Most of the worlds major events, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the terrible consequences of those invasions including the hideous tortures and deaths at Abu Ghraib, the massacres of countless villagers in Afghanistan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis through bombings and shootings, the daily sectarian killings, the expenditure of billions upon billions of dollars, the threat of further expansion of the Middle East war, the deaths of over 12,000 allied soldiers, not just those that died on the battlefield but those that have since died of their wounds and remain uncounted in the official lists,[1] and the many thousands of others that have been injured; all of this has been as a direct result of the events of 11 September 2001.
All that has happened has been because George W. Bush told the world that the terrible events of 11 September 2001 were the work of ‘terrorists’. Everything that Bush has done since has been done in the name of the events of 11 September 2001. The killings, the treatment of prisoners, the torture, the deaths of US and allied soldiers, the spending of those billions of dollars have all been justified by Bush because of the events of 11 September 2001.
But what if the events of 11 September turned out not to be the work of the ‘terrorists’ that Bush claimed. Or worse, what if it turned out that elements within or associated with the Bush administration were complicit in the ‘terrorist’ attacks on America on 11 September 2001. There has been massive amounts speculation about these possibilities ever since the day it happened but despite the huge amounts of circumstantial evidence that suggests that there was more to the events of 11 September 2001 than we are being told, we haven’t yet had any substantive evidence that could demonstrate conclusively that it didn’t happen the way the Bush administration has told us it happened – at least not until now.
Just recently emerging is the strongest pieces of evidence[2] yet that show that all is not well with the official story of the events 11 September 2001. They relate not to the spectacular collapse of the Twin Towers after they had been hit by airliners or to the mysterious circumstances of the explosion at the Pentagon over which there is much controversy– but it relates to the collapse of WTC Building 7; a collapse that, at the time, virtually went unnoticed happening as it did on the same day as the main event as it were.
The collapse of the Twin Towers will always be controversial but as the evidence regarding the collapse of WTC7 emerges so the controversy about how the building collapsed recedes, because it is so obvious that it was taken down by professional demolition explosives in a controlled implosion, rather than spontaneously collapsing due to fire, but as the question of ‘how’ is resolved so the questions of ‘who’ and ‘why’ take over.
The moment the mainstream media accept that, indeed, WTC Building 7 was deliberately demolished by placed explosives then the whole edifice that is the foundation of all that has happened so far this century will begin to crumble just like a house of cards.
And when it does it will be just as spectacular as the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center – and just as messy.
ENDNOTES
[1] Brian Harring, ‘Over 12000 US Soldiers Killed in Iraq War’, The Harring Report, 7 January 2007 Available online: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-09-07/discussion.cgi.58.html Accessed 13 February 2007.
[2] Paul Watson, ‘NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs’, Prisonplanet.com, 10 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm Accessed 13 February 2007.
See also: Paul Watson and Alex Jones, ‘More Ground Zero Heroes on the Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down’, Prisonplanet.com, 9 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm Accessed 13 February 2007, and Paul Watson, ‘Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was Going to be “Pulled”’, Prisonplanet.com, 8 February 2007. Available online: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm Accessed 13 February 2007.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
17 comments:
Damian,
As you say Building 7 is a key to understanding what happened on Sept. 11.
I would say to anyone that doubts this to take a straw poll among your acquaintances. Ask them how many buildings went down. Suddenly you will find that your friends, people of normal intelligence don't know about Building 7.
Why was the media so quiet, and continues to be about this?
Terrence, I am not sure this is a useful thing to do.
Most people will (obviously) recall the attacks on the two main towers by the passenger jets. To many people this will, as I think you suggest, the strongest element of their memory of the day.
How many buildings went down? well it is certainly more than the two towers and WTC 7. According to a couple of reports online hat I found without much trouble, five other buildings on the WTC site were destroyed as a result of the attacks. Other buildings were badly damaged (one report says 25 in Manhatten, plus one church near the WTC site).
If a person says that two buildings came down that day (the towers) and does not know about WTC 7 then it might show a lack of understanding of the extent of the events that day. However, if a conspiracy theorist (and I use the term non-perjoratively) explains that three buildings came down (WTC 1 and 2, WTC 7) then they would also be wrong.
I think in both cases the person responding is outlining what they consider to be the most important destructions of the day. For the "people of normal intelligence" you refer to it is the Twin Towers. For conspiracy theorists it might be that WTC 7 is more important.
In any case, though, I don't think a response which doesn't include all seven buildings (smaller, indeed, but some only a few floors shorter than South Australia's tallest building) that went down demonstrates a lack of understanding of the events that day, only a selective memory.
Anon,
Of course I knew there were more buildings that were destroyed.
My point was, and remains that the media in Australia and the US have made very little (if any) mention of building 7 at the time of 911, and since it.
So most people are unaware because they were never told, not because of selective memory. Of course building 7 a 47 story steel reinforced structure came down in exactly the same way as the towers that were hit by aircraft.
I don't know what happened on that day, but there sure are a lot of questions that remain to be answered.
Even the 911 Report is inconclusive about the cause of Building 7's collapse, stating:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
Did you notice the phrase in the 2nd last para "even the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence".
You might be satisfied with the answers to date. I'm not, and apparently even the 911 Commission isn't satisfied with the explanation of Building 7.
Perhaps you can provide a link where the further investigation resolved the outstanding issues.
Anonymous, there were indeed many buildings destroyed on 11 September 2001 but apparently only WTC7 fell after a broadcast 20 second countdown.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm
Terrence, I understand you are aware that more than two buildings came down. Apologies if what i wrote suggested otherwise to you.
I am happy with the explanation given by the 9/11 Commission and I know that brings me into conflict with both you and Damian. However, just as you have read a lot on the topic and become convinced the 9/11 report is lacking in some ways, I have also read alternate explanations for 9/11 and become convinced they do not stand up to scrutiny, either. This is not to say that the 9/11 report is perfect - though it may be - but it is the explanation that has convinced me. I expect it would be rather a waste of time for you to try and convince me of why the 9/11 Comm. report is wrong just as it is likely a waste of time for me to try and convince someone it is right if they already believe the opposite.
Damian, the link you point to is interesting in that it suggests a countdown on a radio channel. The EMT worker heard this and one assumes others did, too. Indeed, the article suggests that others on his/her team heard the same thing as he/she did. But why did no one else come forward publicly? An open channel is easily recorded and an EMT one often so for later reference. Why are there no recordings of this countdown? Why has it taken six years for this person to come forward - and even then only to an independent documentary maker?
If he is the only one to come forward - despite telling us that others heard the same transmission - does this mean everyone else is in on the conspiracy, too? I realise it doesn't HAVE to mean this but it is one possibility.
BTW - I am sure you have posted an account of what you think happened on 9/11 and the involvement of the US government (whatever that may be, even if just as 'persons who failed to act' from your POV). Is there a post of yours you can direct me to, sort of an 'index' post?
Anonymous, you ask: “But why did no one else come forward publicly? An open channel is easily recorded and an EMT one often so for later reference. Why are there no recordings of this countdown? Why has it taken six years for this person to come forward - and even then only to an independent documentary maker?”
Short answer: Fear. But now that people are coming forward then perhaps others will do so as well.
I do not know what happened on 11 September 2001, but as an aeronautical engineer and as a pilot that has been flying all sorts of aircraft for the past 43 years, and still flying regularly, I can tell you what didn't happen on 11 September 2001 and it most definitely didn't happen the way the US government is telling us it happened.
Is there a post you have laid out an alternate explanation, Damian? I know you have written on conspiracy theories as theories, but have you addressed the 9/11 events specifically in a long post?
'Fraid not, anonymous. I have touched on a few possibilities and alternative scenarios but, as I said, I don't know what happened - I only know what didn't happen.
The easiest alternative explantion in terms of security for a false flag operation is where the aircraft is taken over by remote controllers. I say easiest because such an operation would not need that many people to be involved and also the technology is relatively simple. All one needs is access to the aircraft for about a day to fit it out with the remote servos and over-ride actuator links and the appropriate radio reciever gear and you've got yourself an aircraft that you can control from any where in the world.
Take a look here to see what I mean: http://www.northropgrumman.com/unmanned/
Better still, anon, take a look at this page of the Northrop-Grumman site. Take note of the date if there is any doubt about the technology being available at the time. (In fact it's been available for many, many years.)
http://www.northropgrumman.com/unmanned/globalhawk/overview.html#Australia
Interesting, Damian.
By 'false flag' do you mean on behalf of the US government or another government?
Also, would the possible situation as you suggest also involve people on board to take the pilots out of commission? Or would the remote-control system be unstoppable?
In the first case I would wonder why not use regular pilots to take out the uninvolved commercial pilots. Surely if you need someone up there they could crash the plane for you.
In the second case, wouldn't there be some sort of radio contact by the pilot who had effectively lost control of the airplane? Wouldn't this be the first thing a pilot would do - make radio contact with someone?
By ‘false flag’ I mean that the event was arranged by one party in such a way that it would seem that another party was responsible so that the finger of blame can be pointed toward that party. It happens a lot. (Lavon Affair, Gulf of Tonkin, Operations Northwoods, etc.)
Once control of the aircraft had been taken over by the remote system there would have been no way that anyone on board would have been able to override the remote system.
As for your other questions; as I said I don’t know what happened; I only know what didn’t happen – and it didn’t happen the way the US government says it happened. The remote control scenario is presented merely as a plausible possibility.
OK, thanks for the clarification on false flag.
I don't think we can call the remote control attack 'plausible' though. While you do say you don't know what did happen, we DO know what was said over the radios by some of the planes and by some passengers (though not, to my knowledge, on the WTC planes).
In a false flag operation as you describe would these be faked also to give the impression of a terrorist takeover? Is it possible that the voices of passengers could be mimiced so well as to fool close relatives in conversation with them?
Such an operation seems a big step up from the Gulf of Tonkin, particularly for a government so inept as to be having such a hard time fighting a small force of insugents in Iraq.
Anonymous , whether or not ‘we’ – or you anyway – can call the remote control scenario plausible or not is niether here nor there unless your years of experience in the aviation industry are able to provide us with an explanation as to why it is not plausable.
You say: “…we DO know what was said over the radios by some of the planes and by some of the passengers”. By ‘planes’ you mean the crew I presume. You are wrong. None of the Cockpit Voice Recordings (CVRs) have been released so we do not know at all what was said by any of the aircrews. There are some recordings purported to have been made by cabin crew and we are told that some passengers made some cell (mobile) phone calls. Unfortunately with the cell phone story there is a big problem; in 2001 the technology did not allow for cell phones to be used in airliner flight. The ability to use a cell phone in airliner flight is only a recent innovation. Forget cell phone; didn’t happen. In 2001, if passengers wanted to make phone calls then they were made via the aircrafts VHF radio telehone, known as R/T, on a discreet airline company frequency to the companys base transciever where it was then patched in to the regular telephone system. Since the controls for the radio are on the flight deck which we are told was occupied by the hijackers then I doubt that any calls were made via the R/T system.
You say: “Is it possible that the voices of passengers could be mimiced so well as to fool close relatives in conversation with them?” What close relatives? Who said there were close relatives being spoken to and via what communications system? Are you saying the government told us that some passengers spoke to close relatives on a cell phone while they were being hijacked? Are you talking about the same government that told us that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was trying to buy uranium from Niger and was up to his ears in the events of 11 September 2001 with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?
You say: “Such an operation seems a big step up from the Gulf of Tonkin, particularly for a government so inept as to be having such a hard time fighting a small force of insugents in Iraq.” Who said the government per se had anything to do with it? And besides, if you think its beyond the scope of the massive resources of the US government then what makes you think that some bloke living in a cave in Afghanistan could have organised it?
"Who said the government had anything to do with it?". Perhaps I presumed incorrectly. When you suggested it was a 'false flag' operation and you gave examples of previous events you say are 'false flags', all involved governments. From your question should I presume you suspect it was a false flag operation NOT carried out by a government or agents of a government?
I never said it is beyond the scope of the US government. Where did you get this impression?
I just don't believe that they had anything to do with it in the way you imply (through a 'false flag' operation).
The close relatives I was referring to were relatives of people on United 93. Despite your suggestion that phone calls from this height were impossible, the relatives on the ground spoke to people on the planes. I was just wondering how this could have been faked/achieved in a false flag operation.
PS - Wasn't there another comment here before? Was it deleted?
Anon, I can only repeat what I have said to you before - I do not know what did happen; I only know what didn't happen.
You say: "I never said it is beyond the scope of the US government. Where did you get this impression?" Perhaps it was from an earlier post of yours where you said: "Such an operation seems a big step up from the Gulf of Tonkin, particularly for a government so inept as to be having such a hard time fighting a small force of insugents in Iraq."
There was a post before yours which I have since deleted. It was sent by an extreme right-wing Islamophobic warmonger who had nothing sensible to contribute.
Hi Damian and friends.
That night, Marlene and I sat up until dawn, channel surfing - watching, listening. All the local TV stations had their satellite links hooked up.
So much of what we saw and heard that night, simply disappeared over the next couple of days. Disappeared - expunged from the official narrative. Gone! I can't believe we have such teeny attention spans and such short memories. Was no-one paying attention? We noticed the bait and switch over the next couple of days as the official conspiracy theory solidified, based on some papers said to be found in a car.
Do you honestly believe in the derring-do of those plucky brown-skinned fly-boys? And three of them hit their target with a million to one shot. Sorry, we don't believe there was a human hand on the stick. We don't believe those planes alone could have demolished the buildings so utterly.
Here's why 9-11 truth is so important:
9-11 is the defining moment of the new millenium. It unleashed a wrecking-ball on the world. No one is safe from it.
But the usurpers of the US Government had to break cover and take great risks for such a bold and complex operation on that day. They can't hide forever behind political correctness and fake patriotism. On the day that a critical mass of Americans demand some real answers, the real perpetrators will be forced to cut and run. They are few and we are many. No amount of espionage, wiretapping or wealth will save their skins this time.
Don't believe in the mass murder theory? The death count in Iraq is about 655,000 and rising. According to my calculations that's two hundred and eighteen 9-11s, that the people of Iraq have been subjected to. Does anyone think the perpetrators give a damn? No way, Jose.
These are the people who have dogged us for decades with their dirty, phoney wars - but this time we'll get 'em.
OK truthseekers - game on!
Best wishes -
Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464
Good to hear from you Chris.
Even five and a half years later, I am still meeting people who have not yet heard about the 9/11 truth movement. Yet when I talk to them about it and show them where to look both on the net and at the library they express almost a kind of relief because they had thought all along that something wasn’t right with the story but had been afraid to discuss it through fear of being ridiculed.
That is now rapidly changing. It’s taken a while but as the US government lose credibility over the reasons for and the failure of the war in Iraq, so people are now falling back on to their original gut feeling about the events of 11 September 2001. Most people I talk to, even traditionally small ‘c’ conservative people, when I explain to them what it is all about usually respond with ‘You know, I knew there was something not quite right about all this from the very start but I couldn’t put my finger on what it was’.
As the truth slowly gets revealed, not just about 9/11 but everything else that has happened since, so hopefully will those responsible fall from power as their house of cards tumbles down and the world may then get yet another opportunity to start putting things right. After the dreadful wars of the last century and the opportunities the peace provided as each war ended were abused and thrown away, I don’t believe mankind can afford to miss another opportunity if and when it arises after the truth of what has happened during the first decade of this century is revealed.
Post a Comment