9/11 Anniversary: 15 Years Of HurtFirst Published: September 9, 2016 Last updated: April 2nd, 2018 Estimated Reading Time: 12 minutes 2 comments
Whose memory, if you’re old enough, wasn’t scorched by the 9/11 attacks? Mine certainly was. I remember witnessing the horror unfold on live TV. The Twin Towers coming down made me shake — literally — and I spent the rest of the day and evening in a daze, glued to the channel-to-channel coverage, such was my disbelief: did it really happen or did I see the latest release of a Towering Inferno movie franchise?
So now, here we are, at the 15th anniversary of 9/11 — anything but a happy anniversary. I see the UK’s TV channel More 4 is airing a series of documentaries to mark it.
In the years that followed, I kept abreast of the aftermath in the mainstream media —analysis of that day’s events; geopolitical ramifications; military interventions in the Middle East, etc. And I believed in the thoroughness and veracity of their analysis and reporting. Until, that is, in 2010, the work of the 9/11 Truth movement caught my attention and piqued my credulity.
The movement’s loose association of organisations comprising academics, technical professionals, reporters and authors have undertaken the monumental task of researching, examining, analysing and publishing all the available information about what happened before, during, and after 9/11. What they’ve found is an astonishing body of evidence suggesting that 9/11 was not an al-Qaeda operation but a false flag event. They dispute the official narrative that 19 terrorists hijacked four airliners, flying one into the Pentagon and two into the World Trade Center; and that heroic passengers overpowered the hijackers of the fourth plane, leading to its nose-diving into a field.
On this 15th anniversary, let’s take a look at some key aspects of that body of evidence — good reasons to be suspicious of the official narrative.
The Twin Towers: Downed By Explosion?
Iconic and symbolic of American financial might, the World Trade Center (WTC) was a sitting duck for a terrorist attack. Indeed, it was attacked before 9/11, in February 1993, with a truck-bomb. Six civilians died and over 1,000 were injured. So it was perhaps no big surprise that the Twin Towers were among the hijackers’ targets.
But what was a big surprise — utterly devastating — was that they both suffered total collapse. A big surprise to layman onlookers like me of course but also, and more importantly, a big surprise to expert architects and engineers.
Why? Because in the history of steel-framework high-rise buildings before and after 9/11, none has suffered a total collapse due to fire, yet there were two in the space of 29 minutes (and a third, WTC 7, around four hours later; see below). Rather, every total collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper in history has been caused by controlled demolition — i.e. by pre-placed, precisely-detonated explosives.
If collapse by controlled demolition rather than gravity alone was the case, there would likely be forensic evidence of explosives residue in the debris. Was there any? Yes. A group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen — and an expert in nano-chemistry — published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal in April 2009 titled Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
This documented the findings of experiments on small red-gray, bi-layered chips recovered from a number of independently sourced dust samples. These chips, it concluded, were unreacted nano-thermite.
Cue chemistry lesson: Ordinary thermite is a mix of powdered aluminium and iron oxide which, when ignited, reacts rapidly, producing molten iron and aluminium oxide. The molten iron can reach temperatures of 2,200° C (4,000° F), sufficient to cut structural steel, with its lesser melting point of around 1,500° C (2,750° F). Nano-thermite, meanwhile, is thermite in which the powder particles are manufactured at the infinitesimally small nanometre scale. (There are around 25.4 million nanometres in one inch or 25.4 mm). What this does is speed up the thermitic reaction, making it more explosive.
A tell-tale sign of a thermitic reaction having occurred is iron microspheres: tiny balls of solidified molten iron. Were they evident in the dust, too? Yes. Discovered by the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and others.
Further, more dramatic evidence of thermitic reaction was discovered in the rubble pile itself. The Fire Department of New York and others came across tons of molten iron. But could the office fires have been responsible? No. Office fires burn at around 760° C (1,400° F); iron/steel melts at around 1,500° C (2,750° F).
VIDEO: 9-11 Molten Steel Forensic Evidence & Eyewitness Accounts
But there’s more than just chemistry offering evidence of explosives. There’s physics: The forces dismembering the buildings’ structure. Having analysed the extensive video footage of the towers’ destruction using their expert technical knowledge, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have identified several characteristics that would be expected of controlled demolition:
- Both collapses showed extremely rapid onset. Were just gravity applying the force, a more gradual onset would have been seen.
- Steel sections weighing several tons were ejected sideways as far as 600ft (180m) away. (Some debris was actually ejected upwards). Gravity alone would not have been capable of that.
- Improbable symmetry: The debris scattered fairly evenly around the towers’ vertical axes. (And each tower’s disintegration looked more or less like the other’s.)
- The disintegration zone advanced downwards through the path of most resistance — resistance provided by the core steel columns and lower intact floors. Moreover, the collapse advanced at nearly free-fall acceleration. This strongly suggests that the resistance was progressively removed ahead of the disintegration zone.
Physics teacher and 9/11 researcher David Chandler has analysed video footage of the North Tower’s collapse; it reveals a number of these characteristics:
VIDEO: North Tower Exploding by David Chandler
Whilst the evidence for WTC 1 and WTC 2 being brought down by explosives is extremely compelling, the evidence for Building 7 also being destroyed by controlled demolition is even more so.
Building 7: Downed By IMplosion?
If you’re saying to yourself: “What’s Building 7?”, that’s probably because you’re among those who still think only the Twin Towers came down on 9/11. But it’s not your fault; the official narrative told through mainstream media has largely sought to downplay, if not totally ignore, the fact that a third skyscraper fell at the World Trade Center.
With its 47 storeys, WTC 7 was less than half the height of the Twin Towers, but at 610 ft (190 m) it would still have been the tallest building in thirty-three of the U.S.’s fifty states and second tallest in the UK. It stood 350 ft away from WTC 1.
The highly significant fact about Building 7 is this: It was not hit by a hijacked airliner, suffered relatively moderate fire damage due to WTC 1’s fall, yet around 4 hours after the second Twin Tower came down, it too suffered a total collapse. So in the history of steel-framed high-rise buildings, that’s the third to suffer total collapse due to fire… if the official narrative is to be believed… in the space of five and a half hours.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, again, have done a thorough analysis of the collapse — caught on video from several angles — and, again, have concluded that it shows all the signs of controlled demolition. Albeit by a different technique. The Twin Towers were EXploded floor by floor, top to bottom, whereas Building 7 was IMploded, meaning its internal steel columns were firstly dismembered, virtually simultaneously, leaving it to crumple under gravity from the ground up into a debris pile mostly within the building’s footprint.
VIDEO: Compiled Footage of Building 7’s Collapse
Architects and Engineers found that…
- It fell with even greater symmetry than WTCs 1 and 2 through the path of most resistance.
It took less than 7 seconds to collapse, the first 2.5 of these — the equivalent of about 8 storeys — in free-fall. Which means that for 2.5 seconds it fell with the same acceleration as, say, a brick dropped in thin air. That, the laws of Physics would not have permitted except under one condition: zero resistance. The laws of physics were fully operational on 9/11 as far we know, so the steel framework that would normally provide that resistance, holding the building up, must have been totally and expertly removed within seconds in a precisely-timed sequence.
- If you look at certain clips of Building 7, you’ll notice that just before it starts to go down, the penthouse on the roof collapses and there’s a kink in the roofline. This is good evidence that internal columns were first blown in such a way as to create an inward collapse of the walls, a demolition technique designed to reduce damage to adjacent buildings.
Of course, demolition blasts aren’t just observable; they’re audible, too. Although The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official investigating body, did its best to discount them, microphones did pick up the sounds of explosions and a number of witnesses have testified that they heard them.
VIDEO: WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
For my money, Building 7 and its initial freefall is the hottest chamber in the smokiest of the smoking guns that indicate the use of explosives.
But if you can accept controlled demolition as true, the next question, naturally, has to be: how the hell did the perpetrators gain access to those buildings in order to plant the explosives? Unfortunately, there’s scant available evidence — certainly no physics and chemistry — in support of answers to that question, though it hasn’t stopped some researchers from publishing informed speculation. That topic falls outside the scope of this article, though.
Among the dead at the World Trade Center were the alleged 9 hijackers of the two airliners: American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175 which hit the North and South Towers respectively. But there’s good research to suggest that we haven’t been told the truth about them, either…
Who Exactly Were The 9/11 Hijackers?
Of course, the official 9/11 narrative pins the blame for the WTC and Pentagon attacks squarely on al-Qaeda and their 19 hijackers. Mug shots and names of the 19 were ubiquitous on our TV screens in the 9/11 aftermath, especially that of alleged ringleader, Mohammad Atta.
[pic source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tinlingtom/2950359975]
9/11 Truth has always been sceptical about the official narrative’s claim that these were the guilty men. Sceptical about who they really were and whether they planned and executed any hijackings at all. One researcher and author, Elias Davidsson, has investigated the hijackings more extensively than any other and shows that no authenticated evidence exists that any of the nineteen boarded an airliner that day, let alone took control of the planes. No evidence that they are in any way guilty of the crime of the century. In his book, Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence, he looks at the types of evidence that might have proven their guilt… but don’t:
No authenticated flight manifests and boarding passes
It’s normally quite straightforward to prove who is on any given flight: check the flight manifest, a legal document for ascertaining passengers’ identities. Davidsson requested copies of official manifests from American Airlines and United Airlines on several occasions but was basically fobbed off and told to contact the FBI who, in turn, had released a list of names to the media.
The trouble with the passenger lists released by the media is that, without any reason, the identities of several hijackers have been substituted. Not to mention the fact that several of the people on the FBI’s list were still alive after 9/11.
Davidsson writes that the former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and former Drug Enforcement Agency administrator, Robert Bonner, gave evidence to the official 9/11 Commission enquiry that he’d been given the names of the 19 likely hijackers by 11 o’clock on the morning of 9/11 — some time before the U.S. military’s confirmation of the hijacked plane’s identities! The source of the list is unknown.
His conclusion is that either the FBI doesn’t actually have the airline’s flight manifests or the lists don’t tally with the current roll of alleged hijackers.
As for authenticated boarding passes, the 9/11 Commission claims only to have received copies of electronic boarding passes for United Airlines flight 93 and none have turned up for any of the hijackers alleged to have boarded the two American Airlines flights, 11 and 77.
Among the numerous potential witnesses to the hijackers’ boarding — airline, airport, and security staff — none has made a plausible claim to have seen any of them. Which is incongruent with the official 9/11 Commission Report stating that 10 of the 19 hijackers were singled out for extra security screening. What’s also incongruent is that the knives and box cutters they allegedly wielded on the planes miraculously were not detected in that screening process.
No authenticated CCTV video
As they walked through airport terminals on 9/11, the 19 hijackers must have been caught by a substantial number of security cameras, yet there are only two declared instances. The 9/11 Consensus Panel have analysed these — Point Video-1 and Point Video-2 — and have concluded that neither offers credible evidence.
No bodily remains
DNA tests were used to identify the remains of passengers and crew from all four flights. However, this process wasn’t used to determine the hijackers’ identities. Rather, a simple process of elimination. Their remains were just assumed to be those that couldn’t be identified as belonging to passengers and crew. DNA samples could have been collected from their relatives for comparison but they weren’t. Go figure.
So given these findings, we can only conclude that the official 9/11 investigation cannot support its nineteen-Islamist-hijackers narrative with any authenticated evidence when it should be able to provide enough for an open and shut case.
Ground Zero: That Was Then, This Is Now
Earlier this year, I happened to holiday in New York. Having seen and read a lot about 9/11 over the years — both official and alternative narratives — unsurprisingly, top of my list of must-sees was the World Trade Center. And see it I did.
15 years on, that once-apocalyptic Ground Zero site is fast heading towards completion of its re-birth. Shiny new office blocks have risen up: WTC 2, 3, 4 and 7. And towering over them all, the 104-storey One World Trade Center; the view from its observatory on the hundred-and-second floor is truly awe-inspiring.
Half the site is now the serene 9/11 Memorial Plaza, an area designed to symbolise remembrance and renewal. Imaginative pools and waterfalls covering the Twin Towers’ footprints express the remembrance; a grove of 400 swamp white oak trees, the renewal. Intensely poignant, I found, is what’s cut deep into the parapets around the 9/11 Memorial pools: the names of the 2,983 victims. Touchingly, some had had flowers lodged in them – by heartbroken relatives, I imagined.
But most moving of all was what’s underneath the plaza: the subterranean 9/11 Memorial Museum. In its cavernous Foundation Hall, one side of which is the imposing slurry wall of the original site, I saw exhibits such as a shockingly mangled ‘Ladder 3’ fire truck, what remains of the North Tower’s antenna, and the so-called Last Column: a 36-foot piece of the South Tower’s steel frame plastered with missing-person flyers — uncomfortably putting faces to the names one can read around the reflecting pools above ground.
In the Historical Exhibition – no photography allowed, unfortunately, as I found out when I snapped and Security took me to task — I saw audio-visual presentations and many hundreds of artefacts telling the story of what led up to 9/11, what happened that day, and the aftermath. And then, in the In Memoriam Exhibition, I saw displays honouring the victims. Hauntingly, you hear their voices and see their portraits and personal belongings — a battered fireman’s helmet; a shattered mobile phone; a dust-encrusted shoe. Just a few of the thousands of thoughtfully curated artifacts.
Before I paid my visit to New York, I did wonder how I would feel, given my understanding of the 9/11 alternative narrative and that the exhibitions would likely stick to the official account and to some extent be exercises in propaganda supporting the official narrative. Would I feel a kind of cognitive dissonance? Would I feel like a closet Clinton supporter at a Trump rally? (I did do Trump Tower during my stay, incidentally).
In the event, I found myself putting the alternative view to one side and becoming totally absorbed and deeply saddened by the scale of the human tragedy that 9/11 was — and still is. I have the greatest sympathy with those who suffered. And with those who continue to suffer: friends and relatives of the day’s victims and the survivors and first-responders who have died and will die from the long-term effects of the toxic air surrounding the long-smouldering Ground-Zero rubble — air the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency criminally declared to be safe.
VIDEO: 9/11 Suspects: Christine Todd Whitman
It’s been said in defence of the official narrative by those who can’t or won’t contemplate the alternative that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are being shockingly disrespectful to the victims and their loved ones. Well, in defence of the alternative narrative, I would simply suggest that the world would now be a better, much safer place had the truth been told… and acted upon. But Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son in the North Tower, has way more right than I to say it, and he says it best:
“The only memorial that truly honours those who died on 9/11 is the truth about what happened that day and who was really responsible.”
The overall objective of the 9/11 Truth Movement is to achieve a new investigation into the attacks. It’s a noble and just objective but somehow I suspect that whoever The Powers That Be may be, they’ll do everything within their power to keep the lid on the can of worms.