Rough Translation provided by “Seabhcan”
Was September 11th an inside job?
From the July 1, 2006 Norwegian Le
9/11TRUTH: More and more people in the USA are convinced that the American
authorities are concealing their involvement in the September 11th tragedy.
Statements from witnesses, marked confidential for several years, now show that
controlled demolition may have taken place. The US government had long anticipated
such an incident – as the Republican document from 2000 Rebuilding America’s
defenses indicates. The 9/11Truth organisation believes that the USA probably
orchestrated an incident of this type in order to justify the invasion of Iraq
and Afghanistan, as well as the curtailing of civil liberties within the US
through the introduction of The Patriot Act. It has now emerged that the America’s
most senior military leader in 1962 devised a plan for a premeditated attack
on Americans, which would have involved shooting down a passenger plane, so
that the blame could be cast on Cuba. So why should this be excluded today?
Many also believe that Pakistani intelligence cooperated with the CIA and Al-Qaida
because the former transferred significant sums of money to the hijacker Mohammed
Atta in the days leading up to the 11th of September. They even had Bin Laden
under surveillance during the time of his treatment in a military hospital in
Peshawar, Pakistan in September 2001.
Journalist for Le Monde diplomatique.
Most of us would think it strange if the impact of a passenger plane wasn’t
sufficient to cause a skyscraper to collapse. So there were few who doubted
what it was that hit the Twin Towers on the 11th of September 2001 or the identities
of the perpetrators. However, in the intervening years, several individuals
and groups, both in North America and in Europe, began to doubt whether this
necessarily constitutes accuracy. For them, a set of contradictory circumstances
surrounding the attacks do not correspond with the explanations of the American
authorities and the Congress-appointed 9/11 Commission. A key reason for this
doubt could be that there are witnesses and participants in September 11th who
describe events that do not tally with events in the official story. An example
is provided by onlookers who heard and saw what they believed to be explosions
around the Twin Towers before they were struck by the planes. Policemen thought
it looked like “planned implosion”. Fireman Richard Banaciski reported
that: “It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings.
It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory claimed:
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You
know like when they demolish a building?” – Assistant Fire Commissioner
Another controversial witness statement came from maintenance worker, William
Rodriguez who was working in the North Tower on the 11th of September. In an
interview with New York Magazine he claimed that he first heard a huge explosion
when he was in one of the sub-basements of the skyscraper and witnessed the
appearance of victims, the skin burnt off their arms by fires in the lift shaft.
After the explosion in the sub-basement he heard another one from above. It
was a Boeing 767. Williams was the last survivor to be rescued from the World
Trade Center’s Ground Zero. He was hailed as a hero and invited to visit
George Bush and the White House. Later, when he attempted to publicise his story
about the sub-basement explosion, it was rejected by the American authorities.
He has now filed a lawsuit against these same authorities under the RICO Statute,
a legal ruling originally designed to prosecute Mafia families.
Besides witness statements describing a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers
with explosives, critics of the Bush administration believe there are several
sets of circumstances around September 11th that give good reason to suspect
the official story is incorrect. It is a fact that none of the four hijacked
planes were intercepted by fighter planes. That this did not happen, combined
with the fact that the majority of the air force was engaged in military exercises,
has given weight to suspicion that the American air defense force gave the order
to “stand down” so that the terrorist attacks could proceed unhindered.
Another suspicious circumstance is that WTC 7- also known as Building 7 –
a 47-storey skyscraper, collapsed without having been hit by any of the planes.
Conversely, the buildings that stood adjacent are still intact.
When it comes to any forewarning of the attacks, claims that the NSA monitored
fully translated conversations in the summer of 2001 – in real-time –
between Mohammed Atta and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed have raised concern. In one
of the conversations, Atta purportedly gave Mohammed the green light for the
attacks; NSA therefore should have been forewarned.
FBI-agent Colleen Rowley claims that the FBI’s directors intentionally
obstructed her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui In relation to investigation
that could have led to the apprehension of the hijackers, FBI agent Colleen
Rowley claims that the FBI’s directors intentionally obstructed her investigation
of Zacarias Moussaoui – at the time he was attending flight school in
Minneapolis. They did this despite having received warnings from French intelligence.
Rowley believes that, had the FBI approved the investigation, they could have
uncovered Moussaoui’s plans as well as those of several other hijackers
enrolled in flight schools. That Pakistani intelligence (ISI) transferred significant
sums of money to Mohammed Atta in the days leading up to the 11th of September,
some believe, is evidence of cooperation between the ISI, CIA and Al-Qaida.
It may also seem suspicious that George Bush has maintained that American authorities
have stepped down the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the main suspect behind September
11th. General Richard Myers also stated that the war in Afghanistan was not
about finding bin Laden. A former CIA agent, Gary Berntsen, has furthermore
claimed that the Bush administration let bin Laden escape when he was cornered
in a pocket of the Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan in 2001. It is also known
that American intelligence were fully aware of bin Laden’s whereabouts
as early as July 2001 when he was treated for a kidney condition at an American
hospital in Dubai, The United Arab Emirates. A few months later in September,
he also received treatment in a military hospital in Peshawar, Pakistan under
the surveillance of Pakistani intelligence.
THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES and witness accounts that contradict aspects
of the official story has led some individuals and groups to search for alternative
explanations for what happened on the 11th of September 2001. Consequently,
a veritable jungle of theories about what really happened in the US five years
ago has sprung up. The theories unfurl in a several, interconnected directions.
A comparison of different opinions is presented in the book The New Pearl Harbor
– Disturbing Questions about the Bush-Administration and 9/11 (2004),
by David Ray Griffin, Professor of Theology and the Claremont School of Theology
in Claremont, California. A key premise he presents in the book is that the
responsibility for the attacks of September 11th can, to a large extent, be
attributed to former members of the Neo-Conservative think tank Project for
a New American Century (PNAC), who are now key players in the Bush administration.
In the document Rebuilding Amercia’s defenses: strategies, forces and
resources for a New American Century (2000), written by PNACs members, it is
“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”.
The title of Griffin’s book refers to PNAC’s statement the transformation
of the American military necessitated “a new Pearl Harbor”. Griffin
looks at this quotation in the light of the legal principle of the profit motive,
or qui bono and concludes that September 11th was precisely the catalyst the Bush
administration needed. For Griffin, it is therefore probable that the US orchestrated
an incident of this type in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan,
as well as the curtailment of civil liberties in the US through the introduction
of The Patriot Act. That they have chosen to invade countries in the Middle East
he regards as simply an extension of the cooperation the US already had with the
power elite in Saudi Arabia, the Pakistani Intelligence (ISI), the Taliban regime
and regimes in Central Asia. And for Griffen, the agenda in the Middle East and
Central Asia is quite clear: it is about controlling both the production and transportation
of oil via pipes and tankers. Griffin does not point to any specific figures responsible
for arranging the September 11th attacks. He states only that there are different
opinions about this issue. For some, speculation about the identity of those responsible
surrounds intelligence agencies like the NSA, FBI and CIA. Others believe it was
the White House. A third group believe that is was individual figures like Dick
Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, George Tenet and Donald Rumsfeld who were the
real architects of the attacks. Alternatively, other possible combinations of
perpetrators and organisations may have worked together. In his paper, “What
is your ‘HOP’level?” Nicholas Levis categorises opinions on
the attacks under four main headings:
a) The Official Story: That Osama bin Laden was responsible,
that the planes were hijacked by 19 Muslim fundamentalists and that the White
House did not receive any warning.
b) Incompetence Theory: Accepts the official history but
blames the White House, FBI, CIA, NSA and others for not following up the
many warnings. This was the line taken, with a great deal of cover-up and
spin, in the 9/11 Commission’s report.
c) LIHOP (“Letting It Happen on Purpose”): There
are a number of variations on this one. Is mainly about how factions within
the American authorities and the private sector were aware of the hijackers’
plans but did nothing to stop them, since September 11th was in line with
d) MIHOP (“Making It Happen on Purpose”): US
authorities or private forces planned and carried out the attacks.
For the sceptics, the common denominator is their belief that at least one
of the elements of the official presentation of September 11th is inaccurate.
For those who subscribe to the radical MIHOP hypothesis, a key premise is that
the Twin Towers – including Building 7 – collapsed as a result of
controlled demolition with explosives; that it was an inside job. The technical/construction
part of this claim has however been directly refuted in a report of approximately
10,000 pages written by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
who claim that it was fuel from the passenger planes that disturbed the structure
of the towers and that it was this that eventually caused them to collapse.
NIST is unable to offer a satisfactory explanation as to why the third building
collapsed, WTC 7, did so without having been struck by a plane. Professor of
physics at Brigham Young University in Utah, Steven E. Jones, rejects NIST’s
claims about the Twin Towers (see also Greig’s article). He relates, for
example, how eyewitnesses had observed that steel from all three skyscrapers
had melted, (in some cases, the steel was found glowing three weeks after the
attack) and was twisted in a way that can only have been caused by what he describes
as pre-positioned “cutter charges”. According to Jones, these charges
consisted of thermate, HMX or RDX, and these are only used in explosives that
are used in controlled demolitions. Another important point for Jones is that
the fires in the buildings and the fuel from the passenger planes, (the maximum
temperature for airplane fuel is 1000 degrees Celsius) did not produce sufficient
heat to melt the steel – which would require temperatures of between 1550-1990
grader Celsius – within the 1-1½ hours it took the Twin Towers
to collapse.. Jones’ claims are supported by the data engineer Jim Hoffman.
After video and photo analysis of the events, Hoffman concludes that all three
buildings fell almost symmetrically, at close to freefall speed and directly
downwards onto their own foundations. According to Hoffman therefore, the speed
of the collapse, the pulverisation of the concrete to a “milky”
powder and the presence of horizontal dust clouds observed alongside WTC 7 are
associates with the use of pre-positioned explosives in buildings.
MANY NO LONGER BELIEVE the official explanation, but are convinced that the
Towers’ collapse was an inside job – either that the authorities
“let it happen” or “made it happen”. Many who put their
trust in other hypotheses, have joined forces with the umbrella organisation
9/11Truth. – an ad hoc organisation, formed to exist until the last unanswered
question about September 11th has been answered. 9/11Truth has brought together
a cross-section of society; members with different political allegiances manage
the same organisations and lobby groups. This cooperation is mainly concentrated
on meetings, demonstrations, the production of documentary films, Internet fora,
online publications and conferences. In the UK, a local branch of 9/11Truth
has been set up called JulySeventhTruth, so called as it seeks to piece together
what happened during the terrorist attacks in London on the 7th of July 2005.
9/11Truth poses questions about why no fighter planes managed to intercept
the four hijacked planes. 9/11Truth searches for the answer to whether or not
the Bush administration is lying when it says they had no foreknowledge of the
terrorist attacks. And as to whether intelligence agencies like the FBI, CIA
and NSA deliberately failed to investigate leads and dismissed evidence that
could have identified the hijackers before September 11th. 9/11Truth organised
a major conference entitled “9/11 Revealing The Truth/ Reclaiming our
Future” in Chicago between the 2nd and 4th of June. Every day, the media
spokesman for NY9/11Truth, Les Jamieson is in southern Manhattan,where each
Sunday he helps to arrange demonstrations at Ground Zero or seminars in St.
Mark’s Church, made available by priest, Frank Morales. Jamieson made
the following responses to questions from Le Monde Diplomatique:
– Does September 11th represent further justification to declare war?
– No. It happened before in Germany when the Reichstag was set on fire.
Those responsible dressed Germans up to look like Communists and made it look
as though Russians were setting fire to the German parliamentary building.
The Germans did the same with Poland. They dressed prisoners to look like
German soldiers and shot them. In this way, they made it look like Polish
soldiers were shooting Germans – and used this as an excuse to invade
Poland. And it has recently emerged that, here in the USA, the authorities
planned a similarly staged operation, Operation Northwoods: A plan was devised
in 1962 by the most senior-ranking military leader in the US. The plan was
to arrange a terrorist attack inland, on the coast of Florida where Americans
would be killed, a passenger plane shot down, a ship sunk – and all
the blame would be laid on the Cubans. So this is nothing new, it’s
been done before.
– How cynical can a government become?
– A lie precipitated the Vietnam War too – the events in the
Tonkin Gulf. It was reported that Vietnamese torpedo boats had shot at American
ships in the Tonkin Gulf. But these reports were fictitious. President Lyndon
B. Johnson and foreign minister Robert McNamara exploited these reports to
pass the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in Congress – which was really a declaration
of war. 50,000 Americans ended up dead, hundreds of thousands tragically affected.
The herbicide Agent Orange was used to poison farms and land use. This is
what happens when governments and the power elite orchestrate wars. There
really is a level of evil, a loathing of humanity. That’s why Henry
Kissinger said once about the war between Iraq and Iran: “I hope they
kill each other,” or: “Oil is much too important a commodity to
be left in the hands of the Arabs.”
– Is it similarly possible to suggest that there could have been a
secret group connected to the government, a “state within a state,”
that planned and brought about September 11th?
– Yes. One has to remember that there are private groups of agents,
private armies that exist outside Congress’ field of vision. They carry
out covert operations deep inside the CIA, and have severed all contact with
the American government, who for their part, have no knowledge about what
is going on. This has been happening since the 50’s. When Dwight Eisenhower
left his presidency he said that one should be vigilant over the overarching
control of the Military-Industrial Complex. To this day, we still have a shadow
government, an invisible government and we believe this one works together
with elements within the intelligence agencies MI5, MI6 and perhaps Mossad.
MI5 and the CIA definitely work together in translating the agenda for the
international power elite.
– Are you not afraid of being labelled a conspiracy theorist?
– The term “Conspiracy Theory” must also be understood
as a strategy of the mass media and individuals within the power elite to
sew seeds of doubt about this kind of information. The fact is that, on the
contrary, there are a range of examples of real conspiracies by the authorities.
For example, the Iran-Contras affair was a result of a huge conspiracy that
enabled the sale of narcotics to buy weapons for the Contras. And we have
the BCCI scandal in 1991 – a massive banking scandal. There’s
also the vote in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. If one studies these
things, mammoth conspiracies can be uncovered. What about all the lies that
led to the invasion of Iraq? We were told that weapons of mass destruction
definitely existed and that Saddam tried to buy “yellow cake”
from Nigeria. It was all lies and deception. These kinds of events need a
conspiracy! The American government’s official version of what happened
on September 11th is a scandalous conspiracy theory; it’s not to be
believed! In our organisation we are detectives and investigators. We put
together a theory and are actually extremely stringent in finding the best
The American government’s official version of what happened on September
11th is a scandalous conspiracy theory; it’s not to be believed!
JAMIESON IS NOT THE ONLY ONE subscribing to such theories. The participation
of many community groups and service personnel connected to 9/11Truth has generated
a trail of research and articles. A group called Scholars for 911Truth describes
itself as ”..a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars,
in fields as diverse as history, science, military affairs, psychology, and
philosophy, dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind
9/11. It was established by philosophy professor James H. Fetzer and professor
of physics Steven E. Jones – the movement’s foremost expert on the
collapse of the Twin Towers. The latter’s work will be published in September,
a contribution to the anthology 9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak
Out (2006). In the book, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, there
is input also from Ola Tunander, professor at the PRIO – the International
Peace Research Institute Oslo with the article “The War on Terror and
Pax Americana” (see under).
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote one of the first books published to question the
official version of September 11th – The War on Freedom: How and Why America
was Attacked, September 11th, 2001 (2002). It expresses profound criticism of
American foreign policy, both leading up to and subsequent to 9/11.
Paul Thompson, from Scholars for 9/11Truth, is the author of The Terror Timeline,
A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11 and America’s Response.
This is a comprehensive collection of news articles about the terrorist attacks
on the 11th of September 2001. Thompson works at the Center for Cooperative
Research. Another much-talked about member of Scholars for 9/11Truth is David
Ray Griffin. In addition to books on theology, religion and philosophy, he wrote
The New Pearl Harbour (2004) and 9/11 Commission Omissions and Distortions (2005).
In the latter, Griffin highlights 115 areas where the 9/11 Commission’s
report failed to evaluate important evidence or deduced fundamentally flawed
conclusions from existing evidence. Griffin is also a dynamic force behind the
organisation MUJCA-net – a discussion forum for Christians, Jews, Muslims
and other believers who are sceptical of the official explanation for September
11th. The head of the organisation is the intellectual, doctor and imam Faiz
Khan, who works at a Jewish hospital in New York. In the essay The Paralysis
of Discourse; The Incompetence of Academia, and The Need for an Accurate Diagnosis,
he argues that September 11th precipitated a simplification of language and
ideas about what it means to be Muslim and Arab – especially when Muslims
the world over are to be held responsible for actions a small minority of terrorists
have carried out. Khan believes the hijackers were most probably “fake”
Muslims, i.e. that they were not Muslim in their beliefs in the way that American
foreign policy is American. That the blame for the terrorist attacks is attributed
to something as diffuse as a “military Islamic network,” he believes,
is tantamount to an abdication of responsibility by the US, since the latter
worked in tandem with the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) and Saudi-Arabia to build
those networks up.
Read from Looking Glass News
The Myth and the Reality
Destruction of the World Trade Center
Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
Half-Dozen Questions About 9/11 They Don't Want You to Ask
reasons to question the official story of 9/11
a Plane Into the World Trade Center?
Flight 77 Circus
: ON THE EVE OF DESTRUCTION
Reasons to Question the Official 9/11 Story
Evidence that Official 9/11 Story is a Lie
Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?
Larry Silverstein can’t get it up