9/11 Truth Megapost
I've been looking into 9/11 for a few months now and I decided to throw together some of my most compelling information and links and share. Please share your thoughts and any additional info.
World Trade Center – Flights 11 and 175
World Trade Center Building 7 was a 47-storey, fireproofed, steel-frame building completed in 1987. On 9/11 2001, it was hit by debris from the North Tower WTC 1 collapse at 10:28 AM. The official government narrative claims that this debris ignited fires that burned for several hours and weakened WTC 7 until it collapsed at 5:20 PM. This narrative has been doubted by skeptics who have studied the collapse — notably the 2,800+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911). Noting the sudden initiation of the collapse, the complete destruction of the building, the lack of structural resistance, freefall speed, and symmetrical fall into its own footprint, AE911 insists WTC 7 was brought down via controlled demolition.
Government's Inaccurate WTC 7 Collapse "Simulation"
The 2004 9/11 Commission Report did not mention WTC 7. After complaints from architects and engineers about this anomalous collapse being swept under the rug, the US Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began a formal WTC 7 study, initially attempting to blame internal diesel tank fires and denying freefall collapse speed. However, with AE911 Truth pointing out calculations of freefall speeds from video, and that diesel fires could be ruled out by lack of smoke, NIST was forced to concede on both of these points before their final 2008 WTC 7 report.
Still, NIST officially claimed that WTC 7 collapsed "primarily from normal office fires." By ignoring sheer studs and other structural components of this modern steel-frame building, NIST concluded that the failure of column #79 somehow initiated a sudden universal "progressive collapse."
Here is NIST's computer model of the initiation of collapse alongside video of the actual collapse. Does it match?
AE911 Truth asked to see the data behind this simulation to understand how NIST reached their conclusions. Their request was denied because it might "jeopardize public safety."
NIST Letters Denying Requested Info:
Larry "Pull it" Silverstein
Owner of the WTC buildings Larry Silverstein says that he decided loss of life in WTC 7 was so heavy that he should just "pull it." Whatever that means!
Silverstein built and owned WTC 7 since 1985, and acquired the WTC towers in July 2001. After 9/11, he fought in court for a double insurance payment, claiming there were two terrorist "occurrences." He didn't win the $7.1 billion double payment he was hoping for, but he was awarded for 1 & 1/3: a payout of $4.55 billion.
Other interesting statements by Silverstein:
his wife thankfully reminded him of his dermatology appointment on 9/11 and insisted he go, making him skip his customary breakfast at the top of WTC 1 that morning: https://youtu.be/9ScGZCqEyGM
Regarding the new replacement building for WTC 7, "the first design meeting was in April of 2000." … 17 months before it was destroyed?: https://youtu.be/j-_WYHwUtcI?t=28
What Was In WTC 7?
WTC 7 consisted exclusively of government agencies and financial institutions, including the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, as well as Secret Service and CIA offices.
Previous High-Rise Fires
Before and since 9/11, no steel-framed high-rise buildings have ever collapsed from office fires. We are told that on that day, three did: WTC towers 1, 2, and building 7.
1991, Philadelphia, PA – One Meridian Plaza burned for 18 hours, gutting 8 of 38 floors. A FEMA report said "beams and girders sagged and twisted," but "continued to support their loads without obvious damage."
2004, Caracas, Venezuela – Parque Central building burned for 17 hours, gutting 20 of 50 floors. It did not collapse.
A segment on previous high-rise fires: https://youtu.be/l0Q5eZhCPuc?t=746
A 9 minute video, Steel Buildings Don't Collapse From Fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
Of course, WTC 7 was hit by debris, which did some damage. Also, WTC 1 and 2 were hit by airplanes, but they withstood those impacts well, like they were designed to.
1993 Seattle Times Article, "Twin Towers Engineered to Withstand Jet Collision”
John Skilling, WTC head structural engineer:
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.
January 2001 Interview with WTC Construction Manager
WTC Construction Manager Frank DeMartini:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Video of interview: https://youtu.be/1pvEge5HPJU
Note: The Boeing 707 and 767 aren't "apples and oranges", see the stats compared here: http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
Frank DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11.
Aman Zafar Photoset
Aman Zafar took hi-res photos on 9/11 from a distance across the Hudson River — some of the best photographic evidence from that day. They show pretty clearly how undamaged the lower 90ish and 75ish floors of the towers were. Were these massive marvels of modern architecture really so fragile that one to two hours of fires fuelled by office furnishings and jet fuel (essentially kerosene) in the top floors was enough to suddenly reduce thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete into clouds of dust and a pile of debris barely taller than the lobby?
Note the upward and outward ejections of debris. Could fire and gravity do that?
Fire and Steel Temperature
Even if we're generous and claim the fires burned as hot as 1500°F (which is unlikely — though NIST claims 1800°F), they would have to heat thousands of tons of structural steel beams to at least 1000°F for significant weakening. These beams would be fireproofed and would meet building codes created to protect against fires. Is it plausible that fires could do this to the buildings in just 56 minutes in the case of WTC 2 and 1 hour and 42 minutes for WTC 1?
Fire Department Tapes
The tapes of FDNY comms show firefighters ascending the stairwell of the South Tower WTC 2 and dealing with "two isolated pockets of fires" at the 78th floor. They are convinced they "should be able to knock it down with two lines." The firefighters have no concern about collapse, even to the last minute. This doesn't sound like they are discussing a building with 1000°F raging fires burning so intensely throughout that they could have heated the beams on every floor — in an under an hour — to weaken them enough to initiate an immediate total collapse with negligible structural resistance.
FDNY Tapes: https://youtu.be/VGzMnmWYec0
David Chandler Analyses North Tower Explosions
Some of the clearest footage of explosives at WTC 1.
South Tower Collapse Compilation
A compilation of WTC 2 collapse footage where the use of controlled demolitions is apparent.
Raw 9/11 Footage from Hotel Window
This footage from a hotel window across from the WTC towers shows a close-up view of the lower floors, demonstrating how undamaged they were. Note: Some graphic images of jumpers, bodies.
Some points of interest:
@14:40 – "can hear more explosions!"
@19:15 – News in background is unsure of what has hit the Pentagon
@19:40 – Sparks emitting from corner of tower
Eyewitness Accounts of Explosions
A compilation of eyewitness accounts of explosions at the WTC.
Barry Jennings – Witness From Inside WTC 7
Barry Jennings witnessed explosions inside WTC 7 that left him trapped in the stairwell. His testimony contradicts the official NIST report that there were "no witness reports" of explosions. NIST's draft WTC 7 report was released 2 days after Jennings passed away in unclear circumstances 2008.
WTC 7 Collapse Foreknowledge
At least 60 firefighters demonstrated foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20PM. More than half of them spoke in certain terms (i.e. “is coming down” vs “might”). Considering no steel high-rise building in history had ever collapsed from fires (except the Twin Towers that morning), how were they so certain that this modern, 1987, 47-story, fireproofed steel-frame building would collapse? It seems they may have been told by somebody.
Graeme MacQueen has looked into this a bit:
Discussion of this at the 2011 Toronto Hearings: https://youtu.be/xqqelDq4P48?t=3630
With ReThink911: https://youtu.be/rNJ6WYFwR-o
Jane Standley of BBC reported on the collapse of WTC 7 (AKA the Soloman Brother's Building) at 4:54 PM — 26 minutes BEFORE it collapsed. The building is visibly standing behind her as she reports it has collapsed. BBC "loses connection" with her mid-conversation. BBC's official explanation for this was that they received an erroneous report from Reuters on a confusing day.
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI
Later, BBC contacts Standley again for a report. She describes the situation but when they bring up WTC 7 (@ 2:12), the audio cuts out. Coincidence?
Video Clip: https://youtu.be/gsqAHhTWEH0?t=40
CNN Report the collapse 67 minutes early:
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpWK8IwJH0w
another building in the World Trade Center Complex, which was not struck by an airplane, is in danger of collapsing…
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaNHuwGAG1I
NBC News, reporting upcoming collapse 26 minutes early:
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDkUZo2QVLE
CNN shows emergency workers at WTC7:
"Keep your eye on that building, that thing's comin' down!"
"The whole thing is about to blow up. Move it back!"
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU_43SwWD9A
Fox 5 Reports Collapse < 1 min early. After reporting it collapsed, they cut to a live feed, and it comes down live on screen:
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDDZANw9isI
Not foreknowledge, but an interesting observation from Dan Rather at CBS:
For the third time today. Its reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite.
Video Clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koUl7arMncs
PNAC Describes Benefits of "a New Pearl Harbor" in 2000
The Project for the New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank that included many Bush Administration members such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote a report in September 2000, a year before 9/11, called Rebuilding America's Defenses. It outlined a plan of massive military expansion, with a goal of ultimately fighting and winning "multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" to consolidate US global hegemony.
They stated that their ambitious
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.
Full text (see page 51 for quote): http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Zelikow Describes How US Gov Could Exploit a Major WTC Attack in 1998
Philip Zelikow was a member of George HW Bush's National Security Council during Desert Storm, co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice in the mid-90s, and would go on to be part of George W Bush's transition team, as well as the author of National Security Strategy 2002 AKA the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare. Despite these conflicts of interest, he would become the executive director of the "independent" 9/11 Commission.
In 1998 — nearly three years before 9/11 — with Defense Department bigwig Ash Carter and former CIA Director John Deutch — Zelikow co-authored a paper in Foreign Affairs entitled "Catastrophic Terrorism":
If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.
Emergency Crew Arrived in NYC For Terror Drill Day Before 9/11
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was holding a terror drill set for 09/12. Personnel arrived in NYC on 09/10.
FEMA Member Tom Kenney on CBS:
To be honest with you we arrived on late Monday night [Sept 10th] and went into action on Tuesday morning…"
Mayor Rudy Giuliani:
The reason Pier 92 was chosen as the command center is because on the next day, on September 12th, Pier 92 was going to have a drill. It had hundreds of people here from FEMA, from the federal government, from the state, from the state emergency management office, and they were getting ready for a drill for a bio-chemical attack… The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within 3 days, that was 2 1/2 to 3 times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center.
Drills Simulating Hijacked Planes Confuse Air Traffic Control
War games diverted much of the Northeast US air defense to Alaska, while other war games simulating hijacked airplanes flying into buildings confused radar operators on 9/11.
The Lone Gunmen Pilot
In March 2001, 6 months before 9/11, the pilot episode of the X-Files spin-off series The Lone Gunmen aired. The premise: the heroes unravel a government conspiracy to fly a commercial airliner into the World Trade Center to increase arms sales.
Just an odd coincidence? Make of it what you will.
9/11-relevant highlights from episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIdhoc0PRr8
WTC 7 Evaluation
Structural engineer Dr. Leroy Hulsey and his students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks are in the midst of conclusively debunking the bogus official claims of the NIST report with their two-year WTC 7 Evaluation. Using a sophisticated computer model of WTC 7, down to each beam and rivet, they have concluded that "normal office fires" could not have caused the collapse that occurred. Their report will be released August 2017.
WTC 7 Evaluation Website: http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
WTC 7 Evaluation Intro Video: https://youtu.be/C-VNjYXU-CE
Pentagon – Flight 77
The official story tells us American Airlines Flight 77 was hijacked at 8:51 (5 minutes after the first WTC strike) and, piloted by terrorist Hani Hanjour, flew without being intercepted for 45 minutes. Over the Pentagon, it pulled a high-speed 330-degree turn before knocking over five light poles, accelerating to 853 km/h, skimming above the Pentagon lawn to strike into the first floor of the building at 09:37. 64 died on the plane, 125 in the Pentagon.
Hani Hanjour's Flying Skills
Pilots say this would be an extremely difficult manoeuvre and would be nearly impossible for an inexperienced pilot like alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour, whose flight instructors said he could barely handle a Cessna weeks earlier in August.
US Navy Top Gun and 27-year commercial pilot Ralph Kolstad has studied the official flight path and says,
I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described… Something stinks to high heaven!
Newspaper articles quote Hanjour's flight instructors saying he "could not fly at all" and was "a terrible pilot." In the summer of 2001, a New Jersey flight instructor "declined a second request" to take the alleged would-be hijacker in on a small-plane flight "because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills."
(Quotes from David Ray Griffin's book, The New Pearl Harbor: Revisited)
Pentagon "Plane Crash" Surveillance Video
Although the Pentagon was arguably the most secure building in the world, this is the only publicly available footage of the alleged crash of Flight 77, released almost five years after the incident in May 2006. (A second camera right next to this one captured nearly identical footage that was also released). This footage does not prove that a plane hit the building.
Considering the supposed rapid descent to ground level and the low first-floor impact site, it is odd that the plane didn't leave any marks on the Pentagon lawn.
Pictures of lawn:
Some have suggested these cable spools — unhit by the plane — were directly in the flight path.
Lack of Plane Debris
CNN Reporter on 9/11:
from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon…
Interview with April Gallop – A Pentagon employee who experienced the blast and crawled out of the blast hole to the lawn. Gallop says she
didn't see any evidence of metal, airplane seats, no luggage. Nothing that would give me any indication that it was a plane that had hit the building… There was nothing on the inside that would give me any indication that there was a plane.
Interview with and exclusive footage by freelance cameraman Bob Pugh, who was at the Pentagon minutes after the explosion. @06:20 –
I'm looking for wreckage, and I don't see anything discernible. I can't find a piece of anything that I recognize. I can't see the tail, I can't see the wheels, I can't see the engines, there's no chairs, there's no luggage, there's no logo…
Gas Station Security Camera Footage Confiscated by FBI
December 11, 2001 National Geographic Article, "Three Months On Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon": A CITGO gas station employee who worked on 9/11 says the gas station's security cameras were close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact:
I've never seen what the pictures looked like… The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.
Richmond Times-Dispatch Article, 11 Dec 2001: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html
For reference, here is the unobstructed view of the Pentagon from CITGO Gas Station: http://www.rense.com/general63/unob.htm
C-Ring "Punch-Out" Hole
Alternately described in official government accounts as being created by the nose of the plane or the landing gear, this large round hole was located on the inside of the Pentagon's C-ring, several layers inward from the outer wall. Is this plausible? What really caused this?
Aerial view showing location of hole: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/aa73fce2-9d8c-489b-97be-c31b2b61d4a7.jpg
Photos of hole:
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's Testimony
Dick Cheney's Timeline
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) bunker under the White House on 9/11.
Mineta said he arrived in the PEOC bunker at 9:20, and Vice President Cheney was already there at that time.
The 9/11 Commission Report ignored Mineta's testimony and wrote that Cheney arrived 38 minutes later at 9:58 (and thus AFTER the Pentagon attack). Multiple others have also made statements suggesting Cheney was in the bunker earlier.
Most importantly, Mineta mentions
a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'the plane is 50 miles out'… 'the plane is 30 miles out'… When it got down to 'the plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the Vice President, 'do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'of course the orders still stand! Have you heard anything to the contrary?'
Were they talking about a stand-down order telling the fighters or anti-air not to engage?
At the very least, while the 9/11 Commission Report attempts to paint a false narrative suggesting US leadership was unaware, confused, and unable to make decisions in time that morning, the facts seem to suggest they had a lot more knowledge and control than is admitted.
Video Removed From 9/11 Commission Website
Video of Mineta's testimony was originally available on the 9/11 Commission website, but it was removed. When questioned about this the National Archive said it must have been lost in a "snafu." It has since been recovered and is now widely available on the internet.
Wedge 1 an Unlikely Strike Location
Why would the terrorists strike Wedge 1 of the Pentagon? The section directly opposite would have been a much richer target and easier to approach. It was public knowledge that the Defense Secretary's office and the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and those of other top-ranking officers, were located on the opposite side of the explosion zone.
Instead, Wedge 1 had obstacles on its approach (a raised street with signs, light posts, the Pentagon control tower), and was, according to the LA Times:
a portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes–enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.
The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows–2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each–that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out… While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there Tuesday, officials said.
LA Times, 16 September 2001: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/16/news/mn-46435
Is this the spot terrorists would have chosen to strike?
Citizen Investigation Team's (CIT) Study
With a series of straightforward interviews with 13 independent eyewitnesses of the low-flying plane at the Pentagon on 9/11, who are certain about what they saw, Citizen Investigation Team demonstrates that the government's oft-repeated official story of a southern Flight 77 approach was impossible. All 13 witnesses — including two police officers — are sure the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex and North of the CITGO gas station. This suggests the official flight path is false, and the knocked over light poles on the bridge south of the Pentagon and the path of internal damage were staged.
Images of CIT Witness Flightpaths vs. Official Story:
In the section from 59:40 to 01:13:30 in the video "National Security Alert" below, CIT interviews a cab driver, Lloyde England, whose cab was supposedly hit by a light pole knocked over by Flight 77 during its approach along the official-story southern flight path. Featured on the news, his cab windshield was smashed but his hood was oddly undamaged considering the forces at play. After persistent questioning by CIT, England eventually admits his role in a conspiracy to stage the incident:
This is too big for me, man. This is a big thing… I'm not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money… It was planned.
Hi-res photo of Lloyde England's cab at Pentagon: http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/1-1.jpg
A news segment on Lloyde England, from the beginning to 01:28. (The remainder of this video identical to the end part of the longer doc below. I recommend watching it there with more context): https://youtu.be/iAL9gJMSX6M
(1 hr 21 mins) CIT Documentary – National Security Alert – the 9/11 Pentagon Event: https://youtu.be/_HlUmmPBoLg
Shanksville, PA – Flight 93
Barren Crash Site
Many witnesses remarked on the lack of debris at the Shanksville crash site. Like the Pentagon, there were no bodies, no identifiable pieces of fuselage, wing, or tail section, no luggage, or seats visible at Shanksville. News mentions a second crash site, 6 miles away, adding to the confusion.
Flight 93 Shot Down?
Witness John Fleegle mentions he saw the lights flicker, then heard engines roar, heard a large boom and saw a "big ball of fire" in the air.
He saw a plane flying away that might have been a fighter, but it was flying into the sun and difficult to see.
Later he told his story to a retired Air Force member who suggested:
that plane was shot down… they zap the radar frequency on everything before they shoot. That's why your lights flickered."
Furthermore, while the 9/11 Commission Report claims that shootdown authorization was not received until 10:25 — well after the crash of Flight 93 at 10:03 – 10:06 — other accounts dispute this.
National Coordinator for Security and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke wrote that shoot-down authorization was received between 9:45 and 9:50, and a CNN report that aired before the Commission Report was released suggested a similar timeline.
(The official story is that the passengers, inspired by passenger Todd Beamer's phrase "let's roll", stormed the cockpit and attempted to reclaim the aircraft before the hijackers drove it into the ground.)
There are some pictures of supposed Flight 93 debris that were released during the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. They don't look very convincing of a plane crash either.
A lot of the 9/11 evidence released during the 2006 Moussaoui trial is sketchy, nonsensical, or contradictory to previously touted official storylines.
Historically, when major disasters have occurred, governments have quickly created independent commissions to investigate.
Number of days before an investigative commission was formed:
Titanic – 6
Pearl Harbor – 9
JFK Assassination – 7
Challenger disaster – 7
9/11 – 411
Barry Zwicker's Criticism
Media Critic Barry Zwicker, author of Towers of Deception, on the 9/11 Commission:
the term 'whitewash' doesn't do justice to the report of the 9/11 Commission. 'Omission-riddled inventive cover-up,' maybe.
Executive Director Philip Zelikow
The widows of 9/11 victims complained publicly after the Bush administration appointed Henry Kissinger as the 9/11 Commission Director. Kissinger was replaced with Philip Zelikow, a man with many conflicts of interest. This video explains Zelikow's deep connections to Bush and how he was a key member of the 9/11 cover-up.
Video, Corbett Report, 9/11 Suspects: Philip Zelikow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1VtozvvG4c
Chairman Thomas Kean Statement
9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean:
we think that in many ways the Commission was set up to fail.
$2.3 Trillion in Pentagon Spending Unaccounted For Day Before 9/11
On September 10th, Donald Rumsfeld pointed out that $2.3 trillion in Pentagon spending was unaccounted for. He spoke of the need for change to a wasteful bureaucracy. But things changed the following morning:
A very interesting four-part Fox investigative series on Israeli spies in America and possible links to 9/11. Concerns that US intelligence wiretapping was compromised by Israel.
ABC News, 20 September 2001.
Before 9/11, put options were purchased betting against stocks of United Airlines, American Airlines, and Marsh & McClellan (based on the floors of WTC 1 that were struck). Somebody made millions.
Indira Singh and Ptech
Indira Singh was senior risk management consultant at JP Morgan Chase bank in 2001. She was seeking to equip the bank with enterprise architect software that would provide "god's eye" visualization, mapping, and analysis of transactions, interactions, systems, processes, and personnel in the bank. Many recommended a small Quincy, MA company called Ptech. Their list of clients included the White House, Secret Service, FBI, IRS, NATO, IBM, the Postal Service, and the FAA.
However, Singh became reluctant to use their software when she discovered that Ptech's top investor was Saudi Al-Qaeda financier Yassin Al-Qadi, who had been placed on the US terror list in October 2001. Singh's research further linked Ptech to the CIA network that armed the Mujahideen in the 80s. When she told the FBI, they weren't particularly alarmed. In fact, they even actively blocked an investigation against Al-Qadi.
Ptech's relationship with the FAA is particularly interesting.
Bonnie: Could you describe the relationship of PTech with the FAA? PTech worked with the FAA for several years, didn’t they?
Indira: Yes… They were looking at, basically, holes in the FAA’s interoperability with responding with other agencies – law enforcement – in the case of an emergency such as a hijacking.
… how they would respond in case of an emergency… if anyone was in a position to understand where the holes were, PTech was, and that is exactly the point: if anybody was in a position to write software to take advantage of those holes, it would have been PTech.
Bonnie: Was there a reference to PTech having operated in the basement out of the FAA?
Indira: Yes. Typically, because the scope of such projects are so over-arching and wide-ranging, when you are doing an enterprise architecture project, you have access to how anything in the organization is being done, where it is being done, on what systems, what the information is. You have carte blanche.
If it is a major project that spends several years, the team that comes in has, literally, access to almost anything that they want because you are operating on a blueprint level, on a massive scale. So, yes, they were everywhere, and I was told that they were in places that required clearances. I was told that they had log-on access to FAA flight control computers.
Video, Corbett Report: Ptech and the 9/11 Software: https://youtu.be/LIUgxMC8PwM
Corbett Report Article: https://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20090717_cyber_911.htm
Full 2005 interview with Indira Singh on Bonny Faulkner's "Guns and Butter": https://youtu.be/Oe_tl8VnkTo
FBI Agent Robert Wright's Investigation Into Al-Qaeda Financier Al-Qadi Impeded
In the mid-1990s… two Chicago-based agents were assigned to track a connection to Chicago, a suspected terrorist cell that would later lead them to a link with Osama bin Laden. Wright says that when he pressed for authorization to open a criminal investigation into the money trail, his supervisor stopped him.
"Do you know what his response was? 'I think it's just better to let sleeping dogs lie,'" said Wright. "Those dogs weren't sleeping. They were training. They were getting ready." …
The suspected terrorist cell in Chicago was the basis of the investigation, yet Wright, who remains with the FBI, says he soon discovered that all the FBI intelligence division wanted him to do was to follow suspected terrorists and file reports — but make no arrests.
"The supervisor who was there from headquarters was right straight across from me and started yelling at me: 'You will not open criminal investigations. I forbid any of you. You will not open criminal investigations against any of these intelligence subjects,'" Wright said.
Even though they were on a terrorism task force and said they had proof of criminal activity, Wright said he was told not to pursue the matter.
In 1998 al Qaeda terrorists bombed two American embassies in Africa. The agents say some of the money for the attacks led back to the people they had been tracking in Chicago and to a powerful Saudi Arabian businessman, Yassin al-Kadi. Al-Kadi is one of 12 Saudi businessmen suspected of funneling millions of dollars to al Qaeda and who had extensive business and financial ties in Chicago.
Yet, even after the bombings, Wright said FBI headquarters wanted no arrests.
ABC News, December 2002, "FBI Called off Terror Investigations": http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=131907
(30 mins) Stand for the Truth: A Government Researcher Speaks Out – Recently released. Former NIST Employee Peter Ketcham reviews the 9/11 investigation and explains how it was a sham: https://youtu.be/GvAv-114bwM
(1 hr 50 mins) 9/11 Exposed 2nd Edition (2015): https://youtu.be/4Nmj6t51Wz8
(2 hrs 4 mins) 2011 "Toronto Hearings" at Ryerson University – AE 9/11 Truth discusses some of their best evidence for controlled demolition: https://youtu.be/xqqelDq4P48?t=720
(58 mins) Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out: https://youtu.be/Ddz2mw2vaEg?t=356
(1 hr 38 mins) Loose Change 9/11: an American Coup (2009): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26mumq_loose-change-911-an-american-coup-2009-documentary_shortfilms
(15 mins) Solving the Mystery of Building 7 – Narrated by Ed Asner. Delightfully low production value and kitschy. But intriguing. He's a bit of a slow talker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nyogTsrsgI
(2 hrs 18 mins) The Full AE911 Documentary: Structural engineers, firefighters, demolitions experts, etc. speak about 9/11 and the holes in the official report: https://youtu.be/mK86S-HZxTE?list=FLv31V0HsG3ivqkj9r5_dhDA
(1 hr 21 mins) Citizen Investigation Team Documentary – National Security Alert – the 9/11 Pentagon Event: https://youtu.be/_HlUmmPBoLg
(5 pgs) Article: Europhysics News: 15 Years Later – on the Physics of High-Rise Building Collapses: https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf
A Warning From History – President Eisenhower 1961
17 January 1961, in his presidential farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower decided to warn the American people about the potential dangers of the military-industrial complex. Considering the state of the country since 9/11, his words are more important than ever.
We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, 3 and 1/2 million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment.
Now, this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence: economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.
Our toil, resources, and livelihood, are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the counsels of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence — whether sought or unsought — by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals. So that security and liberty may prosper together.