Corleonebrother

Fractional Reserve Banking Caused The Economic Crisis

2009-03-20T20:45:00.002Z

From www.truthandliberty.com

The fractional-reserve scam is the key to how the banking elite control nations, because it allows them to manipulate the money supply. This crisis, like all others since central banking was conceived, is due to manipulation of the money supply.

The particular details about this one should be analyzed in this context.

The two distinct functions of a bank are 1) deposit banking, and 2) savings-and-loan banking. Deposit banking is money warehousing, the depositor retains property rights, and the warehouser cannot do anything with the deposited money. For the service of storing money, the depositor should pay the bank a small fee.

Savings-and-loan banking is where money is lent out at a rate high rate to borrowers and a lower rate is paid to savers. Crucially, while the saver’s money is lent out, the saver cannot use it. Unlike with a deposit, savings are not available on demand.

It is this more fundamental division that needs to be restored in the banking industry. The only reason this distinction is blurred by banks is because it allows them to get away with fractional reserve banking. They lend out deposited money, which is supposed to always be available on demand. This way, they are literally creating money. This increases the money supply, causes malinvestments and an artificial boom, until the market forces becoming overwhelming and the banks are forced to contract.

Banks can only do this because of the institution of central banking, which is a government-granted monopoly. Legal tenders laws, “lender of last resort” guarantees, deposit “insurance” are all designed to support the fractional reserve banking scam. As long as people don’t catch on that the banks don’t have enough money to redeem all deposits, it can continue.

For more information, see CHAPTER V: BANKING.

From 1913-1920, the Fed massively increased the money supply and market forces caused a recession in 1920-21. It did the same thing from 1921-1929, creating a bigger boom, which caused a bigger bust. This time the government intervened, preventing the market from adjusting. This caused the Great Depression, which was lengthened further by FDR’s disastrous policies.

Gold served as a check on the amount of dollars that could be issued, but this was overcome with the 1933 gold seizure and the abolishing of the gold standard domestically. In 1945, the dollar became the reserve currency of the world, and the Fed was now able to hugely increase the money supply by ‘exporting the inflation’. In the late 60’s confidence in the dollar declined and demands for redemption in gold by foreigners caused a drain on gold reserves until Nixon declared national bankruptcy in 1971 and closed the ‘gold window’.

The dollar was now completely free of any restrictions. Massive inflation and huge artificial booms and busts were now possible. With carefully chosen government regulations, the industries suffering the biggest bubble can be virtually chosen at will.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act meant that mortgage-backed securities and other complex financial instruments could be created. But debt that is so complex that even investors cannot understand it would not come about on the free market. These instruments are backed by the government, through institutions like Fannie and Freddie.

Deregulation enabled the dollar inflation to reach new levels. This is the biggest artificial boom ever; the economy needs massive readjustment, and market forces are becoming overwhelming.

The Fed has only two choices: inflate further, risking hyperinflation and a dollar collapse, or stop inflating, and allow the recession to take place. If it inflates further, the recession when it comes will be more severe. It is likely going to be more severe than the 1930’s, due not only to the size of the boom, but because of low savings, low manufacturing and huge debts, public and private.

The situation will be made worse by any government intervention to stop the market process from working, such as bank and industry bailouts and stimulus packages. High taxes, and even higher spending, causing deficits and mounting national debt, will make the recession worse than it would otherwise be. Regulations, price controls and government jobs (green brigades) will also make things worse.

For more information, see: CHAPTER VI: CENTRAL BANKING.

5.3.0 Responses to Debunkers

2008-09-13T18:22:00.003+01:00

For a list of articles from the debunking media, and a list of responses to them from the 9/11 Truth Movement, see my wikipedia user-subpage.

Next Page: Scholars Discussions.

5.4.0 Scholars Discussions

2008-09-13T18:16:00.002+01:00

Reading the discussions between the two 9/11 Scholars groups helped me to identify who was honestly seeking the truth about 9/11, and who was trying to obfuscate the issues and promoting false theories as science:

*Jim Hoffman: A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? (June 2005)
*Morgan Reynolds: Revisiting the WTC Building Collapses (July 2005)
*Steven Jones: Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? (September 2005)
*Judy Wood and Michael Zebuhr: Aluminum Glows (March 2006)
*Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds: Why indeed did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? (August 2006)
*Steven Jones: Applying the scientific method (November 2006, updated April 2007)
*Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds: The Scientific Method applied to the Thermite Hypothesis (December 2006)
*Gregory Jenkins: The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center (February 2007)
*Stephen Phillips: A Physicist Critiques Steven Jones' New Paper (May 2007)

Some wider reading revealed the prevalence, and effects, of misinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement:

*Jim Hoffman: The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics (November 2004)
*Jeremy Baker: 9/11 - In Plane Site: A Critical Review (2004)
*Michael Green: Loose Change First Edition: An Analysis (August 2005)
*Michael Green: The Company We Keep (February 2006)
*Jim Hoffman: ScholarsFor911Truth.org: Muddling the Evidence (February 2006)
*Jim Hoffman: Sifting Through Loose Change (2006)
*Joseph Firmage: Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11 (August 2006)
*Eric Salter: A Critical Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories (October 2006)
*The "Patriots and 9/11" Trap
*Arabesque: The Pentagon Honey Pot (July 2007)
*Victoria Ashley Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11 (August 2007)

Climate Studies and Articles

2008-09-09T20:30:00.005+01:00

Overviews

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective - Geocraft.com
MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS POLITICS NOT SCIENCE - Ether Zone
The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria - Prison Planet, Paul Joseph Watson

Academic Studies/Articles

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 - Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels - Prof. Beck

Article Lists

Free Republic

News Articles - General

‘Medieval Environmentalists’ attack CO2 in their efforts to derail civilization - Canada Free Press, 21 Jan 2008
Arctic Ice Grows 30 Per Cent In a Year - Propaganda Matrix
Why a Carbon Tax Won’t Save The Planet - Knowledge-Driven Revolution, 16 August 2007
The seven graphs that dispel alarmist claims about climate change - Prison Planet, Paul Joseph Watson

News Articles - Globalist Agenda

Bush: Halt CO2 growth by 2025 - Reuters, 17 April 2008
Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited - Prison Planet, 14 April 2008
Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government - Old-Thinker News, 17 December 2007
Globalist think tank launches climate change task force - Old-Thinker News, 5 October 2007
Bilderberg Pushing World Tax - American Free Press, 2007
Prince Charles: Global effort needed to counter climate change - Trinidad Express, 7 March 2007
'The global-warmers were bound to attack, but why are they so feeble?' - Daily Telegraph, 17 Mar 2007
Where the Candidates Currently Stand (On Energy Policy) - HeatIsOn.org
Globalists Love Global Warming - Prison Planet, 28 Mar 2007.
Bilderberg Pushing World Tax - Jim Tucker, American Free Press
State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era - Richard Haass, Taipei Times, 21 Feb 2006

News Articles - Other Planets and the Sun

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists - Space.com, 9 Oct 2002.
New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change - Space.com, 4 May 2006.
NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn - United Press International, 9 Nov 2006.
Global Warming Detected on Triton - Science Agogo, 28 Jun 1998.
Study says sun getting hotter - Associated Press, 28 Sep 1997.
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says - National Geographic, 28 Feb 2007.
Climate change hits Mars - The Times, 29 Apr 2007.
Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report - Heartland Institute, Nov 2005.
Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature - American Geophysical Union, 19 April 2007.
Saturn's Strangely Warm Moon - Space.com, 19 April 2006.
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds - Live Science, 12 Mar 2001.

9/11 Truth

2008-08-07T22:10:00.001+01:00

9/11 Truth

Media Continues Losing Credibility On 9/11 Issue - Rogue Government, 11 April 2008
UN Human Rights Official Wants Investigation Into US Government Role In 9/11 - The New York Sun, 10 April 2008
Ludicrous Hit Piece Attacks Ventura On WTC Collapse Comments - Prison Planet, 10 April 2008
Ventura’s 9/11 Questions Break Through Mainstream Media Dam - Jones Report, 8 April 2008
Al-CIAda Sock Puppet Zawahiri Claims Iran Behind 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Prison Planet, 22 April 2008
History Channel admits anthrax attacks an inside job - Old-Thinker News, 23 August 2007

Japanese Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global - Japan Times, 17 Jun 2008

In Their Own Words: Admissions from the people who wrote the 9/11 Commission Report that it was compromised - 911 Blogger, 23 Jun 2008

Emergency Official Witnessed Dead Bodies In WTC 7 - Prison Planet, 23 Jun 2008

Comedian Who Questioned “Received Reality” Of 9/11 Dies - Infowars.net 23 Jun 2008

Extra ENERGY in 9/11 buildings: Tell the Teacher - OpEd News, 27 Jun 2008

Unanswered Questions - 911 Bloggers, 28 Jun 2008

Debunking911.com: A Sophisticated Neocon Propaganda Site - Lataan Blogspot, 30 Jun 2008

Cheney and the Oil Bigs Planned U.S. War Policy Before 9/11 - George Washington's Blog, 4 Jul 2008

Glaring and damning errors already apparent in new BBC WTC 7 hit piece - Prison Planet, 6 Jul 2008

BBC Hit Piece: 9/11 third tower mystery ’solved’ - BBC, 4 Jul 2008

BBC’s Hit-Piece on WTC7, “The Third Tower” - Infowars, 7 Jul 2008

BBC’s Third Tower: 30 Pieces of Good News - 911 Blogger, 10 Jul 2008

9/11 Truth: How Many People Question The Official Account? - Youtube, 11 Jul 2008

So, you believe in conspiracy theories, do you? You probably also think you’re the Emperor of Pluto - London Guardian, 14 Jul 2008

Confirmed: ISI General Ahmed Met With JCS, Neocons Before 9/11 - George Washington's Blog, 15 Jul 2008

Who knows what happened on 9/11? - London Guardian, 21 Jul 2008

Utah Congressmen Mailed “9/11 Conspiracies”, Hand Them Over To Capitol Police - Infowars, 30 Jul 2008

Bush ordered fake letter linking Iraq to 9/11 - Raw Story, 5 Aug 2008

Chemical Traces of High Explosives in WTC Debris - OpEd News, 5 Aug 2008

Globalism

2008-08-07T21:33:00.001+01:00

Big Brother

2008-08-07T19:58:00.003+01:00

Big Brother

Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest - Associated Press, 17 April 2008

Anti-terror laws used to spy on family - UK Independent, 11 April 2008
Graffiti artist pulls off anti-Big Brother stunt - despite being watched by CCTV - Daily Mail, 14 April 2008
Enhanced Tracking Technology May Propel Adoption of RFID - Wall Street Journal, 14 April 2008
Bin Brother is watching you - ABC Australia, 15 April 2008
Wal-Mart to film gun sales - Reuters, 14 April 2008
Professor Calls For “Google Type” Brain Chip Implants - InfoWars.net, 14 April 2008
In Florida, Snooping Cops Disguise Cameras as Fire Hydrants - Truth News, 20 April 2008
Pharmacists suggest monitoring system to detect painkiller abuse - ABC News, 16 April 2008
Jacqui Smith announces 300 new terror police - UK Telegraph, 21 April 2008
Father fined for overfilling bin - BBC News, 22 April 2008
China to issue RFID embedded ID cards - Old-Thinker News, 11 August 2007
Anticipatory Conformity: Will the Growing Surveillance Panopticon Cause us to Self-censor? - Old-Thinker News, 21 December 2008
DNA Database Information Archive - Old-Thinker News
Tony Blair has turned Britain into a land where we are all prisoners - Daily Mail, 13 June 2007
School puts CCTV cameras in loos - BBC Newsround, 16 May 2006
Lip-Reading Technology Knows What You Said - Electronic Design, 27 April 2007
Could Soldiers Be Prosecuted for Thought Crime? - Wired, 21 April 2008

Mandatory In-Car Breathalyzers Coming? - National Motorists Association, 23 Jun 2008

CCTV Does Not Reduce Crime - The Guardian, 26 Jun 2008

Seizing Laptops and Cameras Without Cause - US News and World, 27 Jun 2008

UK abandons train and tube scanners - The Register, 27 Jun 2008

Parents banned from ferrying children to sports matches - London Telegraph, 28 Jun 2008

This surveillance onslaught is draconian and creepy - The Guardian, 28 Jun 2008

Logan will install body scanners - Boston Globe, 1 Jul 2008

Texas PC Repair Now Requires PI License - Extreme Tech, 1 Jul 2008

Judge tells YouTube to turn over viewing logs to Viacom - After Dawn, 3 Jul 2008

State Dept. Audit Finds Passport Snooping Was Frequent - Washington Post, 4 Jul 2008

Electric shock for air passengers? - Homeland Stupidity, 5 Jul 2008

Brit Government to Classify Toddlers Who Don’t Like Spicy Food as Racist - Telegraph, 7 Jul 2008

‘Public’ online spaces don’t carry speech, rights - AP, 6 Jul 2008

‘Big Brother’ government costs us £20billion - Telegraph, 7 Jul 2008

The right to peer inside your iPod - Guardian, 10 Jul 2008

‘Big Brother’ By-Election plays out as David Icke predicted from the start - DavidIcke.com, 10 Jul 2008

Ex-NYT correspondent: FISA update is ‘giant step toward fascism’ - Raw Story, 11 Jul 2008

Gordon Brown Proposes “National Service” Servitude for Jobless - Daily Mail, 15 Jul 2008

D.C. Wants to Make Driving More Difficult - NBC, 14 Jul 2008

New Law Expands Newborn Screening - Gant Daily, 14 Jul 2008

Big Brother database recording all our calls, texts and e-mails will ‘ruin British way of life’ - Daily Mail, 16 Jul 2008

Spy Bill Creates ‘Infrastructure for a Police State’ - Prism News, 16 Jul 2008

TSA Triples Airport Body Scanners - Bloomberg, 18 Jul 2008

Why Are Tens of Thousands of Plastic “Burial Vaults” Stacked in a Field Near Madison, Georgia? - Cryptogon, 20 Jul 2008

Miami airport security cameras see through clothing - Miami Herald, 20 Jul 2008

Local UK Councils Makes 1,400 Surveillance Requests Per day - The Times, 23 Jul 2008

TSA Now Conducting Random Behavioral Screening - US Government Blog, 24 Jul 2008

Painter fined for smoking in his own van - The Guardian, 25 Jul 2008

Eye scans, fingerprints to control NZ borders - Star Times, 28 Jul 2008

Tracking devices to cut car insurance rates - NJ Star Ledger, 30 Jul 2008

DHS Seizes Laptops at Border, Shares Data with Corporations - Washington Post, 1 Aug 2008

Cops Stop And Search Vegas Couple For Having Ron Paul, Infowars Bumper Stickers - Infowars.net, 4 Aug 2008

Ministers spend millions on ‘positive spin’ TV documentaries - Daily Mail, 4 Aug 2008

Unmanned spy planes to police Britain - The Independent, 6 Aug 2008

Ubiquitous Computing: Big Brother’s All-Seeing Eye - Old-Thinker News, 5 Aug 2008

Fairfax County to Conduct Video Surveillance on High School Lunch Lines - Washington Post, 6 Aug 2008

Big Brother is watching you…. Council to fingerprint staff as they clock in for work - Daily Mail, 12 Sep 2008

World at War

2008-08-07T19:39:00.002+01:00

The World at War

Muslim Parents Urged to Turn In “Terrorist” Children - BBC, 20 Jun 2008

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He ‘Thinks Senator Obama’s Going To Win’ - Think Progress, 22 Jun 2008

America’s Military Machine Gearing Up for Total War Politics - Global Research, 23 Jun 2008

The Post-9/11 Afghan Heroin Explosion - YouTube Video, 3 Jul 2008

Uncle Sam’s cyber force wants you - Asia Times, 30 Jun 2008

Obama on Iraq: No to Change - WSWS.org, 4 Jul 2008

US planned nerve gas tests on Australian soldiers - AAP, 7 Jul 2008

New War Brewing: US, Israel Take Dangerous Steps - Lew Rockwell, 7 Jul 2008

DoD controlling Iraq War films? Military hopes to shape genre - LA Times, 7 Jul 2008

The ‘Respectable’ People Continue to Make War on the Rest of Us - Lew Rockwell, 11 Jul 2008

US ‘killed 47 Afghan civilians’ - BBC, 11 Jul 2008

Red Cross finds Bush administration guilty of war crimes - Raw Story, 13 Jul 2008

NATO Attacks Pakistan - BBC, 16 Jul 2008

Wolfowitz: U.S. Confidence Hinges on Another ‘Crisis’ - Infowars, 16 Jul 2008

Operation Brimstone: Preparing for WWIII - News Blaze, 22 Jul 2008

Obama says a nuclear Iran ‘grave threat’ - AFP, 23 Jul 2008

Army lures recruits with video games - WSJ, 28 Jul 2008

Army recruiter threatened teen with jail for not enlisting - Raw Story, 29 Jul 2008

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace - TED, 30 Jul 2008

To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them - Think Progress, 31 Jul 2008

Police State

2008-08-07T19:24:00.002+01:00

The Police State

Chinese Paramilitary Cops Police Americans - InfoWars.net, 9 April 2008
Chinese Secret Police Used In Britain Against British - InfoWars.net, 9 April 2008

TransLink Cops Will Continue To Taser Fare Dodgers - Prison Planet, 21 April 2008
U.S. prison population dwarfs that of other nations - International Herald Tribune, 23 April 2008
US military recruits more ex-cons - BBC News, 22 April 2008
Torture Bracelet To Control Dissenting Americans? - Prison Planet, 25 March 2008
China: A Window Into the Dark World of Tyranny - 18 September 2007
Gordon Brown reveals 'Fortress Britain' plan - UK Telegraph, 16 November 2007
Handcuffed, Assaulted, Ticketed By Cop For Distributing 9/11 DVD's - Prison Planet, 15 October 2007
Man Arrested for handing out free Alex Jones DVDs - Info Wars, 13 April 2004
Now police are told they can use Taser guns on children - Daily Mail, 2 September 2007
The Timeline to Tyranny - Prison Planet, 7 August 2007
Police want 'tesco jails' in every shopping centre - Daily Mail, 1 August 2007
Police State U.K. - Old-Thinker News, 18 March 2007
Man spends 18 hours in police cell and has his DNA taken for 'dropping an apple core' - Daily Mail, 9 May 2008

DHS Wants Airline “Shock Bracelet” - Washington Times, 1 July 2008
Man Dies After Shocked By Taser Gun - Click2Houston.com, 14 July 2008

Memphis Police to Use ‘Amnesia-like’ Injection in Lieu of Taser - WSMV TV, 14 July 2008

Cops Use DHS Money to Scan Fingerprints at Checkpoints - Courier Online, 17 July 2008

Police to Use Metal Scanners on Street - The Star (UK), 20 Jul 2008

COINTELPRO Returns: My First-Hand Experience With Government Spies - AlterNet, 21 Jul 2008

‘Damn machine’ killed my son, Winnipeg mother says - Globe and Mail, 23 Jul 2008

Sound, ‘goo’ weapons will not target DNC protests - Raw Story, 24 Jul 2008

Missouri Police taser injured boy 19 times - Raw Story, 27 Jul 2008

Brit Cops to Search People at Cinemas, Diners, and Hotels - Infowars, 27 Jul 2008

How the Media Accustomizes Us to Tyranny - The Freedom Beat, 1 Aug 2008

Warming on other planets

2008-05-30T21:48:00.002+01:00

Earth is not the only planet that has shown a recent trend of warming: Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton, Neptune and Pluto are all also experiencing warming trends.

Could this be a result of the sun getting warmer?

The Greenhouse Effect

2008-05-30T19:47:00.002+01:00

Heat from the sun is trapped by greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere - known as the greenhouse effect. Without this, the planet would be cold and lifeless. With too many greenhouse gases, the Earth would be intolerably hot, as is the planet Venus. Greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is one, do therefore affect the climate; they are part of the Earth's climate system.

Contrary to what is stated by proponents of the man-made theory of Earth's recent warming trend, Earth's long history of changing climate is not mainly driven by carbon dioxide levels. In fact, temperature changes cause the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to change, as indicated by the Earth's temperature record.

Is the man-made increase to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels likely to "tip the balance" and cause a "runaway greenhouse effect"? First of all, how much of the greenhouse effect is caused by carbon dioxide and how much is due to other greenhouse gases?

Carbon dioxide is a relatively minor greenhouse gas. By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour.

Furthermore, humans are not the main cause of carbon dioxide emissions. The oceans are responsible for most of it; as temperature increases, the equilibrium between dissolved carbon dioxide in the oceans and carbon dioxide in the air is shifted, and more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Dying vegetation, animals, bacteria and volcanoes all produce more carbon dioxide than humans.

It is not even clear that the greenhouse effect in general is a major factor in changing the Earth's temperature. Since the greenhouse effect occurs in the stratosphere, the theory predicts that temperature changes on the Earth would be greater in the stratosphere than in the atmosphere. However, studies have shown that recent temperature changes on the Earth have been more pronounced at the surface.

The Temperature Record

2008-05-30T18:47:00.008+01:00

Planet Earth has experienced a general trend of warming which appears to coincide with the industrial revolution, and the dramatic increase in the level of man-made carbon dioxide emissions that industry produces. Is carbon dioxide causing the temperature to increase? Or is the temperature increasing naturally?

To answer this question, we must first of all ask a more basic question: is the recent warming trend "unnatural"? Let's look at the temperature of the Earth over the last 10,000 years:

From this graph it can be seen that the Earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is today; we are well within the normal temperature range.

The warming trend out of the last great ice age, around 10,000 years ago, permitted the development of the first agrarian societies. Since then, the temperature has kept within a relatively small range.

Let's take a closer look at the last 1000 years.

Here we can see that, even within this narrower span of time, the Earth has been both warmer and cooler than it is today. The current warming trend appears to be a recovery from a particularly cold period, known as the Little Ice Age.

The temperature of the Earth today is not at all unusual. It was hotter than it is today during the Medieval Warm Period.

There is no reason, based on the historical data, to suspect that humans are having a "catastrophic" effect on climate.

There is, as Al Gore points out, a close correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. This is used by Gore and many proponents of the man-made global warming theory as evidence that carbon dioxide must be causing temperature change. But there is an alternative: what if temperature causes changes in the level of carbon dioxide?

How can we tell which way round it happens? The most obvious way, since a cause must always come before an effect, is to ask whether the temperature changes or the carbon dioxide level changes come first. The answer, based on the exact same data used by Gore to demonstrate the correlation, ice-core samples, is that temperature changes come first, followed by changes in the level of carbon dioxide. While the "lag" is not apparent in Gore's large-scale graph, it is much more noticeable when the graphs are put together and closely examined. The magnitude of the "lag" is about 800 years.

This shows that carbon dioxide has not been the driver of climate change in the past.

But could it be that, without human carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would now be colder, not yet recovered from the Little Ice Age? Let's have a closer look at the period in question - the last 120 years.

This period is when human beings started producing an increased amount of carbon dioxide; the amount of carbon dioxide released during this period is an exponential increase.

What does this graph suggest? Well, there is a noticeable period in which the temperature of the Earth decreased - for about 35 years from 1940 to 1975. This includes the "post-war economic boom" where human carbon dioxide emissions dramatically increased.

If carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming, how can it be that the Earth was getting colder during these years?

The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been forced to change it's theory due to its incompatibility with the reverse correlation between temperature and climate change observed between 1940 and 1975. Rather than abandoning the theory altogether, it now asserts only that the warming post-1975 is due to increased carbon dioxide emissions.

Money

2008-05-14T18:25:00.003+01:00

The market process developed using direct exchange, or barter, of goods. But this system has some severe limitations:

Suppose that Jones, a fisherman, would like to buy some wheat, but Smith, the wheat farmer, dislikes fish. Jones must then find a product, say butter, not for his own use, but in order to resell to Smith. Jones is then engaging in indirect exchange, using butter as the medium of exchange.
Now suppose that Robbins wants to sell his tractor in order to purchase a number of other items: horses, wheat, rope, barrels etc. He cannot cut the tractor up and exchange a part of the tractor for the goods he desires. Again, what he will have to do is exchange the tractor for a product that can be used as a medium of exchange. He sells the tractor for say 100 pounds of butter, then exchanges the butter for the goods he desires.

Once any particular commodity starts to be used as a medum, this process has a spiralling, or snowballing, effect. Once the usefulness of that commodity, say butter, as medium of exchange becomes widely known and used, this use feeds upon itself. A commodity in use as a medium of exchange is known as a money.

Once a good comes into use as money, the market rapidly expands and becomes more productive. The reason for this is that the price system becomes enormously simplified, since the price of any commodity can be measured in terms of the medium of exchange. Money also makes business calculations possible.

Just about any commodity can, and has, been used as a commodity of exchange: iron hoes in Africa, salt in West Africa, beaver skins in Canada, codifsh in colonial New England, tobacco in colonial Virginia, etc. Cattle was the most common medium of exchange in early civilizations. Cigarettes are a common medium of exchange in prisons.

But two commodities have been used as money more than any other: gold and silver. Why? Because gold and silver satisfy all the qualities that a good money should have:

Wide acceptance - a money should be able to be traded with as many people as possible.
Intrinsic value - a money should be valuable by itself; this helps it gain wide acceptance.
Durability - a money should retain its value.
Divisibility - a money should be able to be divided and also combined.
Convenience - a money should be easy to hold and transport.
Scarcity - a money should be scarce or difficult to manufacture.

The Market Process

2008-05-13T21:23:00.003+01:00

The creation of wealth, that is objects of value, or goods, is the transformation of elements of the environment - means - into objects which will help achieve chosen ends.

Human societies - the interactions of individuals on the "human ant-farm" - are in a constant cycle of producing and consuming wealth. That is, the individuals are all constantly using means to produce objects of value, and using such objects to satisfy ends.

Early humans were more-or-less self-sufficient but societies based on trade were more successful, because of the market process. They were more successful because they were more productive and this led to more growth and eventually the overtaking, either by conquest or migration, of those societies that were not market oriented.

There is one main benefit that a society gains from trade and that is the division of labor and knowledge. By producing only one good, and trading for all the other objects as desired, individuals do not have to waste time learning how other things can be produced or in switching tasks, and can therefore become more efficient at producing their one good (increasing either the quantity or quality of the product). The wealth of the society - the amount of wealth on the market that can be consumed - increases, and therefore each individual is able to have a larger share of the available goods (that is, the "average wealth" of the individuals in the society increases; the "economic pie" becomes bigger).

Human brains are, by the nature of their desire to satisfy ends, always thinking of ways to be more productive, saving time and effort. Technological improvements - that is, improvements to the methods used to produce goods, in order to be more productive - are recombinations of previous knowledge. The production of goods in the modern world involves a huge interdepedence of knowledge stored in individual brains. The market process, by enabling the division of labour and knowledge, allows for continuous restructuring of the human ant-farm into increasingly more productive and technologically advanced states.

Human Action

2008-05-13T20:09:00.002+01:00

The distinctive and crucial feature in the study of man is the concept of action. Human action is defined as purposeful behaviour. The purpose of a man's act is his end; the desire to acheive this end is the man's motive for instituting the action.

It is this fundamental truth - the Axiom of Human Action - and the logical implications of it, that the entire realm of praxeology and its best developed subdivision, economics, are based on.

Consider the relationship between praxeology and other disciplines:

Psychology - why men choose various ends.
Philosophy of Ethics - what men's ends should be.
Technology - how to use means to arrive at ends.
History - what men's ends are and have been, and how men have used means to attain them.
Praxeology - the formal implications of the fact that men act to attain various chosen ends.

Economics is the best developed subdivision of praxeology. Attempts have been made to formulate a logical theory of war and violent action, a theory of games has been elaborated, and we have the beginnings of a theory of voting.

Clear implications of the Axiom of Human Action:

Human action can only be undertaken by individual "actors". Only individuals have ends and can act to attain them. There are no such things as ends of or actions by "groups", "collectives" or "States" which do not take place as actions by various specific individuals.
Human action is the transforming of elements of an environment into a new arrangement in order to acheive ends. With reference to any given act, the environment may be divided into two parts - the means: elements of the environment which men can alter, or think they can alter - and the general conditions: elements which cannot be altered. Human action therefore requires the employment of means to acheive ends.
Human action requires that actors have ideas about how to use means to achieve ends.
Human action requires time - the time before, during and after the action - and time is a means.
All means are scarce: limited to the ends that they could possibly serve.
Human action requires choosing between ends, since time is scarce.
Each actor assigns a rank to desired ends. The most desired ends are given the highest rank; that is, the most desired ends are the ones with the highest value. All actors have a scale of values or scale of preferences.
The future is uncertain, since if it was not, no action would be necessary.
Action involves the expectation of a less imperfectly satisfied state as a result of the action.

Police State 3

2008-04-28T19:39:00.010+01:00

Documentaries

2008-04-24T20:31:00.004+01:00

The following are some lists of documentaries:

Old-Thinker News - Multimedia Page

The following are some documentaries:

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism - exposes FOX News for its biased reporting and analysis of events and examines the effect of news media on the U.S. population.
The War on Democracy - 2007, John Pilger (BBC) - examines U.S. intervention in Latin American politics, both before and as part of the 'war on terror'.
Breaking The Silence - Truth and Lies in the War on Terror - 2003, John Pilger (BBC) - investigates the discrepancies between American and British claims for the 'war on terror' and the facts on the ground.
America: From Freedom to Fascism - 2006, Aaron Russo - examines the legality of the income tax and the history and nature of the Federal Reserve System.
Money, Banking and the Federal Reserve - 1996, Von Mises Institute - looks at the history of the Federal Reserve and the Austrian economists view of central banking.
The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America - 1995, Bill Still - 3 1/2 hour documentary covering the history and mechanisms of central banking.
Monopoly Men - 1999

The Real Face of the European Union

Operation Gladio - BBC, 1992

The National Debt: To Whom Do We Owe It?

Here are some short video links that I have come across:

George Bush: Catapult the Propaganda

9/11 Websites

2008-04-21T22:59:00.006+01:00

Best Websites

9/11 Research - best site for thorough analysis of the events of 9/11, with seven sections: 1) Background, 2) Attack, 3) Aftermath, 4) Evidence, 5) Misinformation, 6) Analysis, 7) Memorial.
9/11 Review - companion site to the above site, with three sections: 1) The Attack and Cover-up, 2) Means, Motive and Precedent, and 3) Information Warfare.

Top Websites

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice - site of the largest group of 9/11 scholars.
Journal of 9/11 Studies - collection of essays by members of the above group.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - site of professionals supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis.
9/11 Proof - site for newcomers to 9/11 Truth.
9/11 Visibility Project -
9/11 Truth.org - central portal of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Complete 9/11 Timeline - chronicle of events relating to 9/11, made up entirely of mainstream media reports.
Arabesque 9/11 Truth - blog exposing misinformation.

Good Websites - may contain some misinformation

TruthMove: International Truth Movement - excellent, clear analysis of events relating to 9/11, particularly misinformation. Unfortunately the creators of this site themselves promote misinformation through their support of the man-made global warming and Peak Oil hoaxes.
Patriots Question 9/11 - site listing credible individuals who have publicly expressed doubt about the official story of 9/11.
9/11 Docs - list of media and resources.

Other Websites - contain misinformation/disinformation.

Oil Empire - site with some good analysis of 9/11, but falsely claims that the motive for 9/11 was Peak Oil - which has proved to be a hoax. It also promotes the man-made global warming hoax.
Scholars for 9/11 Truth - supports No-Plane Theory
Physics 9/11 - supports No-Plane Theory
Serendipity - supports No-Plane Theory
Youth for 9/11 Truth - links to 9/11 In Plane Site, PentaCon and 9/11 Ripple Effect.

The Information War

2008-04-16T23:17:00.002+01:00

One of the first things one discovers when researching 9/11 is how the mainstream media - the only type of media most people ever see - lies and deceives, going to great lengths to promote a point of view.

Differing points of view are shown but only on certain issues, and within well-defined boundaries of what is allowed to be said, what is not, and how the debate must come across.

(to be expanded)

See: Outfoxed - a documentary about media manipulation.

News

2008-04-16T21:20:00.015+01:00

A collection of news articles about the New World Order and related world events. Many of these articles are summarised at InfoWars.com, PrisonPlanet.com and Old-ThinkerNews.com with links to the full articles at the original sources.

World News

Foreigners carry out one in every five killings in Britain, police figures reveal - Daily Mail, 14 April 2008

Economic Crisis

Hyperinflationary Depression - The Ruff Times, 21 April 2008
World’s rich shrug off credit crunch - Financial Times, 20 April 2008

War on Terror

Closing in on Bush’s Torture Cabal: Who Will Take the Fall? - AlterNet, 14 April 2008
Bush: New 9/11 Being Planned in Pakistan - Times of India, 14 April 2008
Guiliani's Orwellian concept of freedom - New York Times, 17 March 1994

Science & Technology

Feds not addressing drugs in water - Associated Press, 13 April 2008
‘Now we have the technology that can make a cloned child’ - The Independent, 14 April 2008
Scientists Scared as Nanotechnology and Nanoparticles Become Common in Consumer Products - Azonano, 7 April 2008
Armed Robots Turn Their Weapons On US Soldiers - Your New Reality, 14 April 2008
Government Scientists Propose “Geo-Engineering” Earth’s Upper Atmosphere - Prison Planet, 10 April 2008
Public health experts warn of Chinese genetic rice - East London Advertiser, 17 April 2008
'Now we have the technology that can make a cloned child' - UK Independent, 14 April 2008
Smart Goggles Are No Longer Science Fiction - Inventor Spot, 17 April 2008
Unleashing the Bugs of War - Time Magazine, 18 April 2008
Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future - The Guardian, 9 April 2007
US scientists close to creating artificial life: study - ABC News, 26 January 2008

Eugenics

Eugenics Moves to the Twenty-First Century - Old-Thinker News, 27 August 2007
Endgame: The Rabbit Hole Doesn't End Here - Old-Thinker News, 26 October 2007
Endgame: The Rabbit Hole Doesn't End Here - Part 2 - Old-Thinker News, 1 November 2007
H.G. Wells: Subdue yourselves to the federation of the world, or else - Old-Thinker News, 7 February 2008

Ron Paul

Only a Miracle Can Save America Now - News With Views, 15 April 2008
Ron Paul Revolution: Let’s Finish What We Started - Intel Strike, 3 March 2008
High Tide: The Ron Paul Revolution Continues - The Jones Report, 13 March 2008

U.S. Presidential Race 2008

Meet Obama’s Foreign Policy Brain: Zbigniew Brzezinski - 911 Blogger, 20 February 2008
Hillary Clinton: A Bilderberg Presidency - Old-Thinker News, 8 November 2007
McCain: Commoners Must Accept Globalization - Info Wars, 23 April 2008
World Government Agenda Binds Frontrunners - Old-Thinker News, 9 February 2008
McCain Supports North American Integration, League of Democracies - Old-Thinker News, 15 April 2008

The Middle East

Source: U.S. Strike on Iran Nearing - Newsmax, 15 April 2008
American Hegemony Is Not Guaranteed - Paul Craig Roberts, 14 April 2008
US, Iran in secret discussions on nuclear program: report - American Free Press, 14 April 2008
Iran — the new motivation for US war in Iraq - American Free Press, 14 April 2008
Iran New Face of “Extremism” in Iraq - American Free Press, 13 April 2008
Armed Robots Still in Iraq, But Grounded - Wired, 15 April 2008

The Media

Mass Mind Control Through Network Television: Are Your Thoughts Your Own? - Information Liberation, 23 April 2008
France considering new rules for web 2.0 - European Digital Rights, 23 April 2008
Electronic media and the dumbing down of society - Old-Thinker News, 12 September 2007
UN Alliance of Civilizations: Psychophysiological manipulation - Old-Thinker News, 31 January 2008

Education

Mandatory Public Schooling: Is it a tool for Education and Enlightenment or the Creation of a "Standardized Citizenry"? - Old-Thinker News, 17 December 2007
American Education History Tour - The Odysseus Group
School books being dumbed down for exams, say authors - Old-Thinkers News, 1 December 2007

New World Order

2008-04-16T21:15:00.002+01:00

The New World Order is the broad term used to describe those who are attempting a form a global government.

(to be expanded)

Attack Scenario 404

2008-04-16T21:03:00.002+01:00

This is a hypothetical attack scenario representing what might have happened, given all the evidence. This scenario is taken from the website 9/11 Research.

Attack Scenario

The attack consists of four component operations:

* the disabling of the air defense system
* the take-over, piloting, and crashing of Flights 11, 175, and 77
* the hijacking and shoot-down of Flight 93
* the demolition of the World Trade Center towers

All operations employ a combination of hierarchical command structure, secrecy, and automation to achieve their objectives. All rely almost entirely on infrastructure created for other purposes.

Disabling the Air Defense System

The stage for the air defense stand-down is set months before the attack through changes in procedures for responding to hijacked aircraft. A June 1, 2001 order from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff requires that all requests from FAA for assistance in suspected hijacking events be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense for approval. From June through September 10th, Rumsfeld's office promptly dispatches intercept requests, and the new procedure is not questioned.

The conspirators schedule a number of war games to take place during the attack and act as cover for the operation. Air Force and Air National Guard units are told to expect deviations of airliners as part of the exercises. Operation Northern Vigilance deploys most of the fighters normally available to defend the northeast to locations in northern Canada and Alaska. A war game setting Operation Vigilant Guardian against Operation Vigilant Warrior is played on the day of the attack. It involves the insertion of virtual radar blips, indistinguishable from the blips of real aircraft, on military radar screens. FAA radar screens are not affected, and FAA officials promptly notify NORAD of deviations. (NORAD and the 9/11 Commission would subsequently supply contradictory notification timelines which bore little resemblance to reality.) FAA requests for assistance are directed to Rumsfeld's office, as per the June 1st order. Rumsfeld's deputy finally orders jets scrambled from Otis Air Force Base just as the North Tower is hit, and later from Langley. The pilots from both Otis and Langley think that they are participating in Vigilant Guardian and fly subsonic as instructed.

The Langley jets did not take off until 9:25, but the pilots had been in their cockpits since about 9:10 -- only about ten minutes since the North Tower strike went live on most local TV affiliates. Vigilant Guardian was so much like the real thing that a participant could easily mistake radio chatter about the attacks as part of the exercises. However, these and other interceptor pilots might have learned that the attack was real by phone or television before scrambling and were a threat to the completion of Flight 77's mission. But the Pentagon attack was a bonus. Even if the military had managed to foil the attack, both of the Twin Towers had already been hit and the destruction in Manhattan could continue to unfold, sufficient pretext for the War on Terror.

Flights 11, 175 and 77

The use of AAL Flight 11 and UAL Flight 175 to attack the Twin Towers, and of AAL Flight 77 to attack the Pentagon requires the execution of two main tasks in each case:

1. Rendering unconscious the flight crew and passengers, preventing any communications from them about events in the cabin.
2. Taking over the flight computers, allowing the planes to be auto-piloted to their targets.

Task 1 is achieved with aerosol bombs of decapacitating gas hidden in luggage. The gas is fentanyl, the extremely potent opiate used by Russian forces to end the hostage crisis in the theater in Chechnya. The bombs detonate when the barometric trigger senses a cabin pressure corresponding to an altitude of 28,000 feet. The fentanyl gas diffuses throughout the cabin and is absorbed so rapidly by the victims that they cannot even pick up a cell phone or handset to initiate a call.

Task 2 is accomplished with an autopilot program in an upgrade package, disguised as a high-altitude stall-recovery program. The instrument-triggered program is started by the flight computer when the plane passes through 30,000 feet and proceeds to fly the aircraft into its target with down-to-the-meter accuracy.

Pairs of operatives at Logan and Dulles airports posing as passengers check the bomb-concealing luggage onto the targeted flights.

Technicians in a control center in Building 7 track the three jetliners and can communicate with the autopilot program through a data port. If necessary they can modify the programmed course of the aircraft.

On Flights 11, 175, and 77, a nearly identical sequence of events transpires. First the decapacitating gas is dispersed, knocking out everyone on board. Then, after about 5 minutes, as the plane continues to climb, the Trojan horse program is activated and it proceeds to turn the transponder off and begin maneuvering the plane toward its final target.

As Flight 77 swoops toward the Pentagon after a spectacular spiral dive, the program switches its transponder on, this time with a code identifying itself as a friendly F-16. Flying within 500 feet of the ground for the last mile of its approach, and at a speed of over 500 mph (three times as fast as jetliners normally fly so close to the ground) makes it appear to be a much smaller plane from a distance, with nearby witnesses being impressed by its size and sudden presence. Its friendly transponder allows it to avoid triggering the missile batteries on the lawn's perimeter. However, a specially-programmed surface-to air system, located less than 100 feet from the Pentagon's facade, fires a missile at the Flight 77 just as its nose begins to impact the facade. The explosion of the warhead shatters the plane's tail section, preventing the rudder from leaving an imprint on the facade. The speed of the crash prevents the explosions from greatly altering the trajectory of the plane's contents, which enter the building, mostly reduced to small pieces.

The aerobatic approach maneuver, the alteration of the impact damage shape by the missile strikes, the surprisingly and deceptively small appearance of the debris field, the immediate seizure of video capturing the attack, and the initial broadcast of a report of a commuter plane, would seed the notion that a 757 was not involved in the attack -- a notion later fed by releasing forged video frames from a Pentagon security camera. The idea that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon is seized upon by many 9-11 skeptics and is used to discredit all 9-11 skepticism.

Hijacking Flight 93

Flight 93 takes off from Newark and is shot down in Pennsylvania. The pilot of the interceptor is ordered not to discuss the incident. With the exception of the shoot-down, the events on Flight 93 are substantially the same as reported in the wake of the attack: hijackers on board do kill the pilots and seize control of the aircraft, and there is a passenger revolt.

The Destruction in Manhattan

The demolitions of the Twin Towers and Building 7 are accomplished through the detonation of high-explosive charges inconspicuously installed in all three buildings' elevator shafts, and, in the case of Building 7, small cutter charges placed adjacent perimeter columns near the building's base.

The number of explosive charges used in the Twin Towers is far less than would be employed in conventional demolitions of such large buildings, but their aggregate explosive energy is much greater. Each charge is contained in a capsule weighing about 40 pounds and encased in an impact- and fire-resistant casing similar to the casings that shield aircraft black boxes.

Each demolition charge has a detonator that goes off when it detects a radio signal that matches its unique code. Each charge is assigned to the nearest of a score of radio repeater clusters also hidden in the elevator shafts. During each tower's demolition sequence, a radio in Building 7 sends signals for the various explosive charges in rapid succession through the repeater clusters, forming a 2-level hub-and-spoke network. Software on the demolition-controlling computer allows the technicians to make last-minute changes to the programmed demolition sequences, such as to account for the positions at which the aircraft struck.

The high-explosive charges resemble conventional thermobaric devices, in which an initial charge disperses an explosive aerosol without detonating it, and a second charge ignites the aerosol, producing a strong blast wave. The delay between the dispersal and detonating charges is about five seconds, allowing the aerosol to traverse the distance between the elevator shafts and perimeter walls before being detonated. The explosive is designed to have almost no flash.

Personnel Requirements

By exploiting the hierarchical military command structure and automation, a small group of conspirators is able to execute the complex attack. The group consists of top-ranking Pentagon officials, top officials in the New York City government, and a small team of technicians. The technicians gain access to systems through authorizations passed down from the high-ranking officials.

The Pentagon attack is engineered by simply gaining access to and programming the defensive systems already in place at the Pentagon. Most of the ensuing cover-up is carried out by personnel not knowingly involved in the conspiracy, but simply acting to protect their superiors.

The deployment of the explosive charges in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers is performed by a team of just three technicians working over a period of about four weeks. The explosive charges, disguised to look like lighting fixtures, are placed on the roofs of elevator cars and installed on the inside walls of the elevator shafts by a technician riding on the elevator. There are no security cameras inside the shafts to capture this operation. A controller is placed on each floor to signal the dozens of charges on that floor via short-distance radio links. After the attack, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani assures, through his control of the police force and over city contracts, that Ground Zero is sealed off and that the evidence is destroyed.

Total Personnel

The personnel who execute the attack are stratified into two layers: the command team, and several operations teams. The command team plans the operation, starting about a year before the attack, directs the operations teams for several months in advance of the attack, and monitors and coordinates the operation on the day of the attack. The operations teams perform specific tasks to prepare for the operation for several months before, and implement it on the day of the attack. Only the members of the command team are aware of the entire scope of the operation. Members of the operations teams are briefed on a need-to-know basis.

The command team consists of individuals in the highest levels of the United States government and the New York City government and selected deputies. Their executive authority uniquely empowers them to implement critical aspects of the operation and the official response to it without oversight, such as changing procedures for interception of hijacked aircraft, and disposing of the remains of the World Trade Center without proper investigation.

In addition to coordinating the preparations for and the response to the attack, the command team staffs the command centers on the day of the attack to coordinate last-minute adjustments in the operation, and implement fall-back plans in the event of failures. The two command centers are located Office of Emergency Management bunker on the 23rd floor of Building 7, and in the basement of the White House.

Full Index

2008-04-16T20:35:00.006+01:00

9/11

Welcome Page
My Journey to 9/11 Truth

1. Religious Myths
1.1. Myths from History
1.2. False-Flag Attacks
1.3. American False-Flag Attacks
1.3.1. Operation Northwoods
1.4. The Strategy of Tension
1.5. Middle Eastern Terrorism

2. The 9/11 Myths
2.1. The Term "Conspiracy Theorist"
2.2. Our leaders would not do this...
2.3. Our leaders could not do this...
2.4. Our leaders had no motive...
2.5. The attacks have been fully investigated...
2.6. The official account has been proven...

3. The 9/11 Evidence
3.1. Beliefs about 9/11
3.2. The Official Account
3.2.1. Coincidences and Luck
3.3. Foreknowledge
3.4. The NORAD Response
3.5. The World Trade Center
3.5.1. Design
3.5.2. Official Collapse Theories
3.6. Flight 93
3.7. The Pentagon
3.8. The Executive Response
3.9. The Hijackers

4. The Cover-up

5. Misinformation
5.1. 9/11 Misinformation
5.2. (Mis)Representations of Best Evidence

6. The Information War

7. Attack Scenario 404

8. The New World Order

Media Review

Articles and Essays

Pictures

News

Economics

Politics

My Journey to 9/11 Truth

2008-04-15T22:48:00.005+01:00

I am a 25 year old British male based in the south of the UK. In 2007, my outlook on life changed completely when I came to the realisation that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the mainstream media is capable of making people believe enormous lies and myths. Despite my education and my interest in world affairs, even my particular interest in world history, I had been deceived.

I think back to what I thought about 9/11 before my 'awakening' as someone trying to recall a dream.

The Mainstream Media perspective

When the attacks happened, like almost everyone else, I was in shock. Within days, the media was telling us that the attacks were orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden, who quickly became the face of evil, and that he acted without the aid of any government; that he was the mastermind behind a terrorist network called Al Qaeda. Why would they attack us? This question was pondered for a few days by everyone, before the general public (including myself) accepted the answer provided by George Bush: that they are evil, and despise our freedoms and wealth.

I have a vague recollection of the media reporting "revelations" about "what really happened" on 9/11. Here are some that I remember, and what I thought about them at the time:

It turned out that "Bush Knew", as the BBC reported. (How incompetent of him!)
Foreign intelligence agencies sent warnings to the Americans. (Damn bureaucracy!)
Some training exercises were going on, which confused the air traffic controllers and NORAD. (What an unfortunate coincidence!)
The 9/11 families were unhappy that Henry Kissinger was appointed to head the 9/11 Commission and forced him to resign. (They're trying to cover their own backs to stop themselves getting fired or losing popularity! At least they've got someone decent to do that important job now!)

The media "taught" me also:

That there was no doubt the attacks were orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden, and that no-one else was involved.
That the attacks necessitated the "War on Terror" which would start with an invasion of Afghanistan and the PATRIOT Act; we would all have to surrender some of our liberty for security in this "new political climate".

And perhaps the most powerful view that I had was this:

That anyone who was saying that 9/11 was an inside job was a crazy conspiracy theorist.

The Michael Moore perspective

In 2004, I watched, with mild interest, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". I felt like I was watching an independent, anti-establishment film about 9/11, which would reveal the truth behind what the politicians were lying about and trying to keep covered up. I thought Moore was providing a "middle-ground" view between the outrageous claims of these "conspiracy theorists" and the spin the politicians and (mainstream) media presented. This, I thought, was close to the truth.

And what did that film show or imply?

That the Bush family and Bin Laden family were closely linked. But Osama Bin Laden rebelled from his family and "stabbed Bush in the back". Bush wanted to keep this secret.
That rich Saudis, or Pakistan, might have been involved in financing the attacks, and the White House wanted to keep this secret for political and/or personal reasons.
That Bush wanted to attack Saddam Hussein, and that he would "blame" the attacks on him. He didn't get his way however, because it was "proved" that Bin Laden was behind the attacks. Damn! Now, Bush would have to think of another way to sell an invasion of Iraq to the public! And he did!
That George Bush, stunned and confused in a Florida classroom, was thinking about all this, instead of doing something - anything - else at that moment. What an idiot! Vote Democrat next time!
That the War on Terror has stripped away many of our civil liberties, but its all necessary because those terrorists are out there and we need the government to keep us secure.

There it was, I thought: the TRUTH, or, at least, close to it. It was fashionable to blame George Bush for, through his own incompetence, and that of his Administration, failing to prevent 9/11. An extreme view would be to say that he "found out about" the attacks just beforehand and deliberately chose not to act (to advance his imperial agenda), but that would be bordering on the wild speculations of those "conspiracy theorists".

The Shock and Denial Stage

In 2006, a friend of mine lent me a copy of 9/11: The Road to Tyranny by Alex Jones, which he had downloaded. Even though I had been told that the argument being made by the film - that 9/11 was an inside job - was compelling, it still took me several months to get round to watching it. When I first watched it, I was struck by the amount of information about 9/11 that I did not know: 3 skyscrapers collapsed on 9/11, the hijackers were looked after and trained by U.S. intelligence services, key evidence was destroyed and withheld, fake evidence was planted, officials told bare-faced lies, Bin Laden is a CIA asset, many people had foreknowledge, and powerful people within the U.S. administration had openly expressed a desire for "a new Pearl Harbor" to launch their 'War on Terror'.

The film also educated me on the history of the use of false-flag attacks to create myths, using the Problem-Reaction-Solution method. The Reichstag Fire. The Gleiwitz Incident. Pearl Harbor. Operation Ajax. The Northwoods Document. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The Attack on the USS Liberty. All events that I had previously either not known about, been misled about, or regarded as "one-offs". All now fully admitted and documented uses of Problem-Reaction-Solution. The evidence for the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and 1995 Oklahoma City Federal Building Bombing being the same is also compelling.

This film, there was no doubt about it, was asserting that there were many "Big Lies" that are being told to the public. It didn't stop there. The film outlined the history of the New World Order: from the establishment of the Federal Reserve System and the Council on Foreign Relations, the creation and financial support for both communism and fascism, the deliberate causing of the Wall Street Crash and Great Depression, the funding of Hitler and eugenics policies to their plans for a one world tyrannical government in total control of the bulk of humanity, who will serve the Elite as slaves. After they have established a cashless-society control-grid and police state in the U.S. and internationally, this film told me about their plans to eliminate 80% of the world's population.

All this information was too much for me to take. I could not argue against the evidence I had seen in this film and I agreed with my closest friends that, yes, 9/11 was an inside job. But it could not all be true, I thought; we all could not, surely, have been so completely deceived, conditioned and propagandised, to believe complete lies about so many issues. For a few months, the film played on my mind only occasionally. I wandered just what was true and what was false in it. I told almost no-one about what I believed (or been suckered in by?), or had become skeptical about. I did not want to be a conspiracy theorist. I did not want to find out for myself, or even attempt to find out, how far the lies went. I carried on with my life just as before.

My Awakening

In May 2007, I rented a copy of 9/11: Press For Truth, a film made by the families of the victims of the attack about their search for truth and their quest for answers to their many unanswered questions. I do not remember why I rented it; I had no idea that it would have the effect it had on me. Deep down, I think I needed to see Press For Truth because I too had many unanswered questions about 9/11; a film made by the 9/11 families ought to do more than just scratch the surface as Michael Moore had done, but without jumping to the "extremism" of Alex Jones.

The film made some key points:

That there had been a carefully orchestrated cover-up of the events of 9/11 - that the 9/11 Commissioners had numerous conflicts of interest; that they were hampered in their investigations; that their Report was essentially written by appointed staff under the guidance of White House insider Philip Zelikow; and that their Report was entirely unsatisfactory and even deceptive.
That there was foreknowledge - that at least 11 different foreign nations had warned the U.S. of an attack; that NORAD, the CIA and the FBI all knew of the threat of a multiple airliner terrorist attack; that the President himself knew; that FBI investigations of Al Qaeda had been blocked by the White House prior to 9/11; that some of the hijackers were known terrorists; and that the mainstream media was manipulating the news about the events of 9/11, and giving out false messages.
That Bin Laden was never the real aim of the war in Afghanistan - he was deliberately not captured and was allowed to flee to Pakistan; that President Bush announced shortly after the invasion that he did not care where Bin Laden was; that the Bin Laden's and Bush's were close allies; that Al Qaeda was a creation of the CIA; that Pakistan financed the hijackers; that the military-industrial complex and large corporations had profited from the war, as well as the politicians; and that the 'War on Terror' is largely a myth.

The film does not cross the line into claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, but, given all that it does say, that explanation seems to fit the pattern of these facts better than the official account that all this was due to just supreme incompetence, coincidence, and bad luck.

Based on the evidence I had seen until this point, I now felt sure that, at the very least, the attacks were deliberately allowed to take place. And now I wanted to know more. I wanted to know if, as Alex Jones says, insiders actually orchestrated the attack. In particular I wanted to know if it was true that the World Trade Center, including Building 7, were destroyed controlled demolition. If this were true, then it immediately implies that 9/11 was indeed an inside job.

My Press for Truth

And so I turned, at last, to the internet. What had previously been a novelty, a convenience, and a source of entertainment, became a vital tool of research. Through the internet, I could read all the views: the official view, and supporting arguments, and all the various opposing views that have been expressed. I would use the scientific method to address the scientific question of which theory best supported the observations.

I read the work of Professor Steven Jones, outlining his objections to the NIST Report and his alternative hypothesis involving thermite explosives in his paper Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?. I watched documentaries like 9/11 Mysteries. I read David Ray Griffin's The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why The Official Story Cannot Be True.

Although the evidence was convincing, I didn't feel confident enough to be sure that what they were saying is true, and that there isn't some other explanation. I turned to see what those who support the official are saying about the controlled demolition hypothesis. The official theory is supported by NIST's two FAQ sheets (one and two) and by Popular Mechanics' Debunking the 9/11 Myths article. For a time, I was swaying, I didn't know who to believe - the 9/11 Truth Movement had a good case, but some things the "debunkers" were saying made me doubt it.

In digging deeper, I found responses and critiques of these "debunking" efforts, written by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as Jim Hoffman and David Ray Griffin. These responses reveal the debunkers as being deceptive and manipulative, lying and twisting things. After reading the responses, I realised not only that these debunkers fail to debunk the evidence supporting the alternative theories, but that that isn't even their aim - their sole aim is to convince their readers that they have been debunked, using trickery.

Understanding the efforts and dirty tactics gone to by the establishment to keep the 9/11 Truth Movement out of the mainstream was what finally convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job.

During my reading, I learned that there are arguments within the 9/11 Truth Movement that are as heated as arguments between the Movement and the establishment.

Knowing that the debunkers seize on any faulty logic or questionable evidence, and draw attention to extreme arguments over the most fundamental ones, I was determined that my view of what really happened that day be as close to the truth as possible. Were explosives (like thermite) used to destroy the WTC, or was it a directed energy weapon? Was it Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, or something else? What happened to Flight 93?

Internal disagreements on questions like this caused the split, in January 2007, of the top group of 9/11 Truth Movement scholars, into two factions. The breakaway faction, called the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, is led by Steven Jones and focuses on the thermite hypothesis, and dismisses views such as that a missile hit the Pentagon, or that Flight 93 didn't exist. The minority of scholars who endorsed such viewpoints were left in the original Scholars for 9/11 Truth group, led by James Fetzer.

Reading the discussions between these two groups helped me to identify who was honestly seeking the truth about 9/11, and who was trying to obfuscate the issues and promoting false theories as science.

Reading the discussions between the two groups helped me to identify who was honestly seeking the truth about 9/11, and who was trying to obfuscate the issues and promoting false theories as science. Some of these articles are listed on this page, and there are more on my wikipedia user sub-page.

Understanding 9/11 misinformation, and disinformation, is integral to a full understanding 9/11 Truth.

Widening my research; wikipedia and this blog

I started speaking to people about 9/11 shortly after I came to know for sure that it was an inside job. I was laughed at and ridiculed, and I could not answer satisfactorily all the questions that were thrown at me. Like why? And who? And how?

I asked people to have an open mind and look at the evidence, watch documentaries and see what I had seen. But no one did. I began to understand that it was these 'larger questions' that were preventing people from looking at the evidence. I understood now that this was why I had taken 6 years to look at the evidence myself.

And so I did more research - more detail, and more 'big-picture' - other issues besides 9/11. I followed the leads provided to me by David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott and Alex Jones. I realised that the mainstream story about many other events was also false - I began to see that our society is dominated by myths.

And what is more, these myths are all connected, as they have all be created and perpetuated with one ultimate goal in mind: world government. I discovered, with horror, the New World Order.

We are in more trouble than I could possibly have imagined...

But if I could not get anyone to open their minds to 9/11 Truth, how could I possibly convince anyone of this? That world government is actually being set up, and indeed is almost in complete control, and has created myths to cover up many many shocking truths - not just that they were behind 9/11?

As before, my solution was to learn more. And so I turned to politics, after hearing Ron Paul being endorsed by Alex Jones. My learning about truth was only just beginning...

In the meantime, I decided to practice my 9/11 debating, and become familiar with primary sources, by editing wikipedia articles related to 9/11. I created several new pages, rewrote some and made many hundreds of edits. My wikipedia user page demonstrates my work on wikipedia, much of which remains today in the public pages.

I experienced first-hand the flaws of wikipedia. The Reliable Source policy, which requires that every fact is sourced to a "reliable" source, prevents wikipedia from being a full and unbiased encyclopedia of 9/11 issues, because "reliable" is, within the world of wikipedia, precisely a source which supports the official story of 9/11. Any dissenting source is excluded by definition. There are obvious disinformation agents whose job it is to ensure this definition of "reliable" remains, and that the 9/11 pages continue to support the official story and paint alternative views as crazy.

Wikipedia is controlled by those who argue most tenaciously and by those whose view is the majority, even if it is wrong. It is difficult for individual editors to compete against organised, trained and full-time disinformation agents.

Eventually, I felt that I was wasting my time by arguing over words and sentences on wikipedia, and decided to start this blog, so I can tell it like it is.

From originally being dedicated only to 9/11, this blog has expanded as I have learned, with the subjects becoming broader. Politics. Economics. Climate. Police State and Big Brother news. New World Order.

Now with a broader knowledge, I have at least been able to open up more minds, get people to look at things differently. A few of my friends have watched documentaries I have given them, like Loose Change, Endgame, Terrorstorm, Truth Rising, America: Freedom to Fascism, and Fabled Enemies. Some of them have been inspired into researching and learning for themselves. All of those that have are now 9/11 Truthers.

On the whole, I am still laughed at and ridiculed. But that is beginning to change...

9/11 Essays

2008-04-15T22:11:00.003+01:00

The following are some index pages for 9/11-related essays:

9/11 Research Essays by Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Michael Green et al.

9/11 Research Reviews by Jim Hoffman.

Journal of 9/11 Studies by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

Here are some more essays:

Gullible Americans by Paul Craig Roberts

How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps by Paul Joseph Watson

9/11 Media

2008-02-26T18:09:00.005Z

Documentaries

Loose Change: Final Cut - 2007, Dylan Avery - focusing on the evidence relating to 9/11.
9/11: Road to Tyranny - 2002, Alex Jones - examines admitted cases of government-sponsored terror in the 20th century, and looks at the World Trade Center bombing (1993) and Oklahoma City Bombing (1995), before focusing on 9/11. Examines the motives and plans of the New World Order.
Terrorstorm: A History of State-sponsored Terrorism - 2006, Alex Jones - examines documented cases of government-sponsored terror before exposing the 7/7 bombings as an orchestrated event and brings another update on the current state of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement - 2007, Alex Jones - examines the Bilderberg group and the New World Order plans for the future.
Zeitgeist - 2007

See Also: Documentaries (non-9/11 related documentaries)

Lectures

9/11: The Myth and the Reality - David Ray Griffin
9/11: Truth and Lies - Michael Ruppert
9/11: Blueprint for Truth - Richard Gage

Top Websites

9/11 Truth
9/11 Research
9/11 Review
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Patriots Question 9/11

See Also: Websites (reviews some of the 9/11 websites containing misinformation)

Books

Debunking 9/11 Debunking - David Ray Griffin, 2007
Crossing the Rubicon - Michael Ruppert
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions - David Ray Griffin
9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out - David Ray Griffin

Papers / Essays

Journal of 9/11 Studies - journal of studies by members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

5.2.0 (Mis)Representations of best evidence

2008-02-13T19:48:00.003Z

In the debunking media, claims that are false are examined alongside claims that are true. By debunking the false claims, the true claims will be discredited by association. But in order to justify that assertion that true claims are being debunked, the media must form what appears to be a convincing argument. The target audience of the debunking media is people who have not researched the evidence of 9/11 in any depth or at all. Without knowledge of the precise (true) claims being made, and the evidence that supports those claims, the reader relies on the debunking article to state both the claim and its own rebuttal. Thus, most readers will fail to notice when claims have been subtly changed, or when the evidence cited to support those claims has been distorted or omitted entirely.

Misrepresentations of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

The controlled demolition hypothesis is most simply represented as a list of features consistent with controlled demolition (but not with 'progressive collapse') that are observed in video footage of the collapses: the sudden onset, the speed, verticality, symmetry, explosiveness, horizontal debris emissions, pulvarisation, shredding, and the molten metal seen coming out the Tower prior to its collapse and found in the rubble of all three buildings. These are all things that would be expected if explosives had been in the buildings, and they are not features associated with 'collapses' of buildings. Indeed, steel skyscrapers have never before or since completely collapsed due to local damage and/or fires.

However, when approaching this subject, the debunking media will often attack the apparent weaknesses of the hypothesis first. Most commonly, the question "How could anyone have gotten explosives into the building?" is the first one asked. This question has nothing to do with the scientific question of what brought the buildings down. If we can show that someone must have then we must deduce that someone did.

Dubious, or misinterpreted, 'evidence' for this claim is discussed as much as the best evidence. For example, seismic records do not support either the controlled demolition hypothesis or the progressive collapse theory, and yet they are often claimed by debunkers to be 'at the center of the hypothesis.' They can thus claim the whole hypothesis is based on a misreading of data.

The official collapse theory (which is really a local collapse theory) is endorsed heavily by the debunking media, often in a condescending tone, as if the 'conspiracy theorists' have misunderstood the official theory. For example, it is often claimed that 'conspiracy theorists say that jet fuel cannot melt steel, therefore the plane impacts could not have caused the collapses'. In fact, this jet-fuel-melts-steel fallacy originated on the day of the attacks and came from 'experts' who were endorsing the official explanation as being the result of plane impacts and fires. The debunking media gleefully points out to its uninformed readers that 'of course it can't, but the steel only buckled' - as if this in any way debunks the controlled demolition hypothesis. It is useful for them to make the 'conspiracy theorists' appear foolish by attributing mistaken claims to them, and making them appear to have not read, or misunderstood, the official theory. By giving a basic description of (one of) the local collapse theory(s), the debunking media can make the scenario seem not only plausible, but inevitable, when in fact the local collapse theory endorsed by NIST is impossible.

Another technique used is appeal to authority: statistics are given about how 'thorough' the NIST investigation was, and 'reputable experts' are paraded in support of the official theory.

By the time the debunking media is through with these attempts to persuade their readers that they are debunking the hypothesis, there is little space left for dealing with the actual collapse features, which are the real center of the hypothesis. When dealing with the best evidence, when they cannot misrepresent it, the debunking media seek to confuse and obfuscate the issues; it is all they have left. Some examples include:

When discussing the speed of the collapses, the details of the exact time they took to collapse often takes up some discussion. The times range from 8 seconds (less than free-fall speed) to 17 seconds. (Analysis of seismic data from the nearby Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University shows that the north tower collapsed in 12.74 seconds, or 57.7% longer than free fall, and that the duration of the south tower collapse was 10.52 seconds, or 42% longer than free fall. The collapse of WTC7 took just under 7 seconds, or about 11% longer than free fall.) The debate serves as a distraction to the question of how any such speed of collapse is possible, given that the entire structure under the impact point was intact. The Law of Conservation of Momentum appears to have been broken in all three cases.
Molten metal is a sure sign of extremely high temperatures, and molten metal was found in the rubble of all three buildings. Amazingly, the existence of the molten metal has been debated, despite photographs, eyewitness testimony, and satellite images that showed extreme heat spots for weeks and months after the event. Molten metal was even seen flowing from the side of the South Tower before its collapse. This is said to be aluminium, and not the same as the molten metal in the rubble. When its existence is admitted to, absurd theories such as that 'underground fires' formed a cauldron that melted the steel. The steel has even been analysed by Professor Steven Jones, who found sulphur, indicating the use of the type of explosive used in industry for cutting steel in controlled demolitions: thermate, a variant of thermite. Other trace elements found on the steel also indicate explosives were used.
The horizontal debris emissions seen in the Twin Towers below the collapse line as the collapse ensued, appear to be demolition squibs. The use of such squibs is characteristic of controlled demolitions of buildings. How can these be explained? The FEMA theory asserted that the floors were falling inside the building a few floors below the visible line of collapse. It was asserted that the crushing floors expelled the air between them and this appeared as horizontal emissions. A problem with this idea is that it only occurred on a few floors, and simultaneously at different heights in the building. However, NIST abandoned this pancaking scenario in favour of their pile-driver theory, making the idea of horizontal debris emissions below the collapse line even more unfathomable. Rebuttals to this claim temporarily switch to the abandoned FEMA theory when trying to make a convincing argument that horizontal emissions are 'to be expected' in a progressive collapse.

The debunking media prefer to exploit uncertainties within the alternative theories, rather than exploring anomalies in the official theory. Although thermate, used in combination with explosives, detonated remotely using a pre-defined explosive sequence, seems the most likely method of controlled demolition, the debunking media often draws attention to mistaken claims such as that 'mini-nukes' were used, or there were 'basement bombs' (alone), or even that it was a 'death-ray from outer space' (Directed Energy Weapon) used. Even when discussing explosives, the debunking media exaggerate how much explosive material would have been required, and overstate the difficulty of getting explosives into the building.

When discussing Building 7, attention is often drawn to an intriguing comment made by WTC owner Larry Silverstein in a PBS documentary. He said that, in a phone conversation with a chief fire officer, they agreed that they should 'pull it'. Some have claimed that he was referring to the building and it was a subtle admission of guilt, while Silverstein himself claims he was referring to pulling the firefighters out of the building. The first interpretation seems unlikely, since such a plan to destroy Building 7 would have had to have been planned in advance - no such discussion would have taken place. Also, given that it was a documentary that could have easily been re-shot after Silverstein realized his embarrassing admission, begs the question - why did he choose that particularly ambiguous phrase. It seems likely that the words were carefully chosen by Silverstein to divert questions about the physical evidence of the collapse of Building 7 towards questions about this comment. Given that the physical evidence for controlled demolition of Building 7 is even more convincing than for the Twin Towers (because it looked exactly like a conventional controlled demolition), this may have been a wise tactic. And judging by the amount of 'air-time' this comment is given, the tactic seems to have worked.

Misrepresentations of the NORAD response

The evidence for a military stand-down or slow-down is primarily based on the observation that the official explanation is completely implausible. This, along with the fact that we have been given three distinct timelines of what happened. Even if we accept the latest story, from the 9/11 Commission, we must accept that lies were told there was a massive cover-up for three years. None of the three timelines are plausible explanations for why the military apparently failed to protect known terrorist targets, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (the 'best defended building on Earth'). The most recent one, which places most of the blame on the FAA, is even less believable than the other two.

However, to see why the official story is so ridiculous, it is necessary to know the details of what happened when and the explanations for why. The 9/11 Commission Report goes to great lengths to make their story seem plausible (even 'exciting') - but systematic omissions and distortions, with carefully constructed lies, can be identified by the alert reader. Professor David Ray Griffin critiques the Commission Report account in his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

By giving vague descriptions and summaries of what really happened, the debunking media can easily persuade uninformed readers that mistakes and incompetence, in the 'fog of war' is a plausible explanation.

Next Page: Scholars Discussions

3.9.0 The Hijackers

2008-01-28T21:26:00.001Z

There are strong reasons to have doubts about the official story that the attacks were carried out by the 19 hijackers alone. There are also a number of reasons to have doubts about the identities of these 19 men and what role, if any, they actually played on 9/11.

At least six of them hijackers have turned up alive.
They were not very competent pilots.
They did not fit the profile of Islamic extremists (or suicide attackers).
There is no evidence linking the hijackers to the plot.
They were being tracked / trained / assisted by the FBI.
They were not on the original flight manifests from the airlines (though they appeared on the ones released later).
There is no video evidence of them boarding the planes (there are some of them at the airport)

Next Chapter: The Cover-up

5.1.0 9/11 Misinformation

2008-01-28T21:18:00.002Z

9/11 Research and 9/11 Review examine all the claims that have been made, and conclude that many of them are in fact misinformation (‘errors’). Some of these issues are outlined here.

ERRORS: Pentagon Attack Issues

The issue of ‘what hit the Pentagon?’ is the biggest ‘booby-trap’ for 9/11 skeptics there is. There are numerous pieces of ‘evidence’ that seem to support the idea that the government’s story with regard to the Pentagon is false. However, a thorough and careful analysis of each piece of this ‘evidence’ reveals that they are in fact all ‘errors’; Flight 77 hit the Pentagon more-or-less exactly as the official report details. The only legitimate issue relating to the Pentagon is the failure to prevent the hit happening – that is, the failures of NORAD and of the Pentagon missile defence system. The flight path of Flight 77 also shows that either the planes were flown by a highly competent and experienced pilot, or by computer.

The most common ‘evidence’ relates to the impact damage that occurred at the Pentagon. Specifically, the following has been cited:

ERROR: “The impact hole was too small for a Boeing 757.”
ERROR: “Columns remain standing in the impact hole.”
ERROR: “There was no plane debris at the site – the wings would have been found at least.”
ERROR: “The cable spools on the Pentagon lawn would have been hit.”
ERROR: “The Pentagon lawn would have been ripped up.”
ERROR: “Debris found does not match a Boeing 757.”
ERROR: “The ‘punch-out’ hole is inconsistent with a Boeing 757 hit.”
ERROR: “The flight path precludes a Boeing 757.”
ERROR: “Eyewitnesses saw a small plane / missile.”

ERRORS: Untenable Demolition Theories

ERROR: "Basement bombs brought down the buildings"
ERROR: "Nuclear devices were used"
ERROR: "Directed Energy Weapons were used"
ERROR: "Radiant Energy Projectiles were used"
ERROR: "Conventional Explosives (alone) were used"
ERROR: "Thermite (alone) was used"

ERRORS: Flight 93 Issues

Some popular videos such as Loose Change and 9/11 Revealed, have claimed that Flight 93 didn’t crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, based on the following errors:

ERROR: “There was no debris at the crash site”
ERROR: “Flight 93 landed at Cleveland and the passengers were ‘disposed of’ (perhaps in a NASA Research Center)"
ERROR: “The phone calls were faked.”

ERRORS: ‘No Boeings’ at the WTC

Incredibly, the idea that the impacts of the planes at the WTC are suspicious has been raised, and is actively supported by one of the truth movement’s most prominent members, Morgan Reynolds. There is only one known video of the Flight 11 impact, which, although blurry, seems to show nothing other than Flight 11. Despite dozens of cameras, from news organizations and individuals, pointing at the Towers capturing the impact of Flight 175, the nature of this impact is questioned too.

ERROR: “Flight 175 had a pod beneath it”
ERROR: “There were flashes (explosions) before/during the impacts”
ERROR: “Different Boeing planes were used”
ERROR: “They were military planes / drones painted to look like the Flights”
ERROR: “They were missiles wrapped in holograms”
ERROR: “Nothing hit the Towers (explosives and holograms/CGI were used).”

ERRORS: Jewish Plot Theories

There are legitimate questions relating to the involvement of the state of Israel (the Mossad) that have not been answered. As well as being some of the most popularly reported claims, these questions are also often combined with several errors to promote Zionist or Jewish plot theories. Although these are seldom mentioned in the Truth Movement, attention is often drawn to them by the mainstream media to discredit and slur the movement.

ERROR: “4000 Jewish WTC employees stayed home that day.”

Next Page: (Mis)Representations of best evidence

5.0.0 Misinformation

2008-01-28T21:12:00.004Z

The 9/11 truth movement is plagued by false theories. False theories can emerge a number of ways:

Misinterpretations of evidence (errors)
Hoaxes (for personal gain or dramatic purposes)
Disinformation (information that is deliberately put out for subversive purposes)

However it originates, misinformation (information that is false) is always spread by those who are well-meaning and honest, but have not carefully checked that their claims are true.

The existence of disinformation agents working for the government is supported by historical evidence of Cold War politics. Infiltration is a key part of gathering intelligence and attacking enemies ‘from the inside’ – with an issue as important as covering up 9/11, the government would clearly be capable and willing to infiltrate the truth movement with disinformation agents.

The issue of disinformation is extremely controversial due to the tendency of even the most informed, intelligent researchers to jump to conclusions and accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being a “disinformation agent”. In my view, the number of disinformation agents that would be required to achieve the effect that we have seen is very small, precisely because of the way misinformation is spread by those who genuinely believe their claims to be true.

One of the key reasons that misinformation spreads so quickly is that someone who fully believes their own claims is more likely to find evidence that fits their theory (and dismiss evidence which does not) and vigorously defend them than someone who is aware that they are claiming a false theory.

Reliable polls have shown that the majority of people believe that the government is lying about 9/11 and many of them support of the views of the 9/11 Truth Movement. But among them, the vast majority of people believe in some of the false theories and misinformation. For example, the number who believe a controlled demolition hypothesis is hardly any higher than the number who believe a missile hit the Pentagon. Sometimes it can be very difficult to separate the true information from the errors.

In addition, there are some parts of what happened that are virtually unknowable at the moment and therefore necessarily involve some degree of speculation. For example, it is not clear exactly what happened on the flights – but a range of possibilities have been suggested. Defenders of the official story draw attention to the speculative elements of theories in order to draw attention away from the evidence that supports them or makes them extremely likely.

Attack Scenario 404, for example, gives an overview of the way the attack would have been carried out, but it is probably not entirely accurate down to the details due to it necessarily containing some speculative elements.

This section is divided into the following pages:

4.0.0 The Cover-Up

2008-01-28T20:58:00.001Z

There is considerable evidence that there has been an organized, systematic cover-up of the truth of the events of 9/11. This cover-up involves several aspects:

Control of the Ground Zero site, the Pentagon and Shanksville - destruction, seizure and withholding of evidence and information, and control of eyewitnesses.
The embedding of the official story - quick analyses of events, finding of "evidence" of the identities of the hijackers, exclusion of alternative theories.
Lack of desire for investigations; control of the investigations and their reports; lack of thoroughness in investigating; scientific fraud in official reports.
Denouncement and ridicule of alternative theories; infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement; failed attempts to debunk them.

Next Chapter: Misinformation

3.8.0 Executive Response

2008-01-28T20:43:00.002Z

The behaviour during the attacks of top members of the Bush Administration, along with the actions of people around them, has drawn considerable criticism.

President George W Bush

On the morning of September 11, President Bush was scheduled to visit Emma E. Booker Elementary School, Sarasota, Florida, for a photo opportunity for him to promote the passage of his education plan. He arrived at 8:55 and was aware of the first plane impact before he entered the school, believing it to have been a "horrible accident". White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who were both with the president at the time, recalled also believing the first impact to have been an accident. The principle of the school later recalled: "[The President] said a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center, and we’re going to go ahead and go on, we’re going on to do the reading thing anyway."

Bush would later claim on several occasions that, while he was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, he "saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.' But I was whisked off there - I didn't have much time to think about it." A Bush spokesman later calls Bush’s repeated comments “just a mistaken recollection” - the only known footage of the first plane impact was not broadcast on television until later that day.

Bush was in the school classroom, just about to begin a reading of The Pet Goat with the children, when, at 9:05am, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card whispered in his ear that "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Bush then sat with the children reading for “for eight or nine minutes,” before getting up to leave. During this time, Bush's Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was in the back of the classroom holding a pad on which he had written "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET." He tells the children, “Thank you all so very much for showing me your reading skills.” One student also asks Bush a question, and Bush gives a quick response on his education policy. A reporter asks, "Mr. President, are you aware of the reports of the plane crash in New York? Is there any..." This question is interrupted by an aide who has come into the room, saying, “All right. Thank you. If everyone could please step outside.” Bush then says, “We’ll talk about it later.”

The President then went into an empty classroom next door and to meet with his staff there. The Secret Service later tells the 9/11 Commission that while he is in the holding room at the Booker Elementary School, they are “anxious to move the president to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.” The 9/11 Commission Report claimed that "No one in the traveling party had any information... that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. Staff was in contact with the White House Situation Room, but as far as we could determine, no one with the president was in contact with the Pentagon." At 9:29 he began his scheduled press conference in the library of the school, making his first public comments about the attack:

“Today we’ve had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country.”

After the speech, at 9:34 Bush departed from the school in the presidential motorcade. En route, Bush learned of the Pentagon being hit, and receives a telephone call from Vice President Dick Cheney. At 9:43, the motorcade reached Sarasota airport where the president and his staff boarded Air Force One, which took to air at 9:56, with no fighter escort. According to a 9/11 Commission staff report, a second phone call between Bush and Cheney takes place shortly after takeoff, during which Bush authorizes the shoot-down of hijacked aircraft. Later, on hearing about the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, Bush asked "Did we shoot it down or did it crash?" The 9/11 Commission Report later said that confirmation from President to shoot down airplanes was not received until 10:25. Air Force One flew to Barksdale Air Force Base near Shreveport, Louisiana.

Vice President Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney learned that the first plane had hit the first Tower shortly before 9:00. He later recalled being puzzled by the reports: “I was sitting there thinking about it. It was a clear day, there was no weather problem—how in hell could a plane hit the World Trade Center?”[27] But when he saw the second plane hit, "that’s what triggered the thought: terrorism, that this was an attack.".

Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke arrived in Cheney's office a few minutes later. Cheney told Clarke, “It’s an al-Qaeda attack and they like simultaneous attacks. This may not be over.” Rice asked Clarke for recommendations, and he said “We’re putting together a secure teleconference to manage the crisis.” He also recommends evacuating the White House. According to Clarke and others, at about 9:10 Cheney goes from his White House office to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), a bunker below the East Wing of the White House, shortly followed by Rice. When Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta arrived in the PEOC at about 9:20, he claims that Cheney and Rice were already there and that Cheney was directing operations. Other reports say that Cheney was being taken down to the bunker at around 9:30.

Although admitting that there “is conflicting evidence about when the vice president arrived” in the PEOC, the 9/11 Commission concluded that the “vice president arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58.” This conflicts Dick Cheney's own account as he described to Tim Russert on September 16, 2001. He stated that he arrived in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit, and that from there he "was in a position to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports, and then make decisions in terms of acting with it"

Shortly after the Pentagon had been hit, Cheney made a telephone call to President Bush. According to Newsweek, Cheney was located in a tunnel on the way to the PEOC underground bunker, when he made this call. Shortly after this call, Richard Clarke institutes Continuity of Government plans. Additionally, Clarke received a phone call from an aide at the PEOC who said "tell the Pentagon they have authority from the president to shoot down hostile aircraft, repeat, they have authority to shoot down hostile aircraft." Cheney called Bush again at 9:56, at which time he reportedly approved the order to shoot down any hijacked planes, upon Cheney's recommendation.

Cheney "arrived" in the PEOC at around 9:58. At 10:02, he started receiving reports from the Secret Service of a fourth hijacked plane headed towards Washington. At 10:10, the Secret Service, viewing projected path information about Flight 93 rather than actual radar returns, did not realize that Flight 93 had already crashed and a military aide therefore asked Cheney for authority to shoot it down, which he quickly gave. Cheney called the president at 10:18 to confirm the authorization.

Acting Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers

On the morning of 9/11, Acting Joint Chief of Staff Richard Myers was having a routine meeting with Senator Max Cleland on Capitol Hill. The meeting started at 9:00 and Myers by that time was aware of the first plane hitting the first Tower, having seen live news coverage. "They thought it was a small plane or something like that," Myers recalled, “I said 'How could a pilot be that stupid, to hit a tower? I mean, what' —but then you think, 'Well, whatever'.". Myers went ahead with his meeting as planned. "Meanwhile the second World Trade Center was hit by another jet. Nobody informed us of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was obvious. Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had been hit."

After learning that the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon hadn't yet been evacuated, Myers headed straight there and was soon joined by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld had been outside surveying the damage and checking the progress of rescue operations. Myers described confusion at in the Command Center: "I didn't know what to believe at the time," he said. "We had these events, and then subsequently the airplane went down in Pennsylvania. We were trying to tie this together."

Next Page: The Hijackers

3.7.0 The Pentagon

2008-01-28T20:28:00.001Z

There are a number of problems with the official story that Hani Hanjour flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Unfortunately, these problems are overshadowed by an erroneous claim that has been prevalent in the 9/11 Truth Movement - that it was not Flight 77, nor even a Boeing 757, that hit the Pentagon. While the evidence supporting this claim can appear to be convincing, a careful examination of the claims being made and rebuttals to them reveals that the claim is untrue - it is misinformation.

However there are strong reasons to doubt that Hani Hanjour was in control of the plane as it approached the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission Report admitted that Hanjour was acknowledged as "a terrible pilot", and yet the maneuver performed by Flight 77 - a 330-degree downward spiral at high speed, becoming horizontal as it the wall of Wedge One just a few floors above ground level - has been recognised by pilots as one requiring expert piloting skills.

The fact that Flight 77 was not shot down by NORAD is an inexplicable anomaly given that the Pentagon is supposed to be the most protected building in the world. All airspace around the Pentagon is restricted. Andrews Air Force Base is just 10 miles away. The Pentagon would surely have had anti-aircraft missile system on the roof.

Next Page: The Executive Response

3.6.0 Flight 93

2008-01-28T20:20:00.001Z

Flight 93 was apparently flown into the ground by the hijackers after passengers stormed the cockpit. Despite seismic data and eyewitness testimony which put the impact time at 10:06am, the government account says that the impact was at 10:03am.

At the impact site, there are only small pieces of debris, the hole is very deep and there is little scorching of earth around the hole. This all suggests a very steep and fast descent. Yet one of the engines was found over a mile away, and other pieces of debris were found within an 8 mile radius. The official explanation for this is that the debris ‘bounced’ away from the impact. Multiple eyewitness reports that state that the plane fell in multiple pieces, and some that there may have been a military plane in the area, were ignored by investigators. The evidence suggests that Flight 93 was shot down.

Next Page: The Pentagon

3.5.2 Official Collapse Theories

2008-01-28T19:53:00.001Z

One of the most convincing arguments for the controlled demolition hypothesis is the way the collapses are presented in the official reports – first the FEMA Report (2002) then the NIST Report (2005). Both reports used the same techniques to avoid the evidence of a controlled demolition hypothesis; for the Two Towers, the collapse was only studied until ‘global collapse was inevitable, and the NIST Report into Building 7 is to ignore all floors below the 8th floor and also the top floor. This is not at all the scientific method – plausible theories fit all the evidence and relevant evidence is not ignored. Analysis of the evidence dismissed by the official reports is left to scientific journals and ‘debunking’ websites.

But even the local collapse failure scenarios presented in the official reports are beyond belief, when one considers the techniques used in the reports and how they distort, omit and falsify data and even fundamental parts of the buildings design. The FEMA Report diagrams of the building omit the core columns which held up the structures. The core is incredibly presented as a series of horizontal steel floors, making the progressive collapse seem more likely. In the NIST Report, the ‘worst case’ was the one that was analyzed – that is, a scenario in which the plane hit faster, more centrally, carrying more fuel and causing more extensive structural damage than the evidence shows.

The “Truss-Failure” Theory that FEMA proposed was that fires caused the steel floor trusses at the impact site to bend, pulling the perimeter columns inward until the floors detached from the columns. Somehow, on at least one floor, the connections between the steel-and-concrete floor and all core and perimeter columns broke instantaneously. Thus the floor fell onto the one below it, which in turn broke free from the core columns, and so on down to the ground, even though most floors were undamaged by fires. Also, immediately after the floor(s) at the impact site has fallen, the core columns lost lateral support and so buckled, and the weight of the intact portion of building above sliced the columns as it fell directly downwards, through the path of maximum resistance, rather than toppling. This theory is beyond belief for many reasons, and does not match the observed initiation events nor explain the traits common to controlled demolitions.

While the NIST Report abandoned the Truss-Failure scenario of collapse initiation in favour of ‘Column-Failure Theory,’ the same mechanism of ‘progressive collapse’ (‘pancake theory’) is implied for the point from collapse initiation onwards. The NIST theory asserts that the impact site columns, both core and perimeter, were heated by the fires to extremely high temperatures – then enough of them lost enough strength that they buckled. Since the building fell straight down symmetrically, the failures due to the heat must have been virtually equal in all the columns on one floor. This is not supported by the observations, nor would fires be expected to spread evenly throughout the building (NIST (nor anyone else) has not released a computer model simulating this phenomenon). Though it is barely mentioned in the huge report, a similar collapse mechanism following ‘initiation’ is implied by the NIST Report, except that in the NIST theory, unlike in the FEMA theory, the top portion of the buildings crushed both the columns and the floors as they fell, acting as a kind of battering ram onto the undamaged building below.

Next Page: Flight 93

3.5.1 Design

2008-01-28T19:34:00.001Z

The Twin Towers were built with a 'tube-in-a-tube' design.

47 massive vertical steel columns, each at least 3 feet by 16 inches in size and with steel 2 inches thick, and latticed together with horizontal and diagonal steel beams, made up the central core. The central core held up the building, extending 9 floors underground.

Around the perimeter were 240 smaller vertical columns, measuring 14 inches by 13.5 inches, built in sets of three.

The floors were grids of interlocking steel trusses that were welded and bolted to the core and perimeter columns, and covered in a 10cm layer of concrete. Both Towers were identical in design and contained 110 floors.

The buildings were specifically designed to survive multiple impacts from the biggest jetliner around at the time, the Boeing 707. The planes used on 9/11 were hardly any bigger than these planes.

The World Trade Center consisted of seven buildings. WTC1 and WTC2 were the North and South Towers. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were all less than 10 floors and were at the base of the main Towers. Building 7 was constructed later (in 1986) across the street, 330 feet from WTC1, and contained 47 floors. Building 7 was designed differently to the Twin Towers: it was 100% steel (no concrete) and had a trapezium shaped. Like the Towers, Building 7 was supported by its core columns (25), with the perimeter columns (58) mostly to hold up the floors.

Next Page: Official Collapse Theories

3.5.0 The World Trade Center

2008-01-28T19:31:00.002Z

No steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed due to local damage before or since 9/11, and yet it occurred three times on that day. Fires which have burned hotter, longer and more extensively have not brought any of them close to complete collapse. The Twin Towers were unique structures in their time (but have been much copied since) and were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts. Building 7 was not even hit by a plane, and yet it too completely collapsed.

The onus should be on the official investigators to provide a full account of how the collapses took place, but this has not happened. The NIST Report goes into enormous detail into the plane impacts and the spread of the fires and uses this to explain a local collapse theory: “Column-Failure Theory.” The earlier FEMA Report claims “Truss-Failure Theory”. Neither of these theories are believable. But more significantly, neither report explains how a local failure can cause a global collapse. Both imply a “Pancake Theory” of floors crashing into each other.
By not investigating past the point of local failure, the best evidence of a controlled demolition is conveniently ignored. In particular, the following observations consistent with a controlled demolition have not been adequately explained:

Sudden and rapid onset of collapse
Verticality (fell straight down)
Speed of collapse (close to free-fall speed)
Total collapse (no core columns were left standing)
Sliced steel (manageable size pieces)
Pulverization (most concrete and other materials reduced to dust)
Dust clouds (mushroomed and blasted outwards)
Horizontal Ejections (“Squibs”)
Symmetrical collapse
Sounds of explosions and flashes
Molten metal seen falling from the building
Smouldering (previously molten) metal found in the rubble

All of these features strongly suggest that explosives were planted inside the building. The existence of the molten metal, along with other observations, have led to the hypothesis that steel-cutting thermite might have been involved in combination with explosives.

The top of the South Tower appears to have started falling to the side and then straightened up as it went into the dust cloud – this breaks the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The speed of the collapse breaks the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum. And the pulverization of concrete and shredding of steel breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Building 7 is particularly hard to explain as a damage and fire-induced collapse, since it was not hit by a plane and showed the same signs of controlled demolition as the Two Towers, but even more clearly. It also seems to be a more conventional controlled demolition (the Two Towers were unconventional because they were designed to collapse from the impact points downwards) – it collapsed from the bottom in just 6.5secs (5.9secs is free-fall time) and instead of being blasted outwards like the Towers, appears to have imploded, with most of the rubble ending up inside the footprint.

Sub Pages: World Trade Center Design, Official Collapse Theories, Pictures of Collapses,

Next Page: Flight 93

3.4.0 NORAD Response

2008-01-23T21:37:00.002Z

The question of why the planes were not intercepted by NORAD is the most obvious of all. The world's most advanced, sophisticated and expensive air defense system was designed so that the amount of time that elapses, between when the FAA suspect a hijacking and when F-16 military fighters are on the tail of the plane, is limited. The procedure was implemented 67 times in the year preceding 9/11, and there were regular training exercises, or war games. A notice sent out to pilots warned them that if they refused to follow FAA orders, or lost contact, or entered restricted airspace, they could expect F-16s to be on their tail in 10 minutes. This begs the question: what went wrong on 9/11?

The official version of the events of the military response have been completely revised twice. The first version, given by NORAD commanders on the day of 9/11 was that no fighters were scrambled until 9:37am. This was easily proved false, as fighters were seen over Ground Zero around 9:25am. The second version was a timeline of events released by NORAD on September 19th, 2001. This version was the Official Account for almost three years. The 9/11 Commission completely revised the timeline of events of the military response, when it published it's report in 2004.

NORAD Version:

	AA Flight 11	UA Flight 175	AA Flight 77	UA Flight 93
FAA notification of NEADS	08:40	08:43	09:24	N/A
Fighter Scramble Order	08:46		09:24	--
Fighters Airborne	08:52		09:30	--
Originating Base	Otis ANGB Falmouth, MA		Langley AFB Hampton, VA
Fighter Distance / Time to Impact Location	not airborne 153 miles	8 min / 71 miles	12 min / 105 miles	11 min / 100 miles

9/11 Commission Report Version:

	AA Flight 11	UA Flight 175	phantom Flight 11*	AA Flight 77	UA Flight 93
Notification of NEADS	08:38	09:15	--	09:34	10:07
Fighters Scrambled	08:46		09:24
Fighters Airborne	08:53
Originating Base	Otis, MA		Langley, VA

*Phantom Flight 11 refers to the Commission's assertion that the F-16s scrambled from Langley were sent up, not to intercept Flight 77, but to look for Flight 11, under the erroneous belief that it had bypassed New York City and was headed for the capital.

Apparent Failures

Neither the NORAD timeline nor the 9/11 Commission Report timeline give a believable account of how the hijackings were dealt with. The failings are multi-layered and include the following:

Failures to Report:

FAA report times (according to NORAD): 18mins (Flight 11), 39mins (Flight 77), 36mins (Flight 93) – never been explained – no reprimands. 9/11 Commission Report account even more incredible failures to report.
Why weren’t NORAD watching the skies directly (especially after 9:03)?
None of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (the only people with authority to order a shoot-down) were fully informed, we are told, until after 9:37.

Failures to Scramble:

Fighters were scrambled slowly
Not enough fighters were scrambled
The fighters used were from far away bases (eg Andrews Air Force Base, 10 miles from the Pentagon, did not scramble fighters until 10:42).

Failures to Intercept:

Fighters flew slowly (approx one quarter of their top speed, according to NORAD’s timeline).
Fighters flew in the wrong direction (headed east over the Atlantic).
Pentagon Ground-to-Air missile defenses were ineffective

Failures to Redeploy:

Fighters scrambled from Otis Air Force Base were not redirected to Washington (after they had reached the WTC too late).

The New Official Explanation

Recognising that the NORAD timeline of events was not believable, the 9/11 Commission concocted a completely revised story of events. They placed the blame firmly with the FAA - for failing to contact NORAD in time - as opposed to with NORAD for being ineffective. In order to make the new story sound convincing, they had to give explanations for what went wrong at the FAA. The picture painted by the Report is one of confusion and apparent gross incompetence on the part of FAA personnel, at all levels.

In order to understand the extent of the incompetence that the 9/11 Commission want us to believe took place, and why it simply staggers belief, it is only necessary to read the relevant chapter (Chapter 1: "We have some planes") and think about the plausability of each delay and each deviation from standard protocol. For a detailed critique of the 9/11 Commission Report account, I recommend David Ray Griffins book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking".

This is a summary of the 9/11 Commission Report account of the military response on 9/11:

Flight 11

At 8:14, the pilot of Flight 11 failed to respond to an FAA Boston Center instruction to ascend. At 8:21, the transponder signal was switched off and the plane (now visible only on primary radar) veered radically off course. At 8:25, the controller heard what he believed was the voice of hijacker. The Boston Center called the FAA Command Center at Herndon at 8:28 to report the hijacking. At 8:32, Herndon called FAA Headquarters in Washington. At 8:38, Boston Center contacted the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) of NORAD.

Difficulties in pinpointing the exact location of Flight 11 led to a delay of five minutes before the scramble order was given at 8:43. When Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:46, the two fighters that had been ordered to scramble were still on the runway at Otis Air Force Base; they did not take to the air until 8:52. Lacking a target, the Otis fighters "were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to 'hold as needed'. From 9:09 to 9:13 the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern." At 9:13, the pilots of the Otis fighters told FAA Boston Center that they were heading for Manhattan to establish a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over the area. The fighters arrived over Manhattan at 9:25.

Flight 175

Flight 175 veered off course at 8:42, turning towards New York, and its transponder code was changed at 8:47. The flight controller at FAA Boston Center did not notice these warning signs until 8:51, when he tried unsuccessfully to contact the pilot. At 8:55 he told a manager at FAA New York Center that he thought Flight 175 had been hijacked; this manager then tried to contact regional managers but "was told that they were discussing hijacked aircraft... and refused to be disturbed." At 9:01, a New York Center manager called FAA Command Center at Herndon. NEADS were not notified until 9:03, when the New York Center manager called them directly, at about the time that Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

Flight 77

The transponder of Flight 77 was switched off, and the plane veered off course, at 8:54, and its primary radar track was lost. The flight controller at the FAA Indianapolis Center assumed that some kind of electrical or mechanical failure had occurred and that the plane had crashed. Later, after hearing about the hijacked planes hitting the World Trade Center, Indianapolis Center suspected that Flight 77 may also have been hijacked, and shared this information with FAA Command Center at Herndon, who contacted FAA Headquarters in Washington at 9:25am. NEADS learned that the flight was lost at 9:34 during a NEADS-initiated conversation with the FAA Headquarters.

Flight 93

At 9:28, the FAA Cleveland Center controller heard "sounds of possible screaming" coming from Flight 93 and noticed that the plane had descended 700 feet. At 9:32, he heard a voice saying "We have a bomb on board" and told his supervisor who notified FAA Headquarters. At 9:36, FAA Cleveland called FAA Command Center at Herndon to ask whether the military had been notified - FAA Command Center told Cleveland that "FAA personnel well above them in the chain of command had to make the decision to seek military assistance and were working on the issue". At 9:49, the decision about whether to call the military had still not been made, and nobody did call them until 10:07, four minutes after Flight 93 hit the ground.

Phantom Flight 11

At 9:21, NEADS received a call from Colin Scoggins, the military liaison at the FAA Boston Center, reporting that Flight 11 had not, in fact, hit the North Tower at 8:46 as they were told, but that it was still in the air and heading towards Washington. NEADS responded to this report by giving a scramble order to three fighters on alert at Langley Air Force Base, and by 9:24, they were in the air. After at first heading east out into the Atlantic, the fighters then flew north-west towards Washington, arriving around 10:00.

War Games

A common explanation (or excuse) for the NORAD and FAA failures is that they were involved in war games at the time of the attacks. At least 6 different war game exercises were in play on the day of the attack:

Northern Vigilence – simulated Russian attack of Alaska.
Vigilant Warrior / Vigilant Guardian – live-fly multiple hijacking scenario, which involved ‘false blips’ appearing on radar screens.
Global Guardian – large-scale exercise involving the US Strategic Command, US Space Command and NORAD, which was ‘in full swing’ on 9/11.
The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill – practicing a scenario of a plane crashing into their headquarters near Dulles Airport. The “fake” plane crash was scheduled to occur at 8:47am.
Timely Alert II Terrorism Drill – an exercise practicing the scenario of a chemical attack in New Jersey, involving law enforcement and emergency responders, was due to take place over September 11-12; it was cancelled just before it was about to start.
Tripod II Biowarfare exercise – FEMA were due to deploy to New York for a biowarfare scenario due to take place on September 12.

The apparent effect of these war games was to deplete the resources of NORAD and to confuse the controllers and pilots. It is supposedly an incredible coincidence that such an array of war games were in progress on that day. A more rational explanation would be that the war games were specifically arranged that way to provide a reasonable explanation for the slow response. The war games also explain the quick arrival of FEMA at Ground Zero, ready to control the site.

Norman Mineta Testimony

There is even evidence of a stand-down order in the form of Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, which was completely ignored. He was in a room in the Presidential Emergency Operating Centre with Dick Cheney during the attacks; a young officer (referring to Flight 77) reported that it was 50 miles out, then 30 miles out, then 10 miles out when he asked “Do the orders still stand?” The response from Cheney was “Of course they still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?!” The orders the young man was referring to must have been orders to not shoot down the plane. Although Mineta has repeatedly said that this exchange took place before the Pentagon was hit, and his story is corroborated by many other personal accounts (including Dick Cheney), the official story was changed - we were later told that the plane in question here was Flight 93. When, later still, the Commission concluded that there was no warning even of Flight 93, they simply omitted his testimony from their report.

Next Page: The World Trade Center

3.3.0 Foreknowledge

2008-01-23T20:13:00.001Z

Of all the issues, anomalies, and unanswered questions about 9/11, the issue of foreknowledge is the one most commonly raised by the mainstream media. The issue of 'who knew what, and when' is, it seems, the only aspect of 9/11 truth that is not completely relegated to the class of a 'conspiracy theorists question'. The reason for this is that it fits in with the mainstream view - that warnings were received, but that certain failures prevented those warnings from being acted upon. Although the mainstream media have uncovered and reported numerous warnings, they do not usually examine or analyze them as a whole; the question is this explanation plausible? is rarely asked.

Indeed, revealing warnings the Administration had received prior to 9/11 in some sense strengthens the official story, for it makes the story of the attacks seem more plausible and even inevitable. Constant reminders about al Qaeda 'terrorism activities' prior to 9/11 help to embed the story that Islamic terrorists were responsible. (It should be noted that, if 9/11 was an inside job, then it is likely that al Qaeda is a tool - the terrorism activities were real, but at the leadership-level, al Qaeda was operating in collusion with insiders.) The embarrassment caused by the revealing of 'failures' prior to 9/11 is a small price to pay for someone who is guilty of mass-murder and treason. Furthermore, the idea that top U.S. officials were bumbling idiots strengthens the think-stop notion that the same officials would be incapable of concealing a big lie, let alone executing the attacks themselves. (This is itself based on the incorrect notion that the public faces of the Bush Administration would have been the masterminds behind an "inside job".)

As with most aspects of the official story of 9/11, the explanation of who had what foreknowledge of the attacks, and when they received it, has changed numerous times. At first we were told that the concept of planes being flown into buildings was unimaginable, and that we had little foreknowledge of a coming attack. These have both generally been acknowledged as untrue (even lies). In fact, many warnings were received from overseas intelligence agencies that were specific as to (at least one of): the location, the method and the approximate date of the attacks. There were also warnings following investigations conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI. These warnings were received by top officials, including President Bush. Other al Qaeda investigations were blocked by high-level officials.

Is it plausible that these warnings were not taken seriously? That information was not freely shared because of bureaucratic inefficiencies? Or is it more likely that information was suppressed, warnings deliberately ignored, and al Qaeda investigations deliberately blocked, so that the attacks were not thwarted?

We have been told that al Qaeda operated alone with no assistance (for example financial support) from any other organization, and that no-one else knew the attacks were coming. There are reasons to doubt both of these claims. The lead hijacker, Mohammad Atta, was reported to have been wired $100,000 by Ahmed Omar Sayed Sheikh, a known Pakistani ISI asset, shortly before the attacks. The Head of the ISI, General Mahmood Ahmed, was fired from his post the day after the Indian Times reported that he was being investigated about this wire transfer. It was later reported that he had, indeed, authorized the transfer. Ahmed was in Washington the week of the 9/11 attacks, meeting with the Director of the CIA and various Senators.

Allegations that the ISI, or Saudi royals, were the source of the funds used to carry out the attacks are compatible with the mainstream view - the idea being that their involvement was covered up by the White House for some reason. It is also compatible with the idea that 9/11 was an inside job - it especially implicates the CIA, given that they have a very close relationship with the ISI, and the Bush family and Administration, given that they are intricately entwined with Saudi businessman and royals, as well as the Bin Laden family.

Then there is the issue of the put options placed on United Airlines, American Airlines, Morgan Stanley and other companies whose stocks plummeted on 9/11. Is it more likely, as the 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe, that these suspicious trades were innocuous (lucky guesses), or that they were made by someone who knew that the attacks were coming (and knew some quite detailed information about it, such as the airlines that would be used)? These trades were apparently thoroughly investigated, and were concluded as innocuous because the traders had "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda" - therefore using circular logic.

Finally, there is evidence that top Pentagon officials, and various other individuals were given warnings not to fly. And there is evidence that individuals who worked at or were due to be at the World Trade Center were ('by lucky coincidence') elsewhere, thus spared from becoming a victim of the attacks. Once again, while we must resort to luck and coincidence as explanations for these anomalies, they are easily explained by the theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

Next Page: The NORAD Response

3.2.1 Coincidences and Luck

2008-01-23T18:54:00.001Z

As well as requiring belief in remarkable incompetence at many levels of many different organizations - such as the FAA, NORAD, CIA, FBI, the White House and the Pentagon - believing in the mainstream account of 9/11 also requires belief in an extraordinary number of coincidences, and an extraordinary amount of 'luck' on the part of the hijackers and other individuals. The mainstream media did not question the likelihood of events such as the following:

On the morning of 9/11, there were at least four war-games in progress. Among the events being simulated were a Russian air attack over Alaska, live-fly hijackings, and a plane being crashed into a building.
The hijackers were lucky that they were able to enter the country, plan and prepare for the attack, and board the airplanes without being stopped. Once in the airplanes, they were able to successfully hijack 4 out of 4 planes, and in 3 cases were able to keep control of them for long enough to reach and hit their targets, without being shot down, either by NORAD or the Pentagon anti-aircraft missile defense system.
Luckily for Pentagon staff, Flight 77 hit the only side of the building that was virtually empty due to its almost-completed renovation work. Most of those killed were civilians finishing off the renovations, which involved strengthening the walls and windows to make them more blast resistant. Top Pentagon officials such as Donald Rumsfeld were, fortunately for them, in their offices on the other side of the building. No questions were asked about why these terrorists decided to hit the side that would do the least damage and cause the fewest casualties.
al Qaeda were lucky that, after crashing planes into them, both Twin Towers completely collapsed soon after, giving their attack a much greater impact and killing far more people, even though the Towers had been designed to withstand multiple plane impacts and much more intense fires, and no steel skyscraper in history had ever completely collapsed before (except due to controlled demolition).
al Qaeda were lucky that Building 7 also completely collapsed, as collateral damage. Corporations, such as Enron, which were being investigated for fraud at the time, were lucky that files relating to their fraud case were destroyed in Building 7's collapse.
FEMA, who controlled the Ground Zero site, were lucky that a war game due to take place on September 12 involved the simulation of a biochemical attack in Lower Manhattan; they had a nearby command post ready-to-go and were ready to cope with the release of tons of asbestos.
The "single US-based investor" who had purchased a large amount of put options in United Airlines, and investors responsible for the unusually high put option sales in American Airlines, Morgan Stanley and other companies, were lucky that 9/11 occurred just after they had bought the options. Stocks in these companies plummeted after the attacks and billions were made from these lucky "innocuous" trades.
The FBI were lucky that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers of Flight 11 fell through the fireball of the impact to land on the street below, where it was handed to police. They were also lucky to find that Mohammad Atta's bags had been left at the airport; they found among other things a Boeing manual, details of the attack plans, and his will. A videotape of Bin Laden admitting responsibility for the attacks was fortunately 'found' soon after the invasion of Afghanistan.
On September 10, Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3trillion (25%) of its budget; he was lucky the issue was quickly forgotten and military budgets were multiplied with virtually no dissent from Congress.
The many neoconservatives that were appointed to posts in the Bush Administration earlier that year were lucky that they got the "new Pearl Harbor" they desired, as well as direct justification for their invasion of Afghanistan, already planned for October.
The American people were lucky that the terrorists chose to fly two of the planes almost directly over Indian Point Nuclear Power Station on their way to New York; millions would have been killed, and the area decimated for decades, if they had chosen to hit Indian Point instead.

As well as not questioning these strange facts, other anomalies were simply accepted, such as:

The choices of the attackers: why did they chose to hijack planes that took off from airports distant from their targets? Why did they wait so long before taking control of the planes, increasing their chances of being shot down? Why did they choose to hit the World Trade Center so early in the day, before many workers had arrived? Why they choose to hit the worst possible side of the Pentagon? Why had they left such an obvious paper trail behind them? In the days prior to the attacks, why had they behaved like anything-but Islamic fanatics willing to carry out a suicide attack?
The Towers were burning with thick black smoke, indicating a poor mix of fuel and oxygen and therefore relatively cold fires. But experts told us that the fires melted the steel? The building was reduced to dust and a pile of shredded steel - from pancaking? The collapses were unprecedented, and skyscrapers have survived much hotter, bigger and longer lasting fires - yet the collapses were soon being described as 'inevitable'?
Even though eyewitnesses reported seeing multiple pieces of Flight 93 falling, and debris was found miles away, and an engine was found 1500 yards away, the event was confidently reported as a crash following an attempted cockpit invasion by the passengers.
The hijackers were described as poor pilots, yet the maneuver performed by Flight 77 required expert piloting skills.
Several of the named hijackers were found still alive following the attacks, but the official list was never revised, and the reasons for ignoring this apparent anomaly were never explained.
From the 2800 people killed in the Towers, 20,000 body parts were found, and there are still over 1000 people for whom no body parts have been identified, despite DNA identification procedures that could identify individuals from tiny fragments. Yet we were told they were crushed by pancaking floors?

While these facts are anomalies and coincidences to believers in the official theory, they are all easily explained by the theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

Next Page: Foreknowledge

3.2.0 The Official Account

2008-01-22T22:36:00.001Z

The official 'fable' or myth of 9/11 is as follows:

Without warning, on the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 Islamic extremists, equipped with knives and box-cutters, hijacked four domestic flights almost simultaneously. The hijackers belonged to the terrorist group al-Qaeda and no other organisation was involved. Two of the planes were deliberately crashed into the World Trade Centre Twin Towers 1 and 2. Another was crashed into the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers tried to retake control. The Twin Towers both collapsed because of the plane impact damage and resulting fires. WTC Building 7 collapsed later in the day due to widespread fires started by burning debris from the collapse of WTC1 hitting it.

With the possible exception of the last sentence, which, because the mainstream media rarely mention it, few uninformed people know about, this is roughly what uninformed people would say when asked what happened on 9/11. It is generally accepted then that 9/11 represents:

The worst failure of intelligence gathering in the history of the United States.
The worst failure of border, airport and aircraft security in the history of the United States.
The worst failure of the military defense system in the history of the United States - failure to protect the known terrorist target, the WTC, and the Pentagon, the 'best-defended building in the world'.
The worst engineering disaster in history - the Twin Towers, each of which had been built to withstand multiple aircraft impacts, collapsed entirely within just 56 and 103 minutes.

You would think, then, given a day of such terrible failures and disasters, a thorough investigation of what went wrong would be in order. This is different to the task of assigning responsibility and finding out who was involved.

On the day of the attacks themselves, we were given an answer to the second question: Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda acted alone. With regard to the first question we were given basic explanations on the day of the attacks as well.

The failures of intelligence and security were because "no specific threats were received".
The failure of military defense was because "no-one could have imagined they would try to use planes as missile" and because NORAD was unable to scramble fighters until after 9:37am.
The destruction of the Twin Towers was explained as a "progressive collapse" - a global collapse following a local collapse at the impact points where (according to some experts) "intense jet-fuel fires melted the steel".

The mainstream media and most of the general public accepted these basic early explanations. However, it quickly became apparent that multiple threats had been received, that a delay of over 80 minutes to scramble fighters is inexplicable, and that hydrocarbon fires, even those started by jet fuel, cannot melt steel. Within the week, the explanations had changed:

Some threats were received, but they were not communicated to the right people, and not given the urgency they warranted. Airport security was quickly heightened and misguided recent policies (such as no longer allowing guns in airplane cockpits, and the advice given to pilots to surrender peacefully when being hijacked) were reversed.
NORAD released a timeline showing when they had received warnings from the FAA, and when they scrambled fighters in response to them. That multiple war games were being conducted at the time of the attacks was given as a possible reason for the confusion at the FAA and NORAD. NORAD also cited problems obtaining authorisation to shoot-down hijacked aircraft if necessary; the misguided recent policy that shoot-down orders can only come from the DoD or above, was reversed.
New theories, based on weakened, not melted, steel, were put forward to explain the local collapse. Within 36 hours, the BBC had an animation showing the impact of the plane, the warping and breaking off of the floor-trusses, and the buckling of the columns. Nova produced a documentary showing the 'Pancake Collapse' theory that was later endorsed in the initial investigation report by FEMA.

The nature and number of threats received by the government (including the now notorious August 6th PDB) was revealed over the months and years following attacks. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement calculated that, even given the times of the jet fighter scrambles in the NORAD timeline, they still had enough time to have made it; it still looked like there was a stand-down. They also criticized the 'Pancake Theory' - if the floors had pancaked into each other all the way down, then you would expect that the massive central core columns would still be left standing.

With the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report (2004) and the NIST Report (2005), key aspects of the official account changed again:

With regard to intelligence and security, there were bureaucratic failures, lack of funding and support for counter-terrorism, a lack of focus on intelligence gathering, and a lack of seriousness given to threats received. Counter-terrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke declared: "We failed you. I failed you". The Commission concluded simply that the Bush and Clinton Administrations had been "not well served" by the intelligence agencies and ultimately their was "a failure of imagination".
The Commission gave a completely new account of the military defense failures, placing virtually all of the blame on the FAA for failing to alert NORAD to any but the first of the hijacked planes. Furthermore, a false FAA report to NORAD of a flight that no longer existed ("Phantom Flight 11") meant that fighter planes were sent on a 'wild-goose chase'.
The NIST rejected the local collapse mechanism that FEMA had endorsed in 2002 ("Truss-Failure" theory) in favour of reviving an explanation that had been suggested shortly after the attacks but FEMA rejected - this was "Column-Failure" theory. Although they did not investigate "past the point when collapse became inevitable", the Column-Failure theory implicity also means that the pancake collapse theory is being rejected in favour of a 'pile-driver' theory, where the in-tact building is crushed down by the top of the building, instead of the floors falling after becoming detached from the columns.

FEMA (2002) gave an outline explanation for the collapse of Building 7: that fires, started by debris hitting the building during the collapse of WTC1, and accelerated by diesel fuel stored in the building, caused a central column to fail and the resulting structure to collapse completely. It did, however, say that its theory had, at best, only "a low probability of occurrence". After omitting it completely from their 2005 Report, the NIST Report on Building 7 was due in 2007 and has still not been released. According to one NIST employee: "We're having trouble getting a handle on Building 7".

Usually, when a suspect of a crime changes his story several times, it is taken as a sign of guilt and that his word should not be trusted. In this case however, the media and many members of the public, have immediately supported each new version of events. The question of why the old story is not true, and why the new story is any more true, is not asked. Questions are also not asked about why the lies were told, why no-one involved came forward at the time to say the existing story was untrue, and why no-one has been punished either for their actions on 9/11, or for their lies following it.

Next Page: Coincidences and Luck

3.1.0 Beliefs about 9/11

2008-01-22T20:44:00.001Z

Everyone has an opinion about 9/11. The majority of people are connected to world events through the mainstream media, which portrays the question of the truth of the event as a non-issue, one that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It might be supposed then, that the majority of people support the official account unequivocally. But opinion polls on the subject have shown otherwise. In a New York Times poll of October 2006, only 16% said they thought the government are "telling the truth" about 9/11. So the majority of people believe there has been a cover-up.

What, then, do this majority, believe? The 'weakest' form of belief among this dissenting majority would be this:

Construction of a false account - US officials played no active role nor expected the attacks, but that White House covered up failures – such as security, intelligence, military responses etc. Perhaps for "National Security", or to cover up embarrassing facts, or policy failures, or bureaucratic inefficiencies, or even gross negligence from individuals in positions of power.

This might be called the mainstream view. It no doubt contains a large number of uninformed people, who perhaps naturally expect their government to lie, to cover their own backs. Perhaps they are vaguely aware of alternative theories and take the mainstream view as a 'middle ground', where they neither support the whole official account, nor the theory that there was complicity. Additionally, this group includes those who believe that the involvement of 'friendly' foreign governments was covered-up: perhaps Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (the "Michael Moore view").

However, the number of people who, like the 9/11 Truth Movement, believe there was complicity from United States officials ('insiders'), has been growing quickly. In a November 2007 Scripps-Howard poll, 62% of people believed that it was at least "somewhat likely" that "the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings."

It seems that, despite the mainstream media portrayal of the matter as unequivocal, the majority actually believe there was complicity - at the very least that insiders, at some level, knew the attacks were coming, and through action or inaction, deliberately allowed the attacks to take place.

Theories of complicity are often divided into two main forms. The weakest form is the "LIHOP" (Let It Happen On Purpose) theory. This theory suggests that al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks, but that insiders who knew the attacks were coming conspired to allow them to happen, or even enhance them, and then covered up (or convinced the White House to cover up) their complicity. LIHOP theories have a number of varieties, based on two questions: how specific were the warnings that were deliberately ignored, and how high in the government the warnings were received. Evidence supporting at least the LIHOP theory are the following claims:

Warnings were deliberately suppressed and ignored.
al Qaeda investigations, and investigations into the hijackers in particular, were blocked to limit the warnings, and prevent the plot from being foiled.
The hijackers were given assistance by the intelligence services, and were allowed immunity.
The military was deliberately disabled to ensure the planes reached their targets.

The intelligence services and/or military may have done this without the knowledge of al Qaeda. They may even have 'enhanced' the attacks by causing the complete destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings using explosives.

It is conceivable that these insider actions may not have involved the White House, but that the White House, despite being 'left in the dark', decided to cover up for its agencies. However, most LIHOP theories assert that the warnings were indeed received at the highest levels, and that the Bush Administration ordered, or assented to, such actions being taken. This is cited to explain the strange behaviour on the day of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and other top officials, along with the Secret Service, and their lies and eagerness to cover up the truth.

A stronger form of complicity would involve collusion between insiders and those carrying out the attacks. That is, al Qaeda were knowingly working with insiders in planning the attacks and making sure they were successful. This is known as the "MIHOP" (Made It Happen On Purpose) theory. In this theory, the Bush Administration and the Bin Laden family are using al Qaeda as a tool to carry out their plans. al Qaeda operatives, lower down the chain, may not know that their leaders are working in collusion with, not against, the United States; it is likely that al Qaeda jihadists are certainly not aware of it.

Evidence of the close relationship between al Qaeda and the CIA, and an examination of the role of foreign intelligence agencies such as the Pakistani ISI, reveals that this may well be the case. The evidence of the ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family is well known.

Historical evidence of false-flag attacks, along with the well-articulated desire for an event such as 9/11 from powerful insiders, also suggests that the events were, in fact, fully orchestrated by insiders. It wasn't by chance that terrorists from the oil-rich Middle East suddenly decided to attack America, just when the Bush Administration were seeking to launch their long-planned invasion of the Middle East and begin their "War on Terror".

Furthermore, there is evidence that the most basic facts of the mainstream account are untrue. And the way that they are untrue strongly suggests that insiders must have been involved in executing the attacks. Namely, the following claims are strongly supported by the evidence:

The World Trade Center Twin Towers were not destroyed by aircraft impacts and fires; they were destroyed by controlled demolition.
World Trade Center Building 7 was not destroyed by debris damage and fires; it was destroyed by controlled demolition.
Hani Hanjour did not fly Flight 77 into the Pentagon; it was likely flown by computer.
Flight 93 was not deliberately crashed by the hijackers; it was shot down.

Next Page: The Official Account

3.0.0 The Evidence of 9/11

2008-01-22T19:33:00.001Z

The evidence involved in assessing 9/11 comes in many two main forms: first there is evidence in the traditional sense, which can be subdivided into evidence from:

1) Before the day (intelligence/security issues)
2) On the day (military/official response, and the physical evidence relating to the ‘events’)
3) After the day (the signs of a cover-up and fraudulent investigations)

This first form (‘traditional evidence’) has, until recently, been the only fundamental form of evidence used by most members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Most attention is usually given to physical evidence from on the day of 9/11 itself. It is important to have a good understanding of the evidence for and against each claim that is being made. All this evidence is compelling; the official story has been exposed as false in many, many places and the ways in which it has been proven false suggest that member of the United States government must have been complicit.

There are a variety of beliefs about that dissent from the official story. See Beliefs about 9/11

Before looking at the evidence of 9/11, it is useful to be familiar with the details of the official story and the amount of coincidence, incompetence and sheer luck which is required for events to have happened as the official story dictates. See The Official Account and Coincidences and Luck.

The rest of this chapter looks at this first form of evidence and is divided into the following pages:

However, an even more compelling form of evidence is that relating to the interactions between members of the truth movement and defenders of the official story. Because they are defending a lie, those who try to defend the official story have to use techniques to manipulate their audience into believing that they have successfully 'debunked' the alternative theory. They use a variety of techniques; in many cases they can avoid even discussing the details of the claim being made by simply declaring it a 'conspiracy theory'. Or they can dismiss the alternative theory as 'ridiculous' by appealing to one of the many 'think-stops': such as the idea that "our government couldn't pull this off" perhaps because "too many people would have to be 'in on it'", or the idea that we have proof of the guilt of al Qaeda, or that the attacks have already been investigated, or that 'someone credible' would be endorsing the alternative theory if it were true. In the vast majority of mainstream media articles that have mentioned any alternative theory of 9/11, no claims are even looked at, simply because of the power of appealing to these think-stops.

Members of the public who do not question 9/11 always appeal to these think-stops when confronted with the argument. No argument about evidence is possible because there are unaware of the arguments - when presented with them, they have no response other than the think-stops. Often, no matter what evidence is presented to them, they will not feel compelled to investigate the claims, such is the power of the think-stops in the psyche of the uninformed person.

To be fair, the mainstream media have produced a small number of publications that do go further than the think-stops. Indeed, to someone who is uninformed, it would appear that these publications do successfully 'debunk' the alternative theory. The main way that these mainstream media publications can convince people that they have successfully done what they claim to have done, is by taking advantage of misinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Misinformation is information that is false, and in this context it refers to misinformation claiming full government complicity, not denying it. An example of this would be the claim that "a missile, not a plane, struck the Pentagon" (the evidence does not support this claim). The existence and prevalence of misinformation within the 9/11 Truth Movement has had a crippling effect, because it works hand-in-glove with mainstream media articles and documentaries that purport to ‘debunk’ the alternative theory.

This is how it works: the mainstream media can say that "Conspiracy theorists claim that a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon". Then they can, by examining the evidence, convincingly (and correctly) show that this claim is false. This false claim is mixed with a true claim which, of course, cannot be debunked. They will misrepresent the true claim, or ignore the best evidence behind it, in order to convince the uninformed reader that this claim, too, has been successfully debunked. The misinformation therefore functions as a straw man argument (that is, an argument that is easily defeated or debunked) and the legitimate claims are discredited by association. Mixed with appeals to some think-stops, and characterizations of 'conspiracy theorists', these articles can, to the uninformed, appear to have done what it purports to have done.

But to the informed members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the blatant, fraudulent techniques that these publications have to resort to is the strongest form of evidence that it is the alternative theory, not the official story, that is the truth.

Next Page: Beliefs about 9/11

2.6.0 Evidence of official account

2008-01-20T17:36:00.001Z

Given the way that the Bush Administration and other governments have used the 9/11 attacks for their own political agendas, it might be thought that proof of who was responsible for the attacks themselves would be ironclad. However, this is not the case. On the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" appears the name of Osama Bin Laden; however he is apparently not wanted for crimes connected with 9/11, only for smaller attacks carried out in the 1990's. When asked why this is the case, an FBI spokesman stated that "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden with 9/11".

A promised white paper detailing the case against Bin Laden was never produced. The UK government did produce such a paper, but noted that the evidence they had was not strong enough to win a case in court against Bin Laden. In other words, while the evidence is strong enough to go to war, it is not strong enough to go to court.

(To be expanded)

Next Chapter: The Evidence of 9/11

2.5.0 The official investigations

2008-01-20T17:25:00.001Z

It is often stated that the alternative account of 9/11 must be false, because the events surrounding 9/11 have already been thoroughly investigated by an independent, bipartisan commission. The official investigation of the 9/11 attacks was the 9/11 Commission, which published its report in 2004. But the behaviour of the Bush Administration with regard to the formation and operations of this Commission, and other investigations of 9/11, reveals an obsessive need to conceal the truth.

Congress called for an inquiry soon after the events of 9/11. The Bush Administration limited it’s scope to only examine security and intelligence failures. The FBI, after quickly identifying the hijackers as Al Qaeda and ruling out all other possibilities, carried out it’s own investigation into its counterterrorism strategies pre-9/11. FEMA produced the initial reports into building performance at the WTC and Pentagon.

Alarmingly, the Bush Administration were reluctant to set up a full investigation into all the events relating to 9/11, claiming it would divert energy away from the war on terrorism. Only after a considerable struggle on the part of the 9/11 Family Committee did the 9/11 Commission get set up (in November 2002). In the public hearings, witnesses were given ‘soft-ball’ questioning which skirted the issues and avoided asking many of the key questions. Less than 30% of the Committee’s questions were asked by the Commission.

The initial head of the 9/11 Commission was Henry Kissinger, a man under deep suspicion for his role in the Chilean coup in 1973 and the Vietnam War. He was forced to resign rather than disclose his business connections, which reportedly included trading with the Saudi Bin Laden Group. He was replaced by Thomas Kean, co-chairman of the Homeland Security Project and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations; Kean also is a director of an oil company and has business connections to Saudi Arabia. All other members of the commission were also “insiders” with questionable impartiality.

But the real leader of the commission was it’s Executive Director Philip Zelikow. He was charged with the actual investigations, the choice of witnesses and the directions that questions would take. Phillip Zelikow is a member of the Bush Administration; he was…

A member of the National Security Council of the Bush I administration
Aid to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft under Bush I
Co-Author of a book with Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor for Bush II
Director of Aspen Strategy Group, to which Rice, Scowcroft, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz belonged
Member of Clinton to Bush II transition team
Member of Bush II's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, until being appointed to 9/11 Commission.

Despite calls for his resignation, and complaints from Commissioners and staff, Zelikow remained Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, and the report of the Commission was edited personally by Zelikow and his staff.

Next Page: The Evidence for the Official Theory

2.4.0 Motives for 9/11

2008-01-20T17:07:00.001Z

Those with the means and opportunity to carry out 9/11 as a false-flag attack also had ample motives.

Pax Americana

A global "Pax Americana" was a dream held by many members of the Bush Administration. This dream was first articulated in the Defense Planning Guidance of 1992, drafted by Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, a document that has been called "a blueprint for permanent American global hegemony"[158] and has been echoed in the writings of the neoconservatives. Achieving the goal of American global hegemony would require four things:

1. One of these was getting control of the world's oil, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East, and the Bush-Cheney administration came to power with plans already made to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.
2. A second requirement was a technological transformation of the military, in which fighting from space would become central.
3. A third requirement was an enormous increase in military spending, to pay for these new wars and for weaponizing space.
4. A fourth need was to modify the doctrine of pre-emptive attack, so that America would be able to attack other countries even if they posed no imminent threat.

These four elements would, moreover, require a fifth:

5. An event that would make the American people ready to accept these imperialistic policies.

Some of the most widely cited writings of the neoconservatives come from the think-tank the "Project for a New American Century". This group contained numerous members of the Bush Administration including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. A document published in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" called for increased spending in order to transform the military. It goes on to say:

"This process of transformation... is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

In his book "The Grand Chessboard" (1997), geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration, sets out to formulate "a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy... it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America." Later in the book he states that:

"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

The War on Terror is the pretext for achieving the goals of the neoconservatives. They sought to create a "perpetual threat", terrorism, to function in a similar way to communism during the Cold War. As reported by the Washington Post, Dick Cheney says of the War on Terror: "It may never end. At least, not in our lifetime."

Since 9/11, the US government have introduced numerous acts of congress which are invasions of civil liberties and are in direct contradiction with the US constitution. The PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Bill, the militarisation of the police force, the nullification of the Posse Comitatus Act, the repeal of Habeus Corpus, and the changes in laws relating to rights of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

The New World Order

The perpetrators of the attacks are sometimes described as a "shadow government" controlling the White House, both major U.S. political parties, certain foreign governments, global corporations and the mainstream news media. These people are referred to as the "New World Order". Some of the individuals believed to be working for this group are sometimes said to be members of such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. The term itself gained popularity following its use in the early 1990s, first by President George H W Bush when he referred to his "dream of a New World Order" in his speech to congress on September 11, 1990, and second by David Rockefeller in a Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994:

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

The concept of this shadow government pre-dates 1990 and sometimes they are accused of being the same group of people who, among other things, created the Federal Reserve Act (1913), supported the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), and supported the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany, all for their own agenda. Indeed, the domestic agenda of the Bush Administration since 9/11 has been compared to that of the Nazi Party following the Reichstag Fire of 1933. The World Bank and national central banks are sometimes said to be the tools of the New World Order; war generates massive profits for central banks, as government spending (hence borrowing at interest from the central banks) increases dramatically in times of war.

Oil and corporate profits

Michael Ruppert, a former narcotics officer, is the creator of the alternative news organization "From the Wilderness", which reports primarily on the "Peak Oil" crisis. In his lecture "The Truth and Lies of 9/11" he asserts that the primary motive for 9/11 and subsequent wars was the need for a pretext to launch a war for the last remaining sources of oil. He also highlights the importance and value of the drug trafficking industry to the global economy, estimating it to be worth almost $600 billion to Wall Street and U.S. banks which launder the money generated by the industry. Ruppert speculates that the Afghanistan opium industry, which the Taliban had practically eliminated in 2000-2001, may have been a reason that country was chosen as the starting point for "oil wars" in the Middle East.

The War on Terror, particularly the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, generates massive profits for the oil, security, weapons, insurance and defense contracting industries. Military, intelligence and security budgets have soared since 9/11. Additionally, it is alleged that drug traffickers and money launderers have benefited greatly from the invasion of Afghanistan and its opium fields. It is thought that all these factors may be significant in explaining the success of the operation and its continued cover-up.

It has also been suggested that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center, may have benefited from the insurance payouts. Silverstein purchased a 99-year lease on the complex in July 2001. Following the attacks, he sought a $7.1billion payout, claiming that the two plane impacts were two separate attacks.[174][175] The World Trade Center also contained a large amount of asbestos that was required to be removed; some claim that the cost of carrying out this task would have been in excess of $1 billion. It has also been claimed that the office space within the building was unprofitable and the area was in need of urban renewal.

Plans for invasions

The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was being planned before 9/11. On June 26, 2001, the Indian public affairs magazine News Insight revealed plans for a joint US-Russian invasion of Afghanistan to remove the Taleban government. It reported that India and Iran would 'facilitate' the invasion. The BBC reported on September 18, 2001 that Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. MSNBC reported on May 16, 2002 that President Bush received plans to begin a worldwide war on al-Qaeda on September 9, 2001, two days before the 9/11 attacks.

This planned war was to be justified directly by 9/11. Tony Blair said to the Commons Liaison Committee in July 2002 that "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11"

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was on President Bush's 'to-do' list from the time he was elected into office and even before. Although the pretext for the war was that Saddam was in possession of 'weapons of mass destruction,' 9/11 was part of a plan to create a 'climate of fear' to win support for an invasion, followed by a long period of occupation. Paul O'Neill, George Bush's first Treasury Secretary, reported that in a meeting in January 2001, the president discussed an invasion and occupation of Iraq. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" O'Neill told CBS.

Next Page: The Official Investigations

2.3.0 Our leaders could not do this...

2008-01-20T16:56:00.001Z

The recent history of false-flag attacks, strategies of tension, information warfare and psy-ops demonstrates that those in power are more than capable of pulling off such an operation.

(To be expanded)

Next Page: The Motives for 9/11

2.2.0 Our leaders would not do this...

2008-01-20T16:53:00.001Z

Once the conspiracy theorist barrier has been broken down, the idea that our leaders would, for moral reasons, not carry out the attacks of 9/11, is usually the next barrier that must be broken down.

The benign-leader psyche penetrates deep into society, but is not supported by historical evidence. Certainly, the atrocities of ancient civilizations and the despicable acts of middle-Age kings shows that very few leaders through history have acted on behalf of the people they supposedly serve. So perhaps then, at some point, political leaders developed a moral conscience?

When was this, then? The acts committed by the British Empire, which dominated a quarter of the world at its height, are indefensible. Perhaps then, it was in the 20th century, that our leaders started serving the interests of their people?

But in fact, the 20th century many, many examples that seem to show that there was no sudden development of moral conscience. World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War were all justified through false-flag attacks.

Operation Northwoods provides perhaps the most chilling example of a United States government acting with no morals whatsoever. That was in 1962.

So have our leaders developed a moral conscience over that last four decades? Once again, we see much evidence to the contrary. The question of false-flag acts aside, we see how little our leaders care for us by their handling of the asbestos-filled Ground Zero site, and of the Katrina Hurricane.

Next Page: Our leaders could not do this...

2.1.0 The term "Conspiracy Theorist"

2008-01-20T16:42:00.001Z

The term "conspiracy" means any act which involves more than one person, working in collaboration, to commit a crime. The term "conspiracy theorist" however, is used in two senses - firstly:

1. Someone who theorises that a crime was a "conspiracy".

So when it comes to 9/11, certainly we are all conspiracy theorists; no-one believes that just one person carried out the attacks. So the official account of events of 9/11 is correctly referred to as the "Official Conspiracy Theory". However, in popular usage, the term "conspiracy theorist" means:

2. Someone who attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations.

This definition includes the following minority belief groups: that UFO's are extraterrestrial, that the moon landings were faked, that the Holocaust was faked, that there is a Jewish conspiracy aiming to rule the world, that oil is abiotic, that global warming is a hoax, that evolution is wrong, that reptile-human hybrids are among us, and so on.

Consider the credibility of the phrase: "A conspiracy theorist once told me...".

The term is applied, intentionally or not, to discredit anyone with any doubts about the truthfulness of the official account of 9/11, including:

anyone who suspects incompetence or negligence, anywhere at all, has been deliberately covered up.
anyone who suggests that insiders had foreknowledge, or received warnings.
anyone who points out that the US government had the motive to at least "allow" the attacks to happen, or that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were planned before 9/11.
anyone who questions the relationship between the Bush Family and the Bin Laden Family.
anyone who questions the relationship between the CIA and al-Qaeda.
anyone who questions the involvement of Saudi Arabia, Israel or Pakistan.

It is clear that the negative ideas invoked by this term dissuade anyone from asking what should be legitimate, justified questions about 9/11 and other historical events. These ideas about what a "conspiracy theorist" is include the following attributes:

Needing to find reasons and explanations for things – being unable to accept a world in which random terrorism for no clear reason is a reality.
Being disrespectful to the victims of the attacks.
Being unpatriotic.
Constantly scheming and searching for evidence to support their views.
Jumping to wild conclusions based on speculations and any anomalies.
Being unscientific in their approach
Assuming the result was as planned
Only looking at the evidence that fits in with their theories
Taking evidence out of context (eg eyewitness reports)
Needing public attention.
Making assertions that they are unqualified to make.
Needing to hold controversial views about everything.
Rejecting authority and being afraid of the increasing power and reach of the government.
Being argumentative, manipulative and forceful.
"Expanding the conspiracy theory" to include anyone who disagrees with them.

Because conspiracies happen, it is very dangerous for anyone questioning significant events, or the acts of governments and institutions, to be dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist".

A useful way of breaking down the "conspiracy theorist" myth is to understand the credibility and size of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which is anyone who believes that the truth about 9/11 has been covered up. The various groups contain professors, architects, engineers, pilots, scientists, mathematicians, military officers, intelligence agents, security and law enforcement personnel, politicians, foreign heads of state, journalists, independent investigators, celebrities, survivors of the attack, and family members of the victims. There is also a wide range of political viewpoints, with many from the left and the right: democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives. A lot of people have been attempting to raise issues about 9/11 into the consciousness of the mainstream, and have fought a constant battle to be heard and properly represented.

Various polls about 9/11 have revealed that a significant number of the general population reject the official story about 9/11, with many believing that, at the very least, insiders allowed the attacks to take place.

The prevailing view, based on examination of all the evidence, of the most prominent members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is that the attacks were deliberately planned and carried out by insiders within the United States. No mainstream media sources support this view or any real questioning of 9/11. If the subject is raised at all, it is usually quickly dismissed as a "conspiracy theory".

Next Page: Our leaders would not do this...

2.0.0 The 9/11 Myth

2008-01-20T16:28:00.001Z

The myth of 9/11 goes as follows:

Without warning, on the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 Islamic extremists, equipped with knives and box-cutters, hijacked four domestic flights almost simultaneously. The hijackers belonged to the terrorist group al-Qaeda and no other organisation was involved. Two of the planes were deliberately crashed into the World Trade Centre Twin Towers 1 and 2. Another was crashed into the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers tried to retake control. The Twin Towers both collapsed because of the plane impact damage and resulting fires. WTC Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm due to widespread fires started by burning debris from the collapse of WTC1 hitting it.

The official account of the events of 9/11 have served as religious myth, a Sacred Story, since the day of the attacks themselves, when President Bush announced his intention to launch "a monumental struggle of Good versus Evil": “The War on Terror”. The removal of civil liberties from citizens of the US and other Western countries has been justified to the public as being part of this “War”, as have the occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq. When anyone asks what right the administration has to invade and occupy other countries, to imprison people indefinitely without due process, or even to ignore various laws, the answer is always the same: "9/11." Those who believe that US law and international law should be respected are dismissed as having "a pre-9/11 mind-set."

Given the role the official account of 9/11 has played and continues to play, the most important question before us today is whether this account, besides being a Sacred Story, is also a myth in the pejorative sense—that is, whether it is simply false. When people raise questions about this Sacred Story’s relationship to reality, they are ignored, ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists”, denounced as blasphemers, or attacked personally.

But when challenges to it are not treated as blasphemy, it can easily be seen to be composed of a number of ideas that are myths in the sense of not corresponding with reality.

"It is wrong, blasphemous and sinful for you to suggest, imply, or help other people come to the conclusion that, the US government killed 3000 of its own citizens"
- Tucker Carlson to David Ray Griffin on ABC News

Before examining any physical evidence relating to 9/11, it is important to break down numerous barriers, or "think stops". These are 'large questions' relating to the plausibility of the claim at the surface level. These "think stops" can be thought of as sub-myths which are maintained in order to protect the 9/11 myth. If any one of these myths cannot be broken down, the physical evidence cannot be viewed intelligently and in the proper context.

The mainstream media, and anyone attempting to "debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories", often need only appeal to one of the 'think stops' that immediately present themselves when this view is seriously considered. The most powerful think-stop of all is the myth of the conspiracy theorist. Because of the pejorative use of this term, many people do not want to consider the evidence for fear of being branded with this derogatory label. Other myths which dissuade people from examining the 9/11 myth include the following...

1. Our leaders would not do this...
… it is a despicable act of mass-murder.
… it is their job to protect us.
… they would not be so bold and think they could pull it off
2. Our leaders could not do this...
… this could never have been kept secret.
… there would be more witnesses
… there would be whistleblowers.
3. Our leaders had no motive...
4. The events have already been fully investigated...
5. We have proof that Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were behind it...
6. If you really had evidence, more people would support you...
... US mainstream media
... international mainstream media
... academics
... Republican Party opponents
... foreign governments

Next Page: The "Conspiracy Theorist" Myth

1.5.0 Middle Eastern Terrorism

2008-01-20T16:05:00.000Z

In 1989, the communist system in the Soviet Union was brought to an end. The communist satellite states obtained political independence and the Union itself divided into 14 separate states. The great enemy of the United States and its satellite states and allies, suddenly diminished and the threat to the American people vanished; there was no longer a standing reason for overseas wars or tight domestic control.

The military-industrial-political system is designed around times of war; it relies on war to centralise power. And so, a new and even more universal threat than communism, was created: terrorism, in particular Middle Eastern Islamic extremist terrorism. The organisation that would be at the centre of this threat would be al-Qaeda.

Through the 1980s, the Reagan Administration funded and supplied weapons to both sides of the Iraq-Iran War, and to the Afghan "freedom fighters" (in the words of Ronald Reagan) fighting against the Soviets in the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-89). This group was known as the Muhajadeen and it was funded and controlled by the CIA and their ally Pakistani counterparts, the ISI. One of the leaders of the Muhajadeen was a key CIA asset codenamed "Tim Osman": this man was Osama Bin Laden, son of the owner of the Saudi Bin Laden Group, an investment firm with assets in oil companies and numerous other industries including weapons manufacturing, security and defence contracting. With the end of communism, part of the Muhajadeen became a terrorist organisation called al-Qaeda ("the base"), with Osama Bin Laden as its leader.

Between 1989 and 2001, several acts of terrorism against the United States were attributed to al-Qaeda. These include the World Trade Center bombing (1993), the bombing of American embassies in Africa and Asia (1998), and the bombing of the USS Cole (2000). Additionally, there was the bombing of the A.P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, which killed 168 people. Each attack was used by the Clinton Administration to justify successive new laws which increased domestic control, and budgets and powers of the military, intelligence and security branches of the government.

1.4.0 Strategy of Tension

2008-01-20T15:49:00.001Z

Between 1949 and 1989, the idea of communism as an external threat to the United States served as a religious Myth, that unified the American people behind their ideals of democracy and capitalism. It was a Sacred Story; anyone who questioned the level of threat was either ignored, ridiculed or denounced as unpatriotic. It was used to justify overseas wars in Korea and Vietnam, and political coups in many countries starting with Iran in 1953.

It is worth noting that communism was particularly successful as a religious myth due to it being not a single nation or group but an idea, something that could emerge in any nation, and cannot ever really be destroyed. This allowed the myth to serve for 40 years, with the particular enemy at any time being any selected communist country. It was enough to say that a country was communist, for it to be accepted by the American people as an enemy; a dichotomy was created between "us" and "them".

So, in addition to being a myth in the religious sense, is the myth of a great communist threat also a myth in the pejorative sense?

In the 1990's, evidence emerged that western intelligence agencies and NATO throughout the Cold War had operated a "Strategy of Tension" primarily in countries of western Europe. Terrorist attacks would be carried either by, or with assistance from, intelligence operatives and blamed on communists. The strategy of tension escalated the threat, in the eyes of the public, of communist and left-wing political parties and ideologies. It succeeded in preventing any communist party from being elected in western Europe. It also served as a justification for keeping security, intelligence and military budgets high, by promoting a culture of fear in the general population.

Next Page: Middle-Eastern Terrorism

1.3.1 Operation Northwoods

2008-01-20T15:41:00.000Z

In 1962, the military-industrial complex sought to invade Cuba. However, following the failed Bay Of Pigs invasion, there was little public support for such action. And so, members of the Kennedy Administration devised a plan to carry out a false-flag terrorist attack which they could blame on Cuba. The plan was ultimately rejected by President Kennedy, although a similar technique was used two years later against Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This plan remained classified until 1998, and now appears on the CIA website.

Among the plans were bombings in American cities, false arrests and plane hijackings. Some selected quotations:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba … casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

"[We could] create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington… The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States."

"[We could create] a series of well coordinated incidents to take place in and around [the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba]… [We could dress up "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have them] start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started, aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations."

1.3.0 American False-Flag Attacks

2008-01-20T15:25:00.003Z

There are dozens of examples of the use of false-flag attacks carried out by the United States government. They can be categorized into three types:

1. Full False-Flag Attacks - the attacks are planned and carried out by insiders, the real threat is virtually non-existent.
2. Facilitated Attacks - the attacks are carried out by a real enemy, but are allowed to happen or helped to succeed.
3. Fabricated Attacks - the attacks are not carried out at all, but are reported to have happened, and are blamed on a selected enemy.

The three largest wars of the 20th century that the United States were involved in were World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War. Their involvement in all three of them followed an event of one of these kinds.

Sinking of RMS Lusitania, 1915

In 1915, President Woodrow Wilson and his backers were keen to get the United States involved in World War I, but the American people did not want to involve themselves in European affairs. And so it was arranged that the luxury cruise liner, RMS Lusitania, would travel to Europe and into German-controlled waters, in the hope that it would be torpedoed and that that would cause a "wave of indignation" among the American people that would result in them accepting the United States declaration of war against Germany. Appalled by the despicable act by the Germans of destroying the cruiser, the American people soon demanded the United States enter World War I.

Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, 1941

On 7th December 1941, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor came as a complete surprise to most Americans. But President Roosevelt knew about the attacks as much as two weeks in advance. On the day before the attacks, he received a message intercepted by the U.S. Navy. Sent from Tokyo to the Japanese embassy in Washington, the message was encrypted in the top-level Japanese "purple code." But that was no problem. The Americans had cracked the code long before that. It was imperative that the president see the message right away because it revealed that the Japanese, under the heavy pressure of Western economic sanctions, were terminating relations with the United States. Roosevelt read the thirteen-part transmission, looked up and announced, "This means war." He then did a very strange thing for a president in his situation: nothing.

The Japanese secret declaration of war never reached the people who needed to hear it the most - Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander in chief of the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and the unit's commanding general, Walter Short. Pearl Harbor, it was common military knowledge, was where the Japanese would strike. If they struck. At dawn the next morning a Japanese squadron bombed Pearl Harbor and the surprise attack was just that, a complete surprise. At least to Kimmel and Short and the 2,575 American servicemen who died.

The president and the military chiefs in Washington spent that night in the White House, waiting for the Pearl Harbor Attacks to take place and their chance to enter America into World War II.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 1964

The American commitment to the war against Vietnam, which killed over 50,000 U.S. military personnel, and probably over 2 million Vietnamese civilians, was cemented by an incident that appears to involve more fiction than fact.

In the Gulf of Tonkin incident, North Vietnamese torpedo boats supposedly attacked the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, off Vietnam, in a pair of assaults on August 2 and 4 of 1964. It was the basis for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which committed major American forces to the war in Vietnam. The resolution passed the House of Representatives unanimously, and passed in the Senate with only two dissenting votes.

In retrospect it is clear that the alleged attack was little more than a transparent pretext for war, delivered in a one-two punch. First, media descriptions of the August 2nd attack as an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" hid the fact that the Maddox was providing support for South Vietnamese military operations against the North. Second, the alleged August 4th attack appears to be a fabrication, official accounts attributing the "error" to confusion.

The American public now supported war with Vietnam, and President Johnson was able to increased military budgets and personnel in Vietnam, in a war that lasted until 1975.

A more recent example of a fabricated false-flag attack would be the fabricated "Kuwaiti incubator baby hoax", which resonated with the American public and they subsequently supported United States involvement in the Persian Gulf War (1991).

Perhaps the most chilling example of American false-flag terrorism is to be found in the pages of the Northwoods Document, declassified in 1998. Operation Northwoods was a plan drafted in 1962 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and presented to President Kennedy, in which false-flag terrorist attacks would be carried out and blamed on Cuba, in order to gain public support for an invasion of that country. Kennedy rejected the plan.

Next Page: The Strategy of Tension

1.2.0 False-Flag Attacks

2008-01-20T15:18:00.001Z

The most effective way to convince a society to blindly accept authority, even if it means giving up civil liberties or supporting the nation in overseas wars, is to convince them that are under threat from an external force. It is known as the Hegellian principle:

1. Thesis (Problem)
2. Antithesis (Reaction)
3. Synthesis (Solution)

This principle is at the heart of the notion of false-flag attacks. A false-flag attack is when a nation carries out an attack and blames it on someone else. A problem is created, a reaction occurs, and a solution is offered and gladly accepted. The technique has been used throughout history.

One well-known example occurred in 64AD, when Roman Emperor Nero ordered his own palace in Rome to be burned down so that he could blame it on his political enemies, the Christians. The Roman people were shocked at the despicable act, and demanded that the Emperor take action to protect Rome from further attacks from these outsiders. The Emperor responded by alienating Christians and persecuting them; Roman citizens enjoyed watching Christians take part in gladiatorial battles. Nero's political power was assured, and persecution of Christians continued from several centuries.

The Nazis were well aware of the use of false-flag attacks to win the allegiance of the German people and gain their support for overseas wars, increased domestic control and the removal of civil liberties. Here are two examples;

In 1933, after Hitler was elected Chancellor, he sought to increase his political control by abolishing the office of President and declaring himself Fuhrer, wanted to ban all other political parties (particularly the communist party), and wanted to introduce a secret police, the Gestapo - all in direct violation of the German Constitution. In order to achieve this, just one month after the election, Hitler's SA set the government building, the Reichstag, on fire and blamed it on a Dutch communist. Horrified by the event, the German people demanded that the Nazis protect them and willingly gave up their civil liberties in the name of national security.

By 1939, Nazi Germany had invaded both Austria and Czechoslovakia, with full support from the German people who were convinced that the aggressive action was taken for the good of the German homeland. Hitler now wanted to invade Poland, but he knew the people would not support this, as Poland was not perceived as a threat. Operation Himmler was devised to convince people that Poland was a threat. This was plan that would give the German people the false impression that Poland had attacked Germany. At German outposts all along the border, false-flag events were staged or fabricated. Polish prisoners were dressed in army uniforms, taken to the border and shot, then photographs were taken for the newspapers. The German people believed it, and demanded that Germany invade Poland.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war... But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along... That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
- Herman Goering

Next Page: American False-Flag Attacks

1.1.0 Myths from History

2008-01-20T15:12:00.002Z

The term “myth” can be used in two distinct senses: in the pejorative sense, a myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false, failing to correspond with reality. In a deeper sense, the religious sense, a “Myth” serves as an orienting and mobilising story for a people, a story that reminds them who they are and why they do what they do. When a story is a Myth in this sense, the focus is not on the story's relation to reality but on its function. A Myth cannot function within a community or nation unless it is believed to be true. Moreover, the Myth is usually taken on faith to be true. If some people have the bad taste to question the truth of the Sacred Story, the keepers of the faith do not enter into debate with them. Rather, they ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers.

Myths permeate the whole history of humanity. In the ancient world, the most prevalent myths were polytheistic - that is, the myths were about a multitude of gods that served to unite a society. For example, there is Egyptian mythology, Greek mythology, and Roman mythology. The truth of the stories about the gods was generally taken on faith. Now, we know that these myths were mostly elaborate fabrications based on a series of falsehoods; that is, we now know that these examples are myths in both senses of the word.

Philosophy-based religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam are also filled with myths. The Bible, for example, has proved to be false in many places - for example The Garden of Eden, The Exodus of Moses, The Miracles of Jesus. Although the religion itself is still widely followed, it is now understood to be at least partially allegorical; few people would argue that the Bible is an authority when it comes to historical truth.

Most stories that have served as Myths cannot stand up to rational scrutiny. When such a story is stripped of its halo and treated simply as a theory, rather than an unquestionable dogma, it cannot be defended as the best theory to account for the relevant facts. The Scientific Revolution revealed to us that not only is Christianity a Myth in the religious sense, it is also a myth in the pejorative sense. As such, the myth no longer functions as effectively in society.

More modern myths generally relate to nationalism, rather than belief in a divine spirit. The most obvious example of a modern myth comes from Germany between 1933 and 1945. The Nazis were elected on the basis that they were working for the good of the people, protecting them external threats and extolling "good German values": this was their religious myth. In general, the German population believed the myth was true and supported the Nazis, or were indifferent or silent. The myth succeeded mostly because of the control of information and the use of propaganda. While most people were oblivious, some did question Nazi policies and attempt to expose atrocities committed by them, but they were mostly ignored, ridiculed or denounced as unpatriotic. The propaganda created a series of myths that made the idea of the Nazis carrying out mass murder against its own citizens seem unthinkable. A key part of manipulating public opinion was through carrying out false-flag attacks. After the end of German Nazism in 1945, the gulf between the religious myth that the Nazis were extolling good German values, and the truth of the reality, became clear. The Holocaust, the acts of the Gestapo and the SS, and the true motives and morals of the leaders were established; the German people could hardly believe that such horrific acts had taken place under their very noses for years.

"The bigger the lie, the more people will be inclined to believe it"
- Adolf Hitler

It is clear then, that the following are two very important lessons that history teaches us:

1. Religious Myths are used to control populations, and quite often, these Myths have little or no basis in reality.
2. To support the religious Myths, and more specifically to justify overseas wars and increased domestic control, false-flag terrorism is a popular technique.

However, these lessons are not emphasised by history teaching in schools. Instead, these important aspects of the past are treated as relics of an age gone by, as distant from today's society as armies fighting with bronze swords. We look back at early cultures that have believed religious myths to be true with a sense that they were "childish" and "foolish"; we look back at Nazi Germany and believe we have an understanding of the techniques of information control and propaganda that were employed, but we believe that we have learned to distinguish true fact ("science") from fairy stories. We suppose that modern media could never be so controlled, and that, in the 21st century, such monstrous myths could not be upheld; we believe we would not fall for it.

And the nature and dangers of false-flag attacks, despite being a relatively simple and extremely practical lesson of history, is usually overlooked. The burning of Rome is presented as an ancient "trick", and the burning of the Reichstag is presented as being a policy employed by people only as evil as the Nazis. The most basic message of all is lost:

When a war is being justified by a terrorist attack, we should ask ourselves "Was it a false flag attack?"

Next Page: False-Flag Attacks

1.0.0 Religious Myths - Index

2008-01-20T15:05:00.000Z

People's beliefs - what they believe to be literally true - have been manipulated and controlled by institutions of power, particularly institutions of government and religion, throughout history. When people believe a story to be true, it can function as a mobilizing and orienting story, a Religious Myth, which tells them who they are and why they do what they do. The most powerful Religious Myths, such as Christianity, have also turned out to be myths in the pejorative sense; that is, they have turned out to be based on falsehoods.

The idea of Religious Myths is central to the connection between the past and the present; for people's beliefs are just as important in the world today as they have ever been. And as it turns out, the biggest Religious Myth in the world today, the Official Account of 9/11, is no more true than the pejorative myths of history. An understanding of 9/11, and the road we have taken to get to it, links our time to history, and it can be seen that we have learned almost nothing from it, for we are making all the same mistakes again.

1. Myths from History

2. False Flag Attacks

3. American False Flag Attacks

4. The Strategy of Tension

5. Middle Eastern Terrorism

Welcome

2008-01-20T14:57:00.002Z

Welcome to my web site!

I started researching issues relating to 9/11 (often referred to as 9/11 conspiracy theories) in May 2007, after watching the film "9/11: Press For Truth". I found that there are an enormous number of flaws and contradictions in the mainstream account of events. After months of careful research, I became convinced that 9/11 must have been an 'inside job'. This website is intended to show you why.

Part I: Religious Myths

Part II: The 9/11 Myths

Part III: The Evidence of 9/11

Part IV: The Cover-up

Part V: Misinformation

Part VI: The Information War

Part VII: Attack Scenario 404

Part VIII: The Perpetrators

Part IX: The Future

Picture of South Tower collapse

2008-01-19T23:22:00.000Z

This is an image of the South Tower collapse. The red arrow points to a horizontal ejection of debris well below the falling floors.

Test

2008-01-19T23:01:00.000Z

Test

Welcome to my blog

2008-01-19T22:58:00.000Z

Welcome to my blog