Most of us remember that day. And those of us too young to remember (myself included), or who weren’t born yet, have all heard about it.
On September 11th, 2001, terrorists flew two airplanes into the two Twin Towers, both of which subsequently collapsed. A third plane hit the Pentagon.
That’s the official story, anyway. The disaster – which claimed almost 3000 lives – has several unanswered questions and inconsistencies.
The most glaring of these is the collapse of Tower 7 after the Twins collapsed.. The simple fact of the matter is that, unlike the three afore-mentioned building, 7 was NEVER hit by a plane of ANY sort.What is the official response? Well, eventually they concluded that 7 was hit by some falling debris, and this debris somehow ignited a fire so intense it caused the building’s structure to collapse.
This article provides excellent evidence against this:
Hulsey’s WTC 7 Evaluation
The most confounding discrepancy in the events that took place on 9/11 is the collapse of World Trade Center tower number seven, or WTC 7. If there is any evidence of a more sinister, underlying plot, WTC 7 is the smoking gun. While the official story behind the collapse of the main towers is similarly suspicious, the fact that they were hit by planes lends slightly more credence to the official narrative. However, WTC 7 was never struck by a plane, instead it caught fire after the collapse of towers one and two.
Prior to, and since that day, fire has never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed, high-rise building. This is the argument coming from many structural engineers and architects, most notably Leroy Hulsey. Hulsey, who is the chair of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, has been working in conjunction with a non-profit group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. An expert in engineering and mathematical modeling, Hulsey has been leading a team of Ph.D. students in a two-year study, virtually recreating the collapse of WTC 7. Hulsey’s report will be released either this month or next, critiquing the official 2002 investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and detailing his research based on the alleged reasons given for WTC 7’s collapse.
In the past, Hulsey has testified in front of the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry with the basic assertion that fires could not have caused the collapse of the building. Hulsey details the numerous flaws in the evaluation made by NIST with his process of research and scrutiny between he and his doctoral students. When asked hypothetically, if one of his students submitted an evaluation to him like the one NIST used to achieve their findings, if he would fail them, he resoundingly replied, yes.
NIST’s Faulty Evaluation
So, what was the official evaluation given by NIST that was supposed to definitively end any speculation as to why WTC 7 collapsed? According to their report, a thermal expansion of floor beams pushed an adjoining girder off its seat, which led to a subsequent collapse of eight floors. An additional failure of other girders from the same thermal expansion caused a nine-story column to collapse, followed by the collapse of the rest of the interior and then the exterior.
One of the flaws and obvious biases of NIST’s report is that it was started with a predetermined conclusion. Given the nature of the building’s collapse, it would obviously make sense to at least entertain the idea of a controlled demolition, considering that all of the tell-tale signs were there. A report published in Europhysics News, by a group of engineers and physicists, details the flaws in NIST’s report and the apparent bias in its process.
Steven Jones, one of the authors of the report who has gained notoriety in his research, even pointed out a flaw in NIST’s data that led them to change their original evaluation. Jones says this flaw was more along the lines of ignored evidence. NIST’s report ignored the fact that the building, upon collapse, went into free fall. Dr. Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on NIST’s evaluation said that free fall wasn’t possible because of the structural resistance of the floors below. After Jones contended this issue, based on video of the collapse, NIST conceded that it did in fact go into free fall for 2.25 seconds – a clear characteristic of a controlled demolition. Dr. Sunder is also quoted as saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” FEMA’s conclusion is equally as inconclusive…
“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.”
But aside from the debate over the physics of what happened in the collapse of the towers, there is another piece of evidence of a controlled demolition that is hard to deny, namely the presence of thermite. Thermite is a powdered amalgam of iron oxide and other alloys that can be described as the metal equivalent to kindling. This powder works as an ignitor generating extremely high temperatures. Nano-thermite is a more highly advanced version developed by the military for its customizable reaction rates and incredibly small particulate size. It releases energy much quicker than regular thermite and can be ignited by unconventional means such as laser pulses.
The presence of nano-thermite in dust from the wreckage of the towers was brought to the attention of NIST by Jones. The investigators questioned the provenance of his samples and when he invited them to look for samples of their own, they unsurprisingly declined. A stream of molten metal was also recorded pouring out of the towers before they collapsed, an indication of nano-thermite at work.
Although an increasing amount of evidence continues to be uncovered, the push back from government agencies continues with their refusal to investigate this evidence. Could WTC 7 actually have collapsed from fires and a weakening of steel girders, being the first to fall, in this nature, in the history of steel-enforced structures? And what about the BBC’s reporting that the tower collapsed, before it actually had? Why would they predict a completely unprecedented event to occur before it did, without having been fed advanced knowledge? It will be interesting to see what kind of evidence is presented when Hulsey releases his study in the coming weeks and how the government responds. Will he find incontrovertible proof or will the truth continue to be swept under the rug?
Here’s an interesting informative video:
Then, of course, there’s the discrepancies with the “plane” footage.
For instance, in some footage, the “wing” disappears just before hitting the tower.
And then, of course, there’s the problem of the plane simply not appearing in footage taken from the other side (which gets a very clear view of the situation). Or, rather, an orb appears in some footage, while other footage from the same angle shows nothing.
And then, of course, there’s interesting eyewitness accounts, not just of the fact that the plane – if that’s what it was – was not commercial, but military, and of other explosions in the towers – after the planes crashed.
And here’s another footage anomaly – A MOVING BRIDGE!
Then, of course, there’s the sheer physical impossibility of what the second plane does upon impact:
I’ll put it bluntly: an aluminium plane doesn’t melt into a building – it explodes on impact!
Don’t believe me? Read the following article:
And seriously, READ IT! It’s WAY too long to reproduce here, but it thoroughly shreds the plane story. Especially that the speed that the planes supposedly flew at would have caused the plane to disintegrate mid-air BEFORE it could reach the tower!
Another problem with the “plane” that hit the Pentagon: the hole simply isn’t big enough to have been caused by the plane allegedly used.
And then there’s the problem of the conflict between eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon bombing, versus the damage:
In other words, the damage was caused by BOMBS, NOT A PLANE. The plane simply flew overhead while the explosions occurred, giving the false impression that it crashed. [If not convinced, read the above article! Seriously!]
And then, of course, there’s the evidence that thermonuclear weapons were used in the demolition of the Twin Towers – probably located in the basement.
The dust cloud given by the collapse of the towers is the first big sign of something amiss:
What about the phone calls made by planer staff and passengers?
Many family members and people on the ground received phone calls from passengers and flight attendants on board the hijacked planes. The question that is being asked about this theory is “How can you successfully make a phone call from a flight 3200 in the air” and the answer is you can’t. Out of the numerous supposed phone calls made very few were recorded and released to the public. Many of the conversations that were had caused people to become very suspicious as to if these actually happened.
Betty Ong called the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in North Carolina, and spoke for about 25 minutes with employees there. Ong said she thought her plane was being hijacked, that two flight attendants had been injured, and that a passenger might have been fatally stabbed. She said Mace spray had been used, and “we can’t breathe.” Despite these desperate and terrifying circumstances, as the New York Times described, Ong “could not have sounded much calmer.” Reportedly, when Ong’s family heard the recording of her call, they “couldn’t believe the calm in Betty’s voice.” Just before the plane crashed Ong asked those on the other end of her call to “pray for us,” she was still speaking “in a composed voice.” As the plane approached the World Trade Centre, according to Vanessa Minter, another of the employees receiving Ong’s call: “You didn’t hear hysteria in the background. You didn’t hear people screaming.”
The fact that you could not hear any screaming or voices in such an unsettling environment caused a huge spark into the theory. Betty’s spoke on the phone to workers at the office for a long period of time approximately 20-25 minutes yet only 4-5 minutes was recorded and released to the public.A second call was made by another flight attendant Madeline Sweeney. Madeline Sweeney contacted the American Airlines Flight Services Office at Boston’s Logan Airport. After her first calls got broken off, she was finally able to speak for 13 minutes. Sweeney said in her call “that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throat slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed … the flight attendants were unable to contact the cockpit; and there was a bomb in the cockpit.” Michael Woodward, the manager who Madeline was talking to, told the FBI that despite reporting such scary events, “during the entire conversation,” Sweeney’s voice “remained calm and even.” Even just before Flight 11 crashed, Madeline kept calm and composed. After reporting that her plane was flying very low, Woodward recalled, she “took a very slow, deep breath and then just said, ‘Oh, my God!’ Very slowly, very calmly, very quietly. It wasn’t in panic.” Woodward noted, he “did not hear any noise in the background during the conversation.” Towards the end of the phone call Madeline said very clearly that she “can see buildings, i can see the water” this made this phone call extremely suspicious die to the fact that she had been a flight attendant in Boston for over 12 years and she would have seen the same scenery and landscape numerous times yet on the phone call she came across shocked and surprised. Along with this suspicion again she stayed calm and composed during the whole conversation which is hard to believe anyone could have done under the circumstances. Another suspicion with Madeline’s call is that she reportedly told the person on the call that there were 4 hijackers and that they were seated in rows 9 and 10 where as the FBI says they were all in row 8. Another strange phone call that was made was Mark Bingham’s call from the flight added to the suspicion of the calls being fake hugely. This is because he used his full name when addressing his mother. During his one call from Flight 93 to hi mother, Bingham reportedly says “Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham.” He was apparently calling off his cell phone so there is no doubt his mother would now it was her son and he would not have had to address himself fully. The phone call seemed almost too formal to be having with your own mother. At man times throughout the phone call he asked “You believe me don’t you, mom?”
To date none of these phone calls apart from Betty Ong’s calls have been released to the public, what is there possibly to hide in these phone calls.
Research has been done to support the theory that these calls must be fake. Numerous cell phones were taken in a plane and flown to the altitude of 8000 feet. This was done to calculate the success rate of the cell phone calls as the altitude got higher. The planes involved in the calls on the 11th of September were flying at approximately 3200 feet and the success rate from the test calls at this height was less than one in a hundredth. Therefore making it virtually impossible to send and receive phone calls. It is highly unbelievable that so many people from these flights would have been able to make successful calls to ground and be able to have conversations. https://becky-911.weebly.com/phone-calls-from-the-planes-were-fake.html [It does appear that Mark Bingham did sometimes on the phone address his mother with his full name. However, that doesn’t explain why he repeated asked “You do believe me, don’t you?”, or the other suspicious cases.] Mohammed Atta was allegedly one of the hijackers. He apparently died when the plane crashed. Yet his mother insists he’s still alive. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/544953/Mohammad-Atta-september-11-attacker-alive-guantanamo-bay-twin-towers-el-mundo Other hijackers are still alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9kEwQud4Ek
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1341391/Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html Here’s an excellent article: The world’s media has reported that many of the so-called hijackers “fingered” by the FBI are still alive. For example the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) carried this report: Hijack “suspects” alive and well.The following article is a remake of http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm which lists many of the media articles dealing with the hijackers who were not hijackers.
Abdul Aziz Al-Omari (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot)
The identities of two men with the same name have been cobbled together to create an FBI “terrorist”. Both are Alive!
The first has the same name, the same birth date as one of the FBI “terrorists” but has no idea how to fly.
The second has the name Abdul Rahman Al-Omari and a different birth date, but is the person pictured by the FBI and is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines.
Here are some quotes from the world’s media concerning them.
Omari Number 1
“A Saudi man has reported to authorities that he is the real Abdul Aziz Al-Omari, and claims his passport was stolen in 1995 while he studied electrical engineering at the University of Denver. Al-Omari says he informed police of the theft.” – ABCNews
“I couldn’t believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this.” – Telegraph 23rd September 2001
“The name (listed by the FBI) is my name and the birth date is the same as mine, but I am not the one who bombed the World Trade Center in New York,” Abdul Aziz Al-Omari told the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.
“Al-Omari has since been found in Saudi Arabia and is apparently cleared in the case” – New York Times
“Saudi Embassy officials in Washington have challenged his identity. They say a Saudi electrical engineer named Abdul Aziz Al-Omari had his passport and other papers stolen in 1996 in Denver when he was a student and reported the theft to police there at the time.” – BBC
“Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saï¿½d Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months.” – Wal Fadjri 21st September 2001 (translate)
Omari Number 2
Mr. Al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, walked into the US embassy in Jeddah to demand why he was being reported as a dead hijacker in the American media.
“Abdul Aziz Al-Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines” – BBC 23rd September 2001
“A pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking ï¿½ as well as being dead ï¿½ and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation.” – Independent 17th September 2001
This Al-Omari lives with his wife and four children in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Saeed Al-Ghamdi (Flight 93) (Trained Pilot)
“Saeed Al-Ghamdi is one of three hijackers that US officials have said are linked to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network.” – BBC
No BBC! Mr. Al-Ghamdi is still alive and well and at his job for Tunis Air.
“I was completely shocked. For the past 10 months I have been based in Tunis with 22 other pilots learning to fly an Airbus 320. The FBI provided no evidence of my presumed involvement in the attacks.” – Telegraph 23rd September 2001
“Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Al-Ghamdi.” – BBC 23rd September 2001
“Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saï¿½d Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months.” – Wal Fadjri 21st September 2001 (translate)
“….. not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington.” – Saudi embassy
Waleed Al-Shehri (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot)
“A sixth person on the FBI’s list, Saudi national Waleed Al-Shehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Al-Shehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline.” On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.
“His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack.” – Daily Trust 24th September 2001.
“He was reported to have been in Hollywood, Florida, for a month earlier this year but his father, Ahmed, said that Waleed was alive and well and living in Morocco.” – Telegraph
“Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.” – BBC 23rd September 2001.
Ahmed Al-Nami (Flight 93)
“I’m still alive, as you can see. I was shocked to see my name mentioned by the American Justice Department. I had never even heard of Pennsylvania where the plane I was supposed to have hijacked.” He had never lost his passport and found it “very worrying” that his identity appeared to have been “stolen” and published by the FBI without any checks. The FBI had said his “possible residence” was Delray Beach in Florida.” – Telegraph 23rd September 2001
Salem Al-Hazmi (Flight 77)
“Mr Al-Hamzi is 26 and had just returned to work at a petrochemical complex in the industrial eastern city of Yanbou after a holiday in Saudi Arabia when the hijackers struck. He was accused of hijacking the American Airlines Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.” – Telegraph 23rd September 2001.
Khalid Al-Mihdhar (Flight 77)
“Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdharis still alive.
“….. there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar may also be alive.” – BBC 23rd September 2001
Others accused of being involved:
“Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash last year.” – CNN Correction
“Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida” – CNN Correction
“…. that a suspect sought by the FBI, Amer Kamfar, was in fact an alive pilot in Arabia. ” – Wal Fadjri 21st September 2001 [translate]
Even after the above has appeared in the world’s media the FBI has made no attempt to alter its web-sites which clearly list the wrong names, wrong photos, wrong identities and probably wrong nationalities of the real hijackers.
Given that the hijackers (if there were any) were clearly using false identities, why has the FBI never attempted to find out the hijackers true identities? Why does the FBI seem totally disinterested in apprehending the real culprits? This lack of action from one of our “trusted” government departments is very close to treason.
And then, of course, you have the case of the terrorist’s passport found a few blocks from the World Trade Centre. The passport allegedly belonged to Satam Al Suqami, supposedly one of the hijackers. So, let me get this straight: this fiery plane explosion allegedly destroyed a steel skyscraper designed to withstand Boeing impacts, melting steel girders and mutilating the black box (high heat resistance), yet a PAPER passport conveniently identifying a terrorist survives?
The mountain of evidence against the official story of 9/11 now definitely amounts to proof – dare one say absolute proof? The people of the United States – indeed, of the whole world – have been deliberately lied to and deceived. The US Government – or, at least, many high-placed members, such as President George W Bush – MURDERED almost 3000 of its own citizens, blamed it on terrorists, and used it as an excuse to go to war and kill even more people.
The face of this crime against humanity:
May we never forget.