Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by me1, Dec 24, 2009.
Which do you believe?
Agent Faults FBI on 9/11
The man who caught Zacarias Moussaoui testifies that higher-ups blocked his efforts to determine whether there was a larger plot.
by Richard A. Serrano
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia - The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before Sept. 11 told a federal jury Monday that his own superiors were guilty of "criminal negligence and obstruction" for blocking his attempts to learn whether the terrorist was part of a larger cell about to hijack planes in the United States.
During intense cross-examination, Special Agent Harry Samit — a witness for the prosecution — accused his bosses of acting only to protect their positions within the FBI.
His testimony appeared to undermine the prosecution's case for the death penalty. Prosecutors argue that had Moussaoui cooperated by identifying some of the 19 hijackers, the FBI could have alerted airport security and kept them off the planes.
Moussaoui is the only person to have been convicted in the United States on charges stemming from Sept. 11. His sentencing trial began several weeks ago, but the prosecution's case was nearly gutted when it was learned that a lawyer for the Transportation Security Administration had improperly coached key aviation security witnesses. U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema decided to allow the government to present a limited amount of aviation testimony and evidence.
Samit's recollections Monday were the first ground-level account of how FBI agents in Minneapolis — where Moussaoui was arrested on a visa violation 3� weeks before the attacks — were appalled that their Washington supervisors denied their requests for search warrants in the effort to find out why the Frenchman was taking flying lessons and what role he might have in a wider plan to attack America.
"They obstructed it," a still-frustrated Samit told the jury, calling his superiors' actions a calculated management decision "that cost us the opportunity to stop the attacks."
The government considers Samit's testimony essential to its case. On March 9, the agent told the court about his arrest of Moussaoui, now 37, and his desperate efforts to win the suspect's cooperation.
Yet much of his testimony Monday might have backfired on the government. The jury easily could have been left with the impression of an FBI so at odds with itself that it not only missed critical clues of an impending terrorist attack, but did not even know how best to coordinate efforts to stop it.
Samit was not alone in his contempt for his superiors.
His suspicions were backed up by Coleen Rowley, then an FBI lawyer in Minneapolis, who in a May 2002 memo to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III complained that Washington had blocked efforts to determine what Moussaoui was really doing. Rowley is not scheduled to testify during the sentencing phase.
Moussaoui pleaded guilty last year to being a part of the Sept. 11 conspiracy. His lawyers maintain that the government had plenty of leads in the summer of 2001 that a major terrorist action was afoot, even without Moussaoui's cooperation. They point to a memo by an FBI agent in Phoenix warning of Middle Eastern men taking flying lessons, and the fact that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet was apprised of Moussaoui's arrest.
Samit testified Monday that he never knew of the Phoenix memo or of Tenet's interest in the case. He also said he was kept in the dark about the Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing given to Bush during his vacation in Texas. That briefing, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," noted "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."
"I didn't see it," Samit testified. "I did not see anything like that."
Defense lawyer Edward B. MacMahon Jr. also used his cross-examination of Samit to suggest that law enforcement officials never took such threats seriously then anyway.
Under MacMahon's daylong questioning, Samit said that officials at the FBI headquarters in Washington rejected a series of attempts to obtain a warrant to search Moussaoui's personal belongings.
Had the belongings been opened before Sept. 11, agents would have found numerous small knives, jumbo-jet pilot manuals, rosters of flight schools and other clues that might have helped them understand the Sept. 11 plot.
Samit wanted to seek a criminal search warrant, and later one from a special intelligence court. But officials at the FBI headquarters refused to let him, because they did not believe he had enough evidence to prove Moussaoui was anything but a wealthy man who had come to this country to follow his dream of becoming a pilot.
He said that as Washington kept telling him there was "no urgency and no threat," his FBI superiors sent him on "wild goose chases."
For a while, Samit said, they did not even believe Moussaoui was the same person whom French intelligence sources had identified as a Muslim extremist. Samit said that FBI headquarters wanted him and his fellow agents to spend days poring through Paris phone books to make sure they had the right Moussaoui.
Samit said that when he asked permission to place an Arabic-speaking federal officer as a plant inside Moussaoui's cell to find out what Moussaoui was up to, Washington said no.
And he said that when he prepared a lengthy memo about Moussaoui for Federal Aviation Administration officials, Washington deleted key sections, including a part connecting Moussaoui with Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Samit said he was so frustrated and so convinced that attacks were imminent that he bypassed FBI officials in Washington and met with an FAA officer he knew in Minneapolis. But he said FAA agents never got back to him, and never asked to see a pair of small knives, similar to box cutters, that Samit had found in Moussaoui's pocket and in his car.
Samit further described how he took it upon himself to cable the Secret Service that the president's safety might be in jeopardy. He recounted in the cable how Moussaoui had told him he hoped to be able to one day fly a Boeing 747 from London's Heathrow Airport to New York, and how he also hoped to visit the White House one day.
Samit said he warned the Secret Service that those desires could spell disaster. "If he seizes an airplane from Heathrow to New York City," Samit alerted the Secret Service, "it will have the fuel on board to reach D.C."
Samit said he never heard back from the Secret Service either.
And yet, the agent said, he never officially complained to the FBI hierarchy.
"Street agents don't call headquarters and request that supervisors be removed from cases," he said. "I didn't agree with them, but they are in charge."
But Samit said his immediate boss in Minneapolis, FBI Special Agent Greg Jones, did urge Washington to be more receptive.
Samit said he once overheard Jones on the phone with headquarters, telling FBI superiors that Minneapolis was trying to keep Zacarias Moussaoui "from flying an airplane into the World Trade Center."
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Samit said he asked Jones about that conversation, and Jones said he had just made up the scenario as a hypothetical to try to get Washington moving. "He pulled it out of the air," Samit said. "It was a lucky guess."
Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times
Good post, Bob.
Whether or not we'll ever know the truth is anyones guess. There are a few things that should be considered, though.
1) The FBI, after less than 2 days and with only blurry security camera footage, had a list of all 12 attackers, their mugshots, and which planes they were on. Less than 2 days.
2)More than a few of the alleged highjackers have not only been seen alive, but one even has stated publicly that he was still alive, and another's dad says hes been living in Lebanon for years. This is rather common news in the Arabic speaking world.
Inside job or not, the events immediately succeeding the attacks are suspicious to say the least.
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by conservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership." Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.
"New Pearl Harbor"
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).
In his appearance on Democracy Now!, theologian David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, explains the allusion to "the New Pearl Harbor" from the PNAC report in the title of his book, which argues that PNAC members within the Bush Administration were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Further information: 9/11 truth movement and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator Manuel Valenzuela and journalist Mark Danner, investigative journalist John Pilger, in The New Statesman, and former editor of The San Francisco Chronicle Bernard Weiner, in CounterPunch, all argue that PNAC members used the events as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.
"When the Towers came down," William Rivers Pitt writes in his editorial in Truthout.org, "these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy."
One thing that has always bothered me alan is just the absurdity of it all.
Yer telling me a plane can fly off course for an hour into the most heavily defended building in probably the world? The Pentagon
And then there is no footage of the plane hitting it except the shitty frame they released in which you cant makeout anything.
Where were the air traffic controllers? Where were the jets scrambling?
are you telling me its that easy to attack the Pentagon?
I dont buy it.
It really does stink. There is no credible evidence that the Pentagon was ever struck by an airliner. And youre right, the Pentagon is the single most heavily guarded building on this planet, far more secure than the White House.
What gets me about the whole thing is the facts on Osama Bin Ladin. Theres no coverup as far as he and Al Qaida being on the CIA payroll until the late nineties, when it was pretty well documented that Bin Ladin stopped playing ball. It was said by radio hosts and political watchdogs that Bin Ladin, who was once a CIA employee, was going to end up being painted as a diabolical monster from there on out for having bit the hand that fed him.
Not only this, but despite what you hear and see on tv, Bin Ladin has never once claimed responsibility for 9/11. He condones the actions, but nowhere does he say he had anything to do with it. Its mind blowing.
The reason we invaded afghanistan is because the Taliban refused to extradite osama until evidence was provided that he was behind it.
Has anyone watched the movie 'September Clues' ? The first part is linked below.
It purports to be an examination of the media coverage from 9/11. There are, at least on these tapes, many obvious visual errors. A notable one being that the helicopter media footage shows a plane impacting the tower and coming right out the other side with its nose-cone still completely intact. The plane shows no noticable decline in speed either. How bizarre. The coverage is later censored with a banner on screen hiding the mistake.
Also, different media, supposedly of the same two planes, shows many discrepancies, such as different flights paths taken towards the tower by the -same- plane, different physical characteristics, such as the size and colour of what is supposedly the -same- plane in each instance.
Again, I do not know whether or not the footage in this video is authentic media coverage or whether someone is playing silly buggers to muddy the waters. But, if it is authentic media footage then at the very least it proves that the media used -fake plane- footage for whatever reason on 9/11. There may well still have been real planes, possibly not the planes depicted on the media video coverage, or maybe something else, that could momentarily in the confusion be mistaken for a plane, such as a cruise missile.
The early eyewitness reports, from NY itself, as opposed to tv 'witnesses' is inconsistent to say the least. Be better to ignore all of them rather than cherry pick whichever account, or accounts, suit whatever we want to believe. Many dont claim to have seen any plane.
Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge
Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 The evidence of insider trading includes:
Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes
In each case, the anomalous purchases translated into large profits as soon as the stock market opened a week after the attack: put options were used on stocks that would be hurt by the attack, and call options were used on stocks that would benefit.
Put and call options are contracts that allow their holders to sell and buy assets, respectively, at specified prices by a certain date. Put options allow their holders to profit from declines in stock values because they allow stocks to be bought at market price and sold for the higher option price. The ratio of the volume of put option contracts to call option contracts is called the put/call ratio. The ratio is usually less than one, with a value of around 0.8 considered normal. 2
American Airlines and United Airlines, and several insurance companies and banks posted huge loses in stock values when the markets opened on September 17. Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks -- were purchased on the stocks of these companies in great volume in the week before the attack.
United Airlines and American Airlines
Two of the corporations most damaged by the attack were American Airlines (AMR), the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines (UAL), the operator of Flight 175 and Flight 93. According to CBS News, in the week before the attack, the put/call ratio for American Airlines was four. 3 The put/call ratio for United Airlines was 25 times above normal on September 6. 4
This graph shows a dramatic spike in pre-attack purchases of put options on the airlines used in the attack. (source: www.optionsclearing.com)
The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.
On Sept. 6-7, when there was no significant news or stock price movement involving United, the Chicago exchange handled 4,744 put options for UAL stock, compared with just 396 call options -- essentially bets that the price will rise. On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records. 5
The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley "put" option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time. 6
When the market reopened after the attack, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share. 7
Several companies in the reinsurance business were expected to suffer huge losses from the attack: Munich Re of Germany and Swiss Re of Switzerland -- the world's two biggest reinsurers, and the AXA Group of France. In September, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle estimated liabilities of $1.5 billion for Munich Re and $0.55 bilion for the AXA Group and telegraph.co.uk estimated liabilities of £1.2 billion for Munich Re and £0.83 billion for Swiss Re. 8 9
Trading in shares of Munich Re was almost double its normal level on September 6, and 7, and trading in shares of Swiss Re was more than double its normal level on September 7. 10
Financial Services Companies
Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack. Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened. 11
Bank of America showed a fivefold increase in put option trading on the Thursday and Friday before the attack.
A Bank of America option that would profit if the No. 3 U.S. bank's stock fell below $60 a share had more than 5,900 contracts traded on the Thursday and Friday before the Sept. 11 assaults, almost five times the previous average trading, according to Bloomberg data. The bank's shares fell 11.5 percent to $51 in the first week after trading resumed on Sept. 17. 12
While most companies would see their stock valuations decline in the wake of the attack, those in the business of supplying the military would see dramatic increases, reflecting the new business they were poised to receive.
Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, saw its stock soar immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.
A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. 13
Raytheon has been fined millions of dollars inflating the costs of equipment it sells the US military. Raytheon has a secretive subsidiary, E-Systems, whose clients have included the CIA and NSA. 14
US Treasury Notes
Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volumes before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.
The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11. 15
The SEC's Investigation
Shortly after the attack the SEC circulated a list of stocks to securities firms around the world seeking information. 16 A widely circulated article states that the stocks flagged by the SEC included those of the following corporations: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, US Airways airlines, Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American International Group, AMR Corporation, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp, Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation, Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies, American Express, the Citigroup Inc., Royal & Sun Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns.
An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:
The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.
In a two-page statement issued to "all securities-related entities" nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate "the sensitive nature" of the case and can be relied upon to "exercise appropriate discretion" as "point" people linking government investigators and the industry. 17
Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration. 18
Interpreting and Reinterpreting the Data
An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them. In his book Crossing the Rubicon Michael C. Ruppert illustrates this point by first excerpting a number of reports published shortly after the attack:
A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
No similar trading occurred on any other airlines
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] 3
Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. 4
Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. 5
3. "Mechanics of Possible Bin Laden Insider Trading Scam," Herzlyya International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), September 22, 2001. Michael C. Ruppert, "The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9-11 Attacks," From the Wilderness April 22, 2002. Posted at Centre for Research and Globalization <www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP203A.html>.
4. ICT, op. cit, citing data from the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (CBOE). [...] "Terrorists trained at CBPE." Chicago Sun-Times, September 20, 2001, <www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst-nws-trade20.html>. "Probe of options trading link to attacks confirmed," [...] Chicago Sun-Times, September 21, 2001, <www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst-fin-trade21.html>.
5. ICT, op. cit.
Ruppert then illustrates an apparent attempt to bury the story by explaining it away as nothing unusual. A September 30 New York Times article claims that "benign explanations are turning up" in the SEC's investigation. 20 The article blames the activity in put options, which it doesn't quantify, on "market pessimism," but fails to explain why the price of the stocks in the airlines doesn't reflect the same market pessimism.
The fact that $2.5 million of the put options remained unclaimed is not explained at all by market pessimism, and is evidence that the put option purchasers were part of a criminal conspiracy
Another good find, Bob. I was going to mention it, but it slipped my mind. A lot of people mysteriously made a lot of money in the days leading up to the attacks in regards to stocks that would be directly effected by them. Ive heard analysts call it the single most structured and uncanny move in the history of the market.
From what I've seen 98+% of all 9/11 conspiracy theories are easily explained, it's just the inconsistencies were found by people that lack the knowledge to explain it so they use the conspiracy theories(i.e. the white plane seen near flight 93 or the wreckage being "too far away"). Then when a more knowledgeable person on the subject gives them their opinion they get belligerent about it.
Of course there are a very small amount that aren't explained, but it is that way with most things. People looked a lot closer with 9/11, and a lot found things that weren't there.
If there -were- planes then Bush has let the cat out of the bag (that it was an inside job) with his comments about 'being outside of the classroom waiting to go in' and 'seeing the first plane hit the first tower'. He claimed that there 'must have been a tv on or something'. There was never any media footage of the first plane hitting the first tower. He would have needed to have a private feed, hence inside job. The only footage that ever came to light of a 'plane' hitting the first tower was that which is purported to be 'amateur video footage' by some 'French students'. If that is bogus too, then they would need to have been a part of the hoax. I have watched it a few times and again the 'impact hole' doesn't seem to appear until a little while -after- the impact of the 'plane'. At least on the version that I watched. Has this video been doctored by someone and made to look like something it is not? Is there a perfectly rational explanation for what is being observed?
Like the free-fall, or near free-fall speed, which can only occur if the falling body meets with little or no resistance? A state which is mutually exclusive from, and totally incompatible with a 'progressive collapse' which as the name suggests takes a good while longer to eventuate. Or the concrete turning to fine dust where the building stands, i.e. a massive amount of resistance necessary to grind concrete to fine dust, existing simultaneously to a complete, or almost complete, lack of resistance, i.e. free, or near free-fall.
I would love a non just-so 'explanation' for these incongruent observations. The NIST -know- that building 7 fell at free-fall speed, they have admitted this, finally, having originally, and quite understandably, given the fact that it is proof-positive of a controlled demolition, tried to obfuscate the data, selecting an arbitrary 'start point' for the collapse, a few seconds -prior- to the visual beginning of the collapse, so as to be able to claim that it 'didn't' fall at free-fall speed. When clearly it did. May aswell have used a point a week earlier as a phoney 'start point' and claim that 'any 47 story building that takes a week and 7 seconds to fall clearly isnt falling at free-fall speed, case closed' for all the relevance their own initial fraudulant interpretation has.
Most definitely planned or allowed.
The Jersey Widows testified for hearing led by congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on July 22, 2005 In Lorie Van Auken's statement she said this of the 9/11 Commission Report:
And finally, without compromising our national security, it would have reported all of its findings, with its redactions blacked out and submitted to the American people. In essence, the Commission could have produced a final product where the resulting conclusions and recommendations could be trusted. Instead, at the end of the day, what we got were some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people. Violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us, one day soon.
One such statement is that 9/11 was a 'failure of imagination.' A failure of whose imagination? What exactly does that mean? When you have a CIA director with his hair on fire, a system blinking red, 52 FAA warnings, an August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States', leads on several 9/11 hijackers including Alhazmi, Almihdhar and Marwan Al-Shehhi, warnings from many foreign governments, a Phoenix Memo warning of Islamic extremists taking flying lessons, the arrest of would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, facts imparted to one agent, Agent Frasca at the RFU at the FBI, 9/11 was truly a failure alright.
Also, when the buildings impacted the readings on the richter scale were not anywhere near as large as they should have been for two towers of the shear mass that the twin towers represented. They constituted many, many tons of steel, concrete and other materials. Yet, most of the buildings -measurably- never struck the ground. Where did they go?
If you examine the 'remains' of the twin towers in the aftermath of the two collapses, well, there really isnt any 'remains' to examine. The entire mass of debris scarely comes up to a solitary floor in height. Where did it go? It wasn't destroyed on impact, because the impact was not nearly severe enough to do this.
Where are all the floors that -should- have been piled up on top of one another after 'their supports' mysterious 'came loose', or so goes the establishment BS, and caused a 'pancaking effect'. They are not there to be seen. Where did they go?
Where is all the concrete that should have come crashing down? It had already turned to fine, fine dust, some of the particles of which were 0.1 microns in size, nano-particles, that defy the laws of gravity and float upwards into the atmosphere. Conventional explosives do not release enough energy to cause this phenomenon. Where did the energy come from to disassociate the chemical bonding of the concrete and do this?
How come the 'smoke' that engulfed the neighbouring streets was said by people present in the immediate environment to be 'cooler' than the ambient temperature?
How come great quantities of paper, from filing cabinets, that themselves were seemingly destroyed without trace, came out of the wreakage unscathed? Why wasnt it destroyed too?
What force could cause such massive, yet incredibly specific, and contradictory to what would logically happen if any -conventional- and well-understood force were used, i.e. fire, style of destruction? Dont say 'planes and fire' because that one is wearing a little thin already!
Hell to the yes. Been a researcher of this since 2002, participated in seminars, protests, organizations...I'm really active in the cause.
Join the 9/11 Truth Movement group on Facebook if any of you have an account and want to participate in discussions about it all.
Bob, exactly. 9/11 Press For Truth tells all about it. As if Anthony Shaffer's testimony wasn't enough in itself to put doubt into the public about what we've been told about the attacks.
I used to read and talk about this quite a lot, but I no longer do, you just end up chasing your tail, no investigation will ever happen, so its pointless.
Most of my colleagues in architecture and engineering say that the collapse did in fact coincide with a plane impact followed by fire damage (and then gravitational forces thereafter). Most people in the field in general have dispelled the conspiracies. though I understand some don't, and actually lead many of the 'truth' movement.
The first peer-edited report of the 9/11 attacks (written by Zdeněk Bažant, a professor of Civil Engineering at Northwestern University) found that progressive collapse and controlled demolition aren't, as people assume, mutually exclusive. Therefore, it would not be unusual for them to appear similar.
Models have also shown that the sheer combination of kinetic energy and gravity would indeed produce the type of fall we witnessed. Besides, conventional thermite, which is what is used in these sorts of demolitions, cannot even destroy the frames of a smaller building, much less those of the Twin Towers. Interestingly, while same claim that the seismographic data didn't coincide with a building collapsing, it also didn't pick up an explosion of that magnitude.
What I find most improbable about the controlled demolitions theory (which is the only one I'm discussing right now, I'm aware there are others) is that such demolition work would require a lot of noticeable preparation: tower walls would have have to be opened on numerous floors, and thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition devices would need to be sneaked past security and thousands of people working there over a period of weeks.