligence Failures

Initially, as shown by this BBC special (which contains interviews with some of the key players), America knew of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor -- down to the exact date of the attack -- and allowed it to happen to justify America's entry into World War II. The case for foreknowledge is even more definitively made by this short essay by a highly-praised historian summarizing some of the key points (the historian, a World War II veteran, actually agreed with this strategy for getting America into the war, and so does not have any axe to grind).

Indeed, the White House apparently had, a year before Pearl Harbor, launched an 8-point plan to provoke Japan into war against the U.S. (including, for example, an oil embargo). The rationale for this provocation is that the U.S. wanted to aid its allies in fighting the Nazis and other axis powers, and decided that an attack by Japan would be the most advantageous justification for the U.S. to enter WWII.

Active Interference with Military's Ability to Defend

It has also recently been discovered that the FDR administration took numerous affirmative steps to ensure that the Japanese attack would be successful. These steps included taking extraordinary measures to hide information from the commanders in Hawaii about the location of Japanese war ships (information of which they would normally be informed), denying their requests to allow them to scout for Japanese ships, and other actions to blind the commanders in Hawaii so that the attacks would succeed. See, for example, this book (page 186).

Key Military Players Incommunicado

In addition, the heads of the Army and Navy suddenly diappeared and remained unreachable on the night before Pearl Harbor. And they would later testify over and over that they "couldn't remember" where they were (pages 320 and 335).

Gagging Whistleblowers

Two weeks after Pearl Harbor, the Navy classified all documents TOP SECRET, and the Navy Director of Communications sent a memo ordering all commanders to "destroy all notes or anything in writing" related to the attacks. More importantly, all radio operators and cryptographers were gagged on threat of imprisonment and loss of all benefits. (page 256)

Scapegoating and labels of "conspiracy theory"

The commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were scapegoated as being the cause for the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor (they were recently cleared by Congress).

And, according to a statement made to me privately by a leading Pearl Harbor scholar, the government repeatedly denied foreknowledge and labeled anyone who discussed the military's prior knowledge of the attacks as a nutty conspiracy theorist.

Media Complicity

Amazingly, the Army’s Chief of Staff informed the Washington bureau chiefs of the major newspapers and magazines of the impending attacks BEFORE THEY OCCURRED, and swore them to an oath of secrecy, which the media honored (page 361); and listen to interview here (I personally spent an hour speaking with the historian making this claim, and find him highly credible.).

In other words, there apparently was a conspiracy between the government and media regarding the impending Pearl Harbor attacks.

SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH

As discussed below, the parallels of Pearl Harbor to September 11th are numerous.

Intelligence Failures

As with Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks:

According to MSNBC, "There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets".

For example, a 1998 report forwarded from the FBI to the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that "a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center"

The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio

It was widely known within the FBI shortly before 9/11 that an imminent attack was planned on lower Manhattan.

An employee who worked in the south tower stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on"

A guard who worked in the world trade center stated that "officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks"

Moreover, the newly-revealed "Able Danger" intelligence program tracked Mohammad Atta and other alleged hijackers well before September 11th. Indeed, a former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President has recently stated in a letter sent to the New York Times that the NSA was tracking all of the alleged hijackers before September through wiretaps.

And it is known that military bases, such as the Navy's Sixth Fleet Ocean Surveillance Information Facility in Rota, Spain, have for many years produced daily reports on all Middle East activity. There are also mobile intel station on large naval vessels which monitor electronic communications in the Middle East. In addition, Bin Laden was reported to have used walkie-talkies which required booster stations with easily-interceptible signals.

Moreover, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland, had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run.

And the military had conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon. For example, see this official military website showing a military drill conducted in 2000 using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

The military had also run war games involving multiple, simultaneous hijackings (first paragraph), so this aspect of 9/11 was not as overwhelming as we have been led to believe.

See this short excerpt of a Peter Jennings newscast on 9/11 (excuse the music and subtitles)

Other evidence also indicates that the U.S. knew of the impending attacks:

In June-Aug 2001, German intelligence warned the CIA that Middle Eastern terrorists were training for hijackings and targeting American interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin alerted the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on U.S. targets. In late July, a Taliban emissary warned the US that bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil. In August, Israel warned of an imminent Al Qaeda attack. See, for example, this article from Fox News and this article from the Independent

In July 2001, Bin Laden is alleged to have received kidney treatment at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his stay, bin Laden is alleged to have been visited by one or two CIA agents. See this Guardian article, this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, this story from the London Times, and and this one from United Press International

On July 26, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment . In May 2002, Ashcroft walked out of his own office rather than answer questions about it.

On August 6, 2001, President Bush received an intelligence briefing warning that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. Titled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the briefing specifically mentioned the World Trade Center. See this Washington Post story, and the actual partially-declassified briefing.

On August 27, 2001, an FBI supervisor said he was trying to keep a hijacker from “flying a plane into the World Trade Center.” (Senate Report Hill #2. FBI headquarters chastised him for notifying the CIA.

On September 10th, intelligence services intercepted messages between the alleged lead hijacker and the mastermind behind 9/11 stating "the match begins tomorrow" and "tomorrow is zero hour"

Is it a coincidence that "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns" (pay-per-view; cached version of article here)?

And on 9/11 itself, data recovery experts extracted data from 32 damaged world trade center computer drives. The data revealed a surge in financial transactions shortly before the attacks. Illegal transfers of over $100 million may have been made through some trade center computer systems immediately before and during the 9/11 disaster. See this article and this one.

And anyone who still doubts that the government intentionally let 9/11 happen should consider this. While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, this short video clip of the Secretary of Transportation's testimony before the 9/11 Commission shows that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon. How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Active Interference with Military's Ability to Defend

As with Pearl Harbor, the government actively interfered with the military and intelligence agencies' ability to prevent the attack:

As stated above, the FBI chastised an agent for spreading information to the CIA about potential attacks against the Twin Towers.

And as shown as this already-referenced video clip, Dick Cheney repeatedly told military personnel "the order still stands" as he watched flight 77 approach and then strike the Pentagon. Was the "order" that the plane should be allowed to continue, without interception?

In addition, in May 2001, for the third time, US security chiefs rejected Sudan’s offer of thick files on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. A senior CIA source calls it “the worst single intelligence failure in the business.”

The Bush administration also told the FBI to "back off" on its Bin Laden investigation before 9/11.

And the FBI and CIA inexplicably ignored warnings from its own agents (see also this essay).

In addition, 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers failed to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only 6 were interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. See also this article. Two top senators say that if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. Indeed, the former head of the Visa department in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said that the U.S. intentionally facilitated terrorists entering the country. And see this BBC video (or transcript is here).

And this essay describes several additional ways in which certain high-level officials actively interfered with the military's ability to defend against the attacks.

Key Military Decision-Makers Unavailable

On September 11th, as during Pearl Harbor, all of the key military players were mysteriously unavailable and out of the loop when they were needed.

Whistleblowers Gagged

As with Pearl Harbor, key whistleblowers have been gagged. See, for example, this article. As another example, key sections of former anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke's book were edited out.

Innocent People Scapegoated

Just like the commanders in Hawaii were scapegoated for Pearl Harbor, the CIA has been scapegoated for pre-9/11 "intelligence failures" and the Federal Aviation Administration was scapegoated for failing to notify the military of the hijacked planes.

As demonstrated above, there were no intelligence failures, as the government knew of the impending attacks. See also this article on "intelligence failures".

And the FAA, in fact, did not delay in informing the military about the hijacked planes, as shown in this article.

Media Complicity

Finally, as with Pearl Harbor, the American media has studiously avoided any substantive coverage of the government's involvement in 9/11, and has attempted to paint anyone who questioned the official version of events as a "conspiracy theorist".

And since many news reporters, including reporters from the BBC (and see this BBC clip; BBC clips authenticated here, here, and here), CNN and other stations reported the collapse of Building 7 before it actually fell, the question of media complicity should be investigated.

Postscript: There is one final parallel. Remember Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission? Zelikow is the administration insider whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article). Well, Zelikow also wrote a hit piece on Pearl Harbor truth for the Council on Foreign Relations.
Note: This essay does not discuss the question of whether elements within the U.S. government or other persons assisted the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks in other ways. Scholars and researchers have made additional arguments in this regard, which are discussed elsewhere, and which must be judged on their own merit.

Nor does this essay discuss the question of whether 9/11 was a "false flag" operation or why the World Trade Centers collapsed on September 11th, which are discussed in numerous other essays on this blog and at 911Proof.com.

Intelligence Failures

Before deciding whether or not the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were simple "intelligence failures" (despite the existence of forgeries created to back up those claims), it might be helpful to take a quick look at history.

Initially, the U.S. Navy's own historians now say that the sinking of the USS Maine -- the justification for America's entry into the Spanish-American War -- was probably caused by an internal explosion of coal, rather than an attack by the Spanish.

It is also now well-accepted that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which led to the Vietnam war was a fiction (and see confirmation here).

Two lies were also used to justify the 1991 Gulf War: the statement that Iraqis murdered Kuwaiti babies and the statement that a quarter of a million Iraqi troops were massed on the border with Saudi Arabia (see also this article)(technically, the statement about Kuwaiti babies did not come from the U.S. government, but from a public relations firm hired by the government).

And while historians admittedly disagree, and while America's defeat of the German, Japanese and Italian fascists may have been a very good thing, a BBC special (which contains interviews with some of the key players), found it likely that America knew of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor — down to the exact date of the attack — and allowed it to happen to justify America's entry into World War II. See also this short essay by a highly-praised historian summarizing some of the key points (the historian, a World War II veteran, actually agreed with this strategy for getting America into the war, and so does not have any axe to grind). The Pearl Harbor "conspiracy" — if true — would have involved hundreds of military personnel. Moreover, the White House apparently had, a year earlier, launched an 8-point plan to provoke Japan into war against the U.S. (including, for example, an oil embargo) And — most stunning — the FDR administration took numerous affirmative steps to ensure that the Japanese attack would be successful.

Given the history of deception used to justify the Spanish-American War, WWII, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War, is it likely that "intelligence failures" were the reason for the government's false Iraqi WMD claims? Or was this the cynical use of deliberately-faked intelligence to rally the American public behind a war which policy-makers had previously decided to get us into?

And what does this history of deception imply about 9/11?

An Introduction to False Flag Terror

It is widely known that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

And it has now been persuasively argued -- as shown, for example, in this History Channel video -- that Nazis set fire to their own government building and blamed that fire on others (if you have trouble playing the clip, it is because the website hosting the clip requires you to download the clip before playing it). The fire was the event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties.

And in the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers). Israel's Defense Minister was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government. See also this confirmation.

And the Russian KGB apparently conducted a wave of bombings in Russia in order to justify war against Chechnya and put Vladimir Putin into power.

The Turkish government has carried out bombings and blamed it on the PKK in order to justify a crackdown on that group.

This is called "false flag terrorism", where a government attacks its own people then blames others in order to justify its goals

But NOT the U.S.

It is logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis), the U.S. has never done so.

Well, as shown by this BBC special (which contains interviews with some of the key players), it is probable that America knew of the Japanese plan to attack Pearl Harbor -- down to the exact date of the attack -- and allowed it to happen to justify America's entry into World War II. See also this short essay by a highly-praised historian summarizing some of the key points (the historian, a World War II veteran, actually agreed with this strategy for getting America into the war, and so does not have any axe to grind). The Pearl Harbor conspiracy involved hundreds of military personnel. Moreover, the White House apparently had, a year earlier, launched an 8-point plan to provoke Japan into war against the U.S. (including, for example, an oil embargo). And -- most stunning -- the FDR administration took numerous affirmative steps to ensure that the Japanese attack would be successful.

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of U.S. and foreign special forces, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

Therefore, before you dismiss as a tinfoil hat conspiracy claims about 9/11, please take a look at the historical record.

Postscript: the examples discussed above are only a small handful of the many potential examples of false flag operations. Just two more examples:

Australia's largest newspaper quoted the well-respected former Indonesian president as saying that the government had a role in the Bali bombings (apparently, Muslim governments play this game as well)

And according to the London Times, "The man accused of supplying the dynamite used in the al-Qaeda train bombings in Madrid was in possession of the private telephone number of the head of Spain's Civil Guard bomb squad . . . . The revelation has raised fresh concerns in Madrid about links between those held responsible for the March bombings, which killed 190 people, and Spain’s security services". See also this article showing that two of the bombers appear to be government informants.

Heavy Metal

The steel from the debris of the World Trade Centers provides evidence that the buildings were demolished.

Specifically, metal tests on steel remains from the world trade center show something never before seen in building fires: reactions which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." Sulfur and other elements commonly used in high-explosives were also found. The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." (this quote is contained in the following link)

As stated by the scientists who studied this phenomenon:

"A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges -- which are curled like a paper scroll -- have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes -- some larger than a silver dollar -- let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending -- but not holes"

Moreover, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7 (the third building in the World Trade Center to collapse on 9/11):

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view); or see a cached version of the article here.

Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5000 degrees Fahrenheit. Everyone agrees that fires from conventional building fires are thousands of degrees cooler than that.

In addition, there was molten metal running under ground zero for months after 9/11. So far, no reports of molten metal from any previous building fire have surfaced.

And while some have attempted to argue that molten metal under the Twin Towers was caused by the enormous friction created by the collapse of the 110-story giants, building 7 -- which was only 47 stories high -- seems to have experienced the same temperatures as the Twin Towers. Specifically, this thermal image of ground zero with an overlay of the demolished buildings, taken five days after 9/11, shows that the debris under building 7 (the trapezoid-shaped building at the upper right) was about as hot as under the Twin Towers. See this web page (lower left) for an explanation of the thermal image, this aerial photo showing the shape of WTC7, and the maps contained here which confirms which building is building 7 on the thermal image. The friction argument simply doesn't work, since a 47-story building cannot have experienced nearly as much friction as 110-story buildings. And remember it was building 7 which experienced partial evaporation of its steel beams.

The sulfur and other unusual chemicals, gaping holes, partial evaporation of steel, and molten metal from the trade centers are therefore very strong evidence of controlled demolition.

Pumped Up

The pilot who supposedly crashed the huge Boeing 757 into the Pentagon on 9/11, Hani Hanjour, had terrible piloting skills:

Flight instructors from a flying school Hanjour attended 7 months before 9/11 "considered him a very bad pilot." 'I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,' the former employee said. 'He could not fly at all.'" (free registration lets you view the article). (See also this article)

When flight instructors took Hanjour on test runs LESS THAN A MONTH before 9/11, they found he had trouble controlling and landing even a small, single-engine airplane with simple flight controls

As one newspaper put it: His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots.

And yet Hanjour supposedly executed an exceedingly difficult maneuver on 9/11:

The Washington Post states, "The unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver . . . . Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill." (or see cached version of article here)

CBS news reported, "The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a down-ward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

And ABC news wrote, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane . . . ."

"In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital . . . . But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver."

Could a guy who "could not fly at all" have pulled off top gun fighter-ace style piloting?

Ticketless?

Hanjour's "name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket." No ticket? How'd he get on the flight?

In fact, someone named "Mosear Caned" was originally mentioned as the hijacker of the flight, not Hanjour. While it is difficult for Americans to spell Arabic names, Mosear Caned doesn't sound anything like Hani Hanjour.

Pumped Up

Hanjour was described as being "skinny", "slender" and "boyish". See this article and this article.

Here is Hanjour shown on his 2000 visa application. Here's Hanjour in two official FBI photos (bottom two pictures). And here's Hanjour in a photo taken at an ATM shortly before 9/11 (guy on left)(picture can be viewed with free registration).

I am always hesitant to discuss blurry pictures, as they are not the best source of evidence. But take a look at this airport security photo supposedly showing Hanjour on 9/11 (Hanjour is supposed to be the guy in front, wearing the black shirt and black slacks). This same photo appeared in newspapers throughout the country -- see for example here , here , and here.

Does this blocky guy look like the skinny Hanjour? Sure, he could grow a beard. But does the face look anything like him? And -- more importantly -- does the blocky body look like the very recent pictures of the skinny Hanjour?

Don't black clothes make people look thinner?

I'm not saying this is conclusive proof of anything. I'm just asking whether we are being told the full story. And if Associated Press mistakenly identified the guy in black as Hanjour, why isn't anyone correcting the mistake?

Hanjour "Could Not Fly at All"

The pilot who supposedly crashed the huge Boeing 757 into the Pentagon on 9/11, Hani Hanjour, had terrible piloting skills:

Flight instructors from a flying school Hanjour attended 7 months before 9/11 "considered him a very bad pilot." 'I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,' the former employee said. 'He could not fly at all.'" (free registration lets you view the article). (See also this article)

When flight instructors took Hanjour on test runs LESS THAN A MONTH before 9/11, they found he had trouble controlling and landing even a small, single-engine airplane with simple flight controls

As one newspaper put it: His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots.

And yet Hanjour supposedly executed an exceedingly difficult maneuver on 9/11:

The Washington Post states, "The unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver . . . . Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill."

CBS news reported, "The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn. Radar shows Flight 77 did a down-ward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."

And ABC news wrote, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane . . . ."

"In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital . . . . But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver."

In addition to these fighter jet pilot like maneuvers, Hanjour supposedly flew the 757 a few feet off of the ground for several hundred feet before plowing into the West Wing of the Pentagon, a very difficult feat even for the world's most experienced pilots.

Could a guy who "could not fly at all" have pulled off top gun fighter-ace style piloting?

As retired Naval aviator and commercial airline pilot Ted Muga says:

"The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

When a commercial airplane gets that high, it get very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.

***

Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible."

Thermal Images and Molten Metal Indicate that High-Explosives Brought Down the World Trade Center

When confronted with evidence that high-explosives brought down the World Trade Centers, people often come up with very creative arguments in an attempt to defend the official story.

For example, molten metal was found under ground zero, even though the government's own metal experts have stated that the fires in the Twin Towers were not hot enough to melt steel.

Some people have attempted to rebut this evidence by saying that the enormous heat necessary to create and sustain molten metal was created by the friction created by 110-story buildings collapsing in on themselves. In other words, the argument is that the gravitational energy released by the collapse of the gigantic Twin Towers created tremendous amounts of friction as parts of these huge structures crashed into other parts -- which in turn generated sufficient heat to melt the Towers' strong structural steel.

However, World Trade Center building 7 -- which collapsed later in the day on 9/11 -- was only 47 stories tall, and substantially less massive than the Twin Towers. And yet WTC7 apparently experienced equally high temperatures as the Twin Towers after collapse.

Specifically, this thermal image of ground zero with an overlay of the demolished buildings, taken five days after 9/11, shows that the debris under building 7 (the trapezoid-shaped building at the upper right) was about as hot as under the Twin Towers. See this web page (lower left) for an explanation of the thermal image, this aerial photo showing the shape of WTC7, and the maps contained here which confirms which building is building 7 on the thermal image. See also these thermal images.

Are those arguing against demolition of the trade centers saying that the collapse of 47-story building 7 generated the same amount of friction as the collapse of the mammoth 110-story Twin Towers? If not, why were the temperatures at WTC7 as high as at the Twin Towers five days after the collapses?

High-Level Officials Warn of Fake Terror

A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one.

Background

FBI agents, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and The Washington Post and Rolling Stone have all stated that the administration has issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes

More to the point, a former prominent republican congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the Bush administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.

General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".

Current U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated, the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

Terror on U.S. Citizens by American Government?

But would the government actually kills its own people to instill sufficient fear so that it can get what it wants? Read what the following very smart people are saying, and then judge for yourself:

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said:

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" He goes on to say:

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

A member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically

The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline.

No way, That's Nuts

Sounds nuts, right?

Sorry to have to tell you, but "false flag terror" -- that is, state-sponsored terrorism, blamed on the "bad guys" of choice -- is an age-old trick which has been used by governments around the world for thousands of years to consolidate power and create support from their people. See this article on the Reichstag fire, and this article on the perennial ploy of those grabbing power.

But even very recent events provide a glimpse into the world of false flag terror:

On October 12, 2005, Australia's largest newspaper quoted the well-respected former Indonesian president as saying that the government had a role in the Bali bombings

And Americans dressed as Arabs have apparently been setting off car bombs in Iraq (apparently, when it was discovered that some of the cars used in Iraqi bombings recently came from the U.S., the cover story became American cars were involved in car bombings only because they had recently been stolen from the U.S. and then shipped to Iraq -- but does it make senes that Iraqi insurgents would steal cars in the U.S. and ship them all the way to Iraq?)

Similarly, Britain's false flag attacks in Basra made the news in September. And the press has acknowledged that the death of the lead investigator into the Basra incident was mysterious.

And 9/11 itself was a false flag terror operation.

History proves that the officials' warnings of a terror attack by our own government are well-founded.

Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?

Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3).

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

See also witness statements at the beginning of this video.

For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper. Also see this essay showing that the post-collapse temperatures under Building 7 were very similar to those under Buildings 1 and 2, even though Buildings 1 and 2 were much higher.

Found: Blueprint for the Twin Towers

This post has been superseded by the recent release of blueprints by a whistleblower. Please see This press release and this short analysis.

Too Hot

The fact that the World Trade Centers were brought down with high-explosives can be proven by the extreme temperatures which remained at ground zero for months.

Specifically, it rained heavily on September 14, 2001

Yet, as of September 18, 2001, ABC reported that "the temperature at the core of 'the pile,' is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to"

It rained again on September 21, 2001, and on some other days during the next couple months (search other dates under "History & Almanac")

Yet fires were still burning 3 months later

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history"

As if that weren't enough, liquid metal and glowing debris were found at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11. See also additional accounts of molten metal here (under the heading "What caused the molten steel in the residue at WTC towers?")

Could an office fire -- even one started by burning jet fuel -- have done that? The answer is clearly negative.

Initially, normal office fires do not create liquid metal.

Moreover, normal office fires would have been extinguished by the collapse of the buildings they were housed in. In other words, ignoring the reason the towers collapsed, the collapse itself should have extinguished virtually all of the fire due to air pressure and the tremendous mass and collision forces crushing the burning materials.

The fires would have also been quickly doused by the tremendous amount of high tech foams and water to which they were subjected. It rained, but more importantly, "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero.

"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."