The alleged terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre (WTC) in New York City on 11 September 2001 horrified the world. It was almost unimaginable to think that terrorists managed to hijack four commercial airliners on the same day and ram two of them into the most significant and prominent buildings in the USA and another aircraft into the Pentagon in Washington. This was such a monumental event that it is now known to everybody simply as 9/11.
Part of the incident was seen in real time on television and people listened to news reports and the comments of analysts for years afterwards. The problem was that there were more questions than answers and the subsequent investigation was a very obvious and blatant cover-up and whitewash. Most people still don't realise what it was all about, because they were spoon-fed a pack of lies and disinformation by the jerry-rigged 9/11 Commission and they failed to even make rudimentary searches on the Internet that would have revealed the real reasons behind this whole staged incident and who really perpetrated this atrocity.
Hard evidence has emerged that the Afghanistan War and War On Terror was yet another war for oil and political power in the Middle East and Central Asia. This is what really happened and the real reason for the Afghanistan War.
In 1995, the US-based Unocal oil company signed a tentative agreement with the Turkmenistan government to research the possibilities of constructing an oil pipeline to Pakistan by way of Afghanistan. As the project developed, Unocal began to seek the agreement of the Taliban, who had recently risen to power as the Afghan government. On two separate occasions in February and December 1997, Taliban officials were flown to the USA to meet with and be wined and dined by Unocal executives. The Taliban was simultaneously pressured by Argentinean oil company Birdas for control of the proposed pipeline.
Taliban officials issued two demands to both companies before any agreement could be reached. They wanted Unocal and Birdas to construct an open pipeline, one that could be tapped into from Afghanistan for local consumption. Secondly, they wanted the companies to get involved in building roads, water supplies, telephone lines and electrical power lines. While Birdas agreed to meet the demands and build an open pipeline, Unocal refused, preferring a closed pipeline for export only. Birdas and the Taliban initially reached an agreement, but the deal later fell through due to lack of financing.
During the mid-1990s, the Unocal project received strong support from the US government. From 1995-98, especially after the Taliban seized control of Kabul in September 1996, Clinton administration officials actively lobbied Taliban officials on behalf of Unocal. At the time, the USA expressed little if any concern about the mounting evidence of abuses of women's rights.
Despite an increasing lack of cooperation from the Taliban, Unocal continued to push the project. Testifying before the House US Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on 12 February 1998, Unocal representative John Maresca discussed the importance of the pipeline project and the increasing difficulties in dealing with the Taliban.
Maresca stated, "The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognised government is in place that has the confidence of governments, leaders and our company."
A second pipeline was proposed in 1997, this time by the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, or CentGas, in which Unocal held the major interest. The proposed line would run from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to markets in Pakistan and India. Conflicts emerged again, as Maresca testified to Congress.
Maresca again stated, "As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognised Afghanistan Government is in place." What Maresca really meant was that the only way this pipeline could be constructed was by regime change via the forced removal of the Afghan Taliban government and installation of a US-controlled puppet regime.
Even after the 1998 US embassy bombings and Al-Qaeda's declaration to "kill the Americans and their allies - civilian and military," Unocal still hoped to see through the pipeline projects. In a 30 August 1998 interview with the BBC, Unocal spokeswoman Terry Covington stated that Unocal believed that the project was both economically and technically feasible and could still be carried out, once a stable government was in place in Kabul.
Again, this was a veiled call for regime change in Afghanistan, because even though the Taliban were despicable Islamic fundamentalists, their government was stable and the only reason that Covington alluded to instability was that the Afghan government refused to play ball with Unocal.
Due to the rising concerns of financial backers about this alleged instability of Afghanistan, Unocal pulled out of CentGas in December 1998. On its website, Unocal claimed to have completely dropped the oil pipeline projects between Turkmenistan and Pakistan. But the projects were not altogether abandoned. An article in the 23 March 2000 Business Recorder titled "Unocal trying to re-enter Turkmen gas pipeline project" stated that "the US company is in dialogue with the Afghan authorities seeking guaranteed protection for its personnel while working on the Afghani terrain."
Enron, another US-based oil company, also had a strong presence in the region through its involvement in a pipeline project from Turkmenistan to Turkey by way of Azerbaijan and Georgia. Headquartered in Houston Texas, Enron was the largest contributor to George W Bush's presidential campaign, giving at least $550,000 to GW Bush himself and an estimated $1.8 million to the Republican Party during the 2000 election.
To the US government, the financial interests and political power to be gained within the Middle East and Central Asia regions were extremely important. So not having any legitimate way to force the Taliban Afghan government out of power, the Americans did what they had done so many times in the past. They created a false pretext and attacked and invaded Afghanistan, ousting the Taliban Afghan government that put up so much resistance to US economic interests.
The Americans installed a puppet regime to gain control of oil and mineral resources that they though was sure to produce billions of dollars in revenues. In fact the leader of this puppet regime, Hamid Karzai, was a former paid Unocal consultant. However, the Karzai puppet government proved itself to be more corrupt than virtually any other government on the planet and after a decade, the Americans and the Karzai regime controlled less than 10% of Afghanistan, so the Unocal oil pipeline and the annexation of Afghanistan's mineral wealth are still pipe dreams.
That was the underlying reason for 9/11 - not terrorism, not Osama Bin Laden, but just greed, oil, money and control. The USA needed one hell of a good reason to attack and invade Afghanistan, because although the Taliban was a disgusting fundamentalist Islamic regime, it had never attacked the USA or its NATO allies, so the Americans had absolutely no legal pretext to make war on Afghanistan. So they created a false pretext, as they had done so many times in the past to facilitate their illegal aggression.
Unfortunately, the US administration's false flag operation known as 9/11 murdered around 3,000 innocent people, the destruction of huge buildings and caused the subsequent deaths of so many people in the resulting conflicts and the evidence of this monstrous atrocity is there for all to see.
This was the incident that alerted many people to the fact that the official investigation of 9/11 was a whitewash and cover-up. Something happened that was completely inexplicable. The WTC was a complex of seven buildings in lower Manhattan, comprising of two main 110 storey towers and five other smaller buildings. One of those was the Salomon Brothers Building, known as Seven World Trade Centre (7WTC), a substantial squat 47 storey office block - not a tall tower that might have been prone to falling over, but a large rectangular building that could only really be demolished by a properly arranged controlled implosion.
Anybody watching the videos of the 9/11 attack will see that 7WTC collapsed around seven hours after the second aircraft struck the Twin Towers. Yet apart from some fairly minor debris hitting this building, it was relatively undamaged until it collapsed. Even its windows were largely intact.
Apart from thousands of experts who watched the videos, many people who were at the scene stated categorically that just before 7WTC collapsed, they could hear explosions and see extremely bright flashes of light in the mid-levels of the building, akin to explosives being detonated. Some very reliable eyewitnesses claimed that they definitely heard explosions coming from the lower levels of 7WTC, such as the basement area.
Then the videos very clearly show 7WTC collapsing in what appeared to be a controlled demolition. It didn't topple over, it just collapsed into its own footprint right to the ground, just like many office blocks that are demolished by controlled implosions.
Virtually every large building designer and engineer has stated categorically that explosions in the mid-levels of a steel-framed building would not make the entire building collapse and only the levels above those mid-level explosions would be damaged. The only way to make such a building implode on itself would be by placing explosives right at the bottom of the main vertical structural supporting beams, then triggering the charge at the middle beams about one second before triggering the other explosives at the outer beams.
That is the only technique used for the demolition of all large buildings to make them collapse in a controlled implosion, so as not to topple on adjacent areas. No other method would achieve this result, especially not explosives in the mid-levels of such a building. So knowing that 7WTC collapsed in what was obviously a controlled demolition, why was it destroyed, seven hours after the Twin Towers were struck by those aircraft?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Twin Towers were destroyed by careful implosive demolitions and the aircraft flying into them were merely a ruse to convince the people of the world that Islamic terrorists had perpetrated this mass murder. No steel-framed building in the world had ever been destroyed by fire and the impact of aircraft would not have resulted in the buildings collapsing literally in their own footprints. Of course WTC Building 7 was not even hit by an aircraft, but was carefully demolished seven hours after the Twin Towers had been destroyed.
The above pictures show the first of the Twin Towers and a block of units in Scotland right at the point of collapse. The technique to demolish both buildings is obviously identical, with explosives placed in critical positions so that the buildings are collapsed in their own footprints, rather than toppling over sideways. So how did the explosives get into the Twin Towers?
Obviously Islamic terrorists had no access to the buildings to do this, therefore those explosives would have had to be planted by demolition experts who did have access to the cavities where the critical structural members were located. Security was high, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that only the US government and one or more of its clandestine agencies could have arranged this atrocity.
On 14 June 2017, the Grenfell Tower, a large 24 storey tower block block of public housing flats in Kensington west London, caught on fire and burned ferociously for at least 24 hours until the building was completely gutted. Residents of surrounding buildings were evacuated due to concerns that the tower could collapse, though the building was later determined to be structurally sound.
So there was a large public housing tower block, most probably built for the government as a result of the cheapest tender. It caught on fire and burned for a solid 24 hours or more until it was completely gutted. Yet four days later, it stood completely erect and had not collapsed in its own footprint, tipped over and fallen or anything else. It was just like every other large tower building that had caught on fire and was completely destroyed, yet did not fall down.
Yet on 11 September 2001, we were led to believe that two aircraft made of flimsy aluminium crashed into huge buildings in New York City, buildings with massive structural steel columns that could have allegedly withstood anything. Those two aircraft started fires which were very small, because most of their fuel ignited outside the buildings and well away from structural core members. One of those aircraft allegedly sliced through the building and through those massive steel members and emerged almost intact out the other side. Flimsy aircraft aluminium versus tempered structural steel core members holding up a building of over 100 storeys?
Never in history has a steel framed building collapsed due to fire, even a fire that gutted it completely. Yet in the World Trade Centre atrocity, we are told to believe that not just one, but two 100--plus storey buildings collapsed in their own footprints because of relatively small fires in the upper levels. And even more ludicrously, we are told to believe that a huge squat 47 storey office block, known as Building 7, collapsed many hours later in its own footprint in just 7 seconds for the same reasons, despite there being no fires and no aircraft impacts.
Look at the photos of the raging fire at the Grenfell Tower and the very small fires at the Twin Towers and that reveals the scam. Tiny fires on a couple of upper floors of the Twin Towers allegedly brought them crashing down after a couple of hours, yet a raging inferno at the Grenfell Tower for over 24 hours gutted the building and it was still standing four days later. Of course the witnesses who heard explosions in the Twin Towers and Building 7 just before they collapsed have been virtually ignored.
The scammers who mined the Twin Towers and Building 7 just did not figure on so many people having access to video recorders and the Internet, so they thought that they could do their version of Josef Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister, who said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it. And the amazing thing is that despite all the evidence that proves that the only people that could have committed this atrocity were in the administration of President George W Bush, most of the world still believes that a bunch of Saudis and Yemenis committed this act. It just proves that Goebbels was right.
There is really only one explanation that fits all the facts and the available evidence - that 9/11 was a false flag operation committed by the Americans to generate the pretext to start the bogus and open-ended "War On Terror" - a war that was not against a nation that could be fought and won, but a plausible excuse to attack, invade and occupy any other nations for allegedly harbouring terrorists. In reality, this was all concocted to implement regime change in Afghanistan to get that Unocal pipeline built, as well as to steal the resources of other nations, such as the failed attempt to annex Iraq's oil in 2003.
The other reason was to create a pretext to implement the Patriot Act and establish the Department of Homeland Security to be able to intrusively run surveillance on American citizens and deal with them if they opposed the current regime's activities, such as arresting and holding them without trial or due legal process. This also was the excuse used to establish the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp in Cuba and kidnap and torture people on the grounds that they were terrorists, although literally nobody in Guantanamo has actually been convicted of terrorism in a trial conducted with due legal process.
This atrocity also gave the green light to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on literally everybody on the planet, suck up metadata on every form of electronic communication and collect private emails from anywhere and examine them for trigger words. The WikiLeaks website and US intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed the extent of this intrusive spying, severely embarrassing the USA when it was revealed that the Americans had been spying on the private and hitherto secret communications of the leaders of allied nations.
Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to US Republican Senator Bob Dole and has personally known Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz for decades. He was the lawyer that sued the US administration of GW Bush on behalf of the families of the 9/11 victims. He revealed on the Alex Jones Radio Show that the 9/11 atrocity went all the way to the White House and President GW Bush by revealing the following facts:
The entire one-hour-long interview with Stanley Hilton by Alex Jones can be heard on Youtube - Alex Jones Stanley Hilton Interview 2003. It is fascinating to hear a Republican party insider blow the whistle on the 9/11 atrocity and drop GW Bush and his gang right into it.
Hilton filed a $7 billion class action lawsuit in 2002 against US President George W Bush, members of his administration including Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others. The lawsuit was composed of 400 plaintiffs, including 14 families of 9/11 victims, with two named plaintiffs representing the class. The lawsuit alleged Bush administration complicity in allowing the 11 September 2001 attacks. But it was obvious that the US administration would never allow this case to succeed. And it did not succeed.
The case was dismissed on 30 December 2004, with the judge ruling that US citizens do not have any right to sue a sitting President, based on the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, that the lawsuit presents a non-justicable political question; that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue on behalf of all taxpayers; that the plaintiffs failed to establish the required causal connection between their alleged injuries and these defendants' conduct; and that deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.
On the face of it, the grounds for dismissal of the lawsuit were preposterous. The judge ruled that US citizens do not have the right to sue a sitting President based on the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. The US federal government has waived this immunity a number of times, but obviously was too scared to do so in this case, because Hilton would have presented the hard evidence connecting GW Bush and his cronies to 9/11.
The judge claimed that the lawsuit presented a non-justicable political question. This is nonsense, because the lawsuit was essentially trying to win compensation for the families who lost loved ones, including wage-earners, in this atrocity. If there were any politics involved, then they were incidental to the matter before the court.
The judge also stated that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue on behalf of all taxpayers. But the two named plaintiffs were running a class action on behalf of 400 people named in the class action, not all taxpayers. So it was obvious that there was a gross error, but probably a deliberate ruling made by the judge.
The judge stated that the plaintiffs failed to establish the required causal connection between their alleged injuries and these defendants' conduct. Well if the plaintiffs would have been allowed to present their evidence, it would have clearly proven causal connection between the named conspirators of 9/11 and the loss of the loved ones of the plaintiffs through the actions of those conspirators. But of course this was knocked on the head by the judge.
The judge stated that deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment. But what deficiencies? The only apparent problem was that the US administration had sovereign immunity, despite the mountain of evidence connecting it directly to the 9/11 atrocity. So the lawsuit could have been amended, but most probably would have failed on the grounds that the US administration would refuse to waive its immunity, not for the reason that the plaintiffs could not prove their case.
Stanley Hilton paid the penalty for trying to expose the 9/11 false flag operation. After being harassed and intimidated by various US government and judicial entities for years, in June 2012, Hilton was disbarred from practising law in California.
Firstly, a brief explanation of false flag operations and a couple of examples of American false flag conspiracies. These are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colours, that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own when perpetrating an attack.
False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations and can be used in peacetime. It is exactly the same as planting false evidence against innocent people in an attempt to wrongly convict them of crimes they did not commit.
Over the decades and even centuries, the Americans have conducted many false flag operations, such as the USS Maine incident, where the Americans deliberately murdered 266 American sailors by planting a bomb in the ammunition magazine of that ship and started the Spanish-American War in 1898, the infamous and completely bogus Gulf of Tonkin affair that gave the Americans the pretext to start their war in Vietnam and many other similar fabrications.
The Americans have a long history of fomenting wars and revolutions in other nations by arranging these actions to appear if other entities were committing them. One of the most blatant was Operation Northwoods that was concocted in 1962, after yet another American false flag operation, the failed US-engineered Bay Of Pigs invasion in Cuba in 1961.
Adrian Salbuchi wrote a fascinating article called Of Towering Infernos, False Flags And Terrorism that examined a number of similar disasters befalling tall skyscrapers and the fact that not one of them collapsed, even after being burned to a crisp or hit by aircraft. He also examined a number of US false flag operations that showed that the USA fabricates incidents that even kill innocent Americans, merely to give the USA pretexts to make war.
The Bay of Pigs invasion was an unsuccessful false flag operation by the Americans to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro by duping Cuban exiles in the USA to invade Cuba. The plan was to make it appear that so-called Cuban patriots were attempting to take back their land from the dreaded communists of Fidel Castro. So the CIA trained and financed these Cuban suckers for an invasion of the island and it was approved by President John F Kennedy.
On 17 April 1961, about 1300 exiles, armed with US weapons, landed at the Bay of Pigs on the southern coast of Cuba. Hoping to find support from the local population, they intended to cross the island to Havana. It was evident from the first hours of fighting, however, that the exiles were likely to lose. President Kennedy had the option of using the US Air Force against the Cubans but decided against it. Consequently, the invasion was stopped by Castro's army. By the time the fighting ended on 19 April, 90 exiles had been killed and the rest had been taken as prisoners.
The failed Bay of Pigs invasion did not stop the Americans from trying to topple Castro, so they kept plotting, even recruiting the Mafia to try and assassinate him with preposterous attempts such as sending him exploding cigars. However all attempts failed.
So the Americans started the demonisation of Castro by planning a monstrous crime, a false flag operation that involved committing a litany of atrocities, involving the killing Americans on US soil and blaming it onto Castro and the Cuban government. This plan was called Operation Northwoods.
This was a false flag plan that originated within the US government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in US cities, Cuba, the Caribbean and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba, in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington DC.
Operation Northwoods included proposals for hijackings and bombings, followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The plan stated, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
Several other proposals were included within the Operation Northwoods plan, including real or simulated actions against various US military and civilian targets. The plan was drawn up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defence. Although part of the US government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed. However, the declassified document - Operation Northwoods - reveals the murderous extent to which the Americans were prepared to go.
However, Operation Northwoods conclusively proved that the Americans were quite willing to slaughter their own citizens and anybody else to create pretexts to go to war or to overthrow governments of other nations. The 9/11 atrocity was just another one of those false flag operations to foment a reason for establishing the bogus War On Terror, an open-ended excuse for the Americans to wage war against anybody they chose in order to steal their resources, such as oil.
To demonstrate the extent to which the USA was prepared to go in order to achieve its global economic and military aims by the use of false flag operations, in 2008, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that to provoke war with Iran, US Vice-President Dick Cheney considered a proposal to dress up US Navy SEALs as Iranians and shoot at them.
In January 2008, the US government announced that it had been moments away from opening fire on a group of Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz after the boats allegedly broadcast a warning that they were about to attack a US vessel. The Americans claimed that the Iranian boats had broadcast the message, "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes" and that the order to fire was aborted only at the last minute as the patrol boats pulled back.
Iran later produced a video proving that the patrol boats never displayed any kind of threatening behaviour. The New York Times subsequently reported that the alleged tape containing the attack threat had no background ambient noise and did not come from an Iranian ship, but from another unnamed ship in the region. In other words, the American video was deliberately and dishonestly fabricated.
Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference in 2008, Hersh revealed that after this incident, Bush administration officials held a meeting in the Vice-President's office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington, a pretext for waging war on Iran.
During the meeting in Cheney's office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy SEALs as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats and shoot at them to provoke an Iran war, but was ultimately rejected. Hersh stated, "There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build, we in our shipyard, build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy SEALs on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up."
Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, if you get the right incident, the American public will support it. "Look, is it high school? Yeah," Hersh said. "Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We're playing, you know, who's the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran."
The fabrication of false pretexts by the USA to wage war is very familiar. In one of David Manning's famous memos describing a prewar meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair, Manning said that Bush admitted that WMD were unlikely to be found in Iraq and then mused on some possible options for justifying a war anyway. "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
This just adds to the litany of warmongering and false flag operations either just planned or actually executed by the Americans. So why would it be difficult to believe that the Bush Administration perpetrated 9/11 as a false flag operation to generate a pretext to attack and invade Afghanistan and then Iraq? It is amazing that most Americans, even when confronted with overwhelming hard evidence that only the Americans could have pulled off the 9/11 atrocity, still choose to believe the fiction that Al-Qaeda perpetrated such a complex attack, when most Arab terrorists are barely capable of tying their own shoelaces.
There is absolutely no doubt that the 9/11 false flag operation was concocted by the US administration in order to make the American public believe that Islamic terrorists based in the Middle East area attacked the USA, causing massive death and destruction. This would appear to be the first major attack by foreign forces on US soil. How3ever, there was no way that a bunch of Muslim Arabs could successfully perpetrate such an act.
However, the US administration believed that this attack would enrage the American public to the extent that it would give President GW Bush and his administration complete carte-blanche to do anything they wanted, purportedly as retaliation for this atrocity and to provide the pretext to invade certain nations, especially Iraq for its oil resources, which had fallen out of the control of the Americans because of the first Gulf War against Iraq.
The Americans desperately wanted to take control of Iraq's massive oil resources, because after the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was selling oil directly to Europe and Asia under the UN Oil For Food Plan, completely bypassing the Americans. This was also adversely affecting the US dollar, which relied maintaining its value by being the only denomination used for oil sales until Saddam Hussein broke the OPEC agreement propping up the US petrodollar and started selling oil for Euro and other currencies.
So the plan was to create the conditions where the entire world would be sympathetic to an American attack on the Middle East, primarily Iraq. The problem for the Americans at the time was that an attack on the WTC could not initially be blamed on Iraq, because plausible evidence against Saddam Hussein could not be fabricated and at the time, there was no Al-Qaeda there.
Because Osama Bin Laden was conveniently residing in Kabul at the time, the Americans decided that Afghanistan would firstly be demonised, attacked, invaded and used as a stepping stone for an attack on Iraq, once the US administration convinced Americans and the rest of the world that Al-Qaeda was operating in that nation. So the false flag operation was devised to achieve this. The scheme was to make it appear that Islamic terrorists hijacked four aircraft, flew three into the WTC and one into the Pentagon.
It was made to appear that the plot was concocted in Hamburg Germany, where the Americans had recruited a number of Saudi and Yemeni patsies who were going to be the fall-guys for the plot. Some of these fools were sent to flying schools in Florida USA to be trained to fly airliners. The American authorities were alerted by those flying schools to the fact that these people were demanding to learn to handle airliners, but were not interested in learning how to take off and land them, however the authorities deliberately ignored these warnings so that the plot could continue as planned.
The Twin Towers and the Salomon Brothers building were wired with remote-controlled explosives by the Americans to guarantee their collapse after the impact of the aircraft. The Americans knew from previous demolition experience and engineering statistics that those buildings would not collapse just from aircraft impacts, so insurance was taken out by planting explosives in them. It was discovered after the event that thermite and nanothermite were found in the rubble. These are substances that would not ordinarily be found in such circumstances.
In many videos that were taken at the time of the attacks, molten metal can clearly be seen pouring out the sides of each tower, just before they collapsed. Many renowned metallurgists and other experts have stated unequivocally that there is no way that fires burning inside those buildings could reach the sort of temperatures that would cause any steel to melt and flow like that. Only extraordinarily high temperatures could cause this and the only possible explanation is that thermite was deliberately used.
So how were those explosives planted in the Twin Towers and the Salomon Brothers Building? After all, the World Trade Centre supposedly had top-class security and anybody trying to bring in tons of explosives would have been apprehended by security guards with sniffer dogs. But that was not the situation at all.
In fact, President George W Bush's younger brother Marvin Bush, principal in a company called Securacom, was handed the contract to provide security for the WTC, United Airlines and Dulles Airport just days after GW Bush was elected, even though Marvin Bush had almost no experience in security matters. What's more, from 1999 to January of 2002, Marvin and George W Bush's cousin Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO.
Although a state of heightened security existed at the WTC in the days before 9/11, a very strange and unexplained thing happened. On Thursday 06 September 2001, 61 bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC. Then on the approaching weekend of 08 and 09 September 2001, there was a major power-down condition at the WTC for around 36 hours. With no power, there were no security cameras and no security locks on doors operating and many unexplained alleged "engineers" were going in and out of the Twin Towers.
In other words, because of this situation, it would have been extremely easy for the conspirators to bring in and plant explosives at the vital structural members of the Twin Towers to ensure that they collapsed as planned after the aircraft had struck them. With no sniffer dogs and no security cameras operating, the WTC was left wide open for this plot to be perpetrated.
There is abundant and clear evidence that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific criminal foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In the case of at least one of these trades, which left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed, the firm used to place the "put" options on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by AB (Buzzy) Krongard, the man who was in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency.
For example, according to a 19 October 2001 Wall Street Journal report, an unnamed investor purchased 2,000 United Airlines (UAL) put option contracts through Deutsche Bank-Alex Brown on 06 September 2001, betting that the stock would shortly plummet. USA Today also reported that an individual purchased 810 UAL puts on that day.
The pre-attack UAL order placed through Deutsche Bank was for 2,500 contracts which were split into 500 chunks each, directing each order to different US exchanges around the country simultaneously. A source familiar with the UAL trades said investors have yet to claim $2.5 million in profits on contracts purchased before United airliners crashed into a WTC tower and allegedly in a deserted Pennsylvania field on 9/11.
The source said, "Usually, if someone has a windfall like that, you take the money and run. Whoever did this thought the New York Stock Exchange would not be closed for four days. This smells real bad." However, the New York Stock Exchange would not even confirm if an investigation into these transactions took place and the 9/11 Commission completely whitewashed the whole aspect of the financial side of the 9/11 atrocity.
The first allegedly hijacked aircraft hit the North Tower and the Americans on the ground detonated the explosives by radio control and the North Tower duly collapsed as planned.
The second allegedly hijacked aircraft hit the South Tower and the Americans on the ground detonated the explosives by radio control and the South Tower duly collapsed as planned.
But the third allegedly hijacked aircraft, the one that was planned to hit the 7WTC Salomon Brothers building was supposedly diverted by the passengers, who allegedly overpowered the hijackers and it supposedly crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, which it did not. This is where the plot went haywire.
The Pentagon in Washington DC was hit by an alleged fourth hijacked aircraft, but there were many anomalies to show that a large Boeing 757 passenger aircraft laden with over 80 tons of fuel could not have carried out this attack. The plotters did not conceive at the time that so many eyewitnesses with cameras would record the anomalies and that satellite images would completely disprove the official version of the Pentagon attack, so they blithely carried on with their scheme.
So there was the Salomon Brothers building, all wired up and packed with explosives, ready to be detonated and demolished as soon as that third aircraft hit it - but the third aircraft, or actually a missile like the one that struck the Pentagon, did not arrive. What could the Americans do to stop their plot from being exposed right there and then?
The American plotters could not blow up the Salomon Brothers building right away, because if the missile was merely delayed and the Salomon Brothers building was already demolished, the missile might be fired and arrive, find the target missing and then plough into the ground and be seen by all and the plot would be exposed. This obviously could not be permitted. So the American plotters sat there, waiting for that device to arrive and hit the Salomon Brothers building.
When it became obvious that whatever it was that was to strike 7WTC would not arrive at all, the American plotters realised that as soon as the dust settled from the Twin Towers demolition, police, fire brigade, engineers and other authorities would rush in and inspect all the other buildings at the WTC complex for safety and structural damage from the shock - AND THEY WOULD FIND THE EXPLOSIVES INSIDE. The plotters could not allow that happen, because then the entire 9/11 scam would be exposed and there would be no pretext for the US administration to blame Al-Qaeda or anybody else.
Even worse, the entire conspiracy would be sheeted home to the US administration of President Bush, his cronies and the CIA, charging them with the deliberate massacre of 3000 people by the US government on American soil. This would be the worst crime and the biggest scandal in the history of the USA and also reveal the extent to which the Americans would go to achieve their political, economic and territorial goals.
If this scam was exposed, the Americans would never again be taken at their word by any nation and the USA would become a pariah state. NATO would be destroyed and no other nation would remain a US ally. Even worse, the Americans would be shunned by OPEC nations and lose access to their very vital oils supplies, thus destroying the US economy completely.
The American plotters could not risk those explosives being found under any circumstances, as it would be an unmitigated catastrophe. So A WHOLE SEVEN HOURS AFTER the Twin Towers went down, they detonated the explosives in the Salomon Brothers building and it suddenly collapsed in what appeared to be a completely controlled implosive demolition. This solved the problem - the evidence of planted explosives vanished, but the plotters did not count on so many people taking video clips of this incident.
So this is a scenario of 9/11 that fits every conceivable fact. What's more, this is why the Americans very conveniently and quickly claimed that they killed Osama Bin Laden in May 2011, because if he was captured and put on public trial, he would have spilled the beans on the 9/11 false flag operation. Even though Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 plot was undoubtedly a patsy who thought that he was organising the 9/11 atrocity for Al-Qaeda instead of Americans running a false flag operation, the Americans have been completely terrified of putting him on trial in a public court in the USA, because he could also expose the American administration of GW Bush as the people responsible for this scam.
Go to Youtube and check out all the independently shot videos of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building and try to convince yourself that this happened without assistance. In fact on some of the videos, bright flashes, obviously explosions can be seen in the mid to upper levels of those buildings seconds before it collapsed. Many witnesses stated unequivocally that they heard explosions from the ground floor and basement areas of the Salomon Brothers building seconds before it collapsed.
This all happened A WHOLE SEVEN HOURS AFTER the demolition of the Twin Towers and in those videos, it is quite apparent that hardly any windows were even broken. So what caused the explosions that witnesses heard? The Salomon Brothers building was just a large office block and under normal circumstances, there would have been nothing inside that was capable of exploding with such force that witnesses would hear explosions from outside. The only explanation is that there were indeed explosives inside the building and they were detonated to bring the building down and that's exactly what the witnesses heard.
There is almost no doubt that 9/11 was an American false flag operation. If indeed Mohammed Atta and his gang of Muslim idiots were involved, they were conned by the Americans into killing themselves for what they thought was the Islamic cause. However, there is evidence to show that some of these alleged terrorists were alive well after the 9/11 attack. In other words, the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars were instigated on the basis of what was the biggest scam in the history of the world.
Former State Department official Steve Pieczenik, a top deputy to Henry Kissinger and a high level member on Council on Foreign Relations was interviewed in April 2002. He stated unequivocally that Bin Laden was dead and he was literally being kept "on ice" and that he would be used at a politically expedient time to bolster the government in the eyes of the people.
Pieczenik said, "I worked with Osama Bin Laden - he later turned terrorist in subsequent administrations." White House sources also told American journalist Alex Jones that Bin Laden's death was staged.
On 17 December 2003, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated on Fox News that Bin Laden was dead and on ice and the Bush administration were thinking of rolling him out for the 2004 election if they needed him. On top of that, the CIA admitted in the Washington Post that they had created fake Bin Laden videos. Some of those fake videos were used by President Bush as the pretext to launch the war on Afghanistan.
The evidence that the US administration was behind the 9/11 false flag operation is proven by the fact that in every other case where aircraft had incursed into restricted airspace or a hijacking was suspected, US Air Force fighters would be scrambled within minutes to intercept and deal with such situations. However in the case of 9/11, none of this happened.
Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher wrote a book called "The War On Terrorism Is Bogus" and the following excerpt shows that nobody but the administration of GW Bush would have had the ability and resources to stand down the US Air Force on that day at that particular time. Meacher wrote the following:
9/11 widow Kristen Breitweister gave the following testimony before the US Joint Senate House Intelligence Committe on 18 September 2011:
Breitweister nailed it right there by realising that this alleged failure by the Secret Service and the US Air Force to deal with an allegedly hijacked airliner was part of the grand US administration false flag operation. Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda could not have stood the US Air Force down. Neither could any military commanders without being ordered to do so by the highest authority in the USA, the Commander In Chief and President of the USA, GW Bush. The fact that an airliner that was known to be hijacked and was allegedly allowed to circle Washington DC without any action from the US Air Force shows that this conspiracy went all the way to President Bush. In any case, that airliner did not hit the Pentagon at all.
The US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) monitors every aircraft flying in the USA. Air Traffic Control has all commercial airliners transmitting Mode C transponder signals, showing their speed, altitude and other data and a record is kept of this. However, the anomalies regarding the aircraft allegedly involved in the 9/11 atrocity cannot be ignored.
Flight 93 was in the air on 9/11 but was over Champaign-Urbana Illinois AFTER it had purportedly crashed in Shanksville. Flight 175 was also in the air, but was over Harrisburg and Pittsburgh Pennsylvania LONG AFTER it had purportedly effortlessly entered the South Tower at the WTC.
FAA registration records show that the aircraft corresponding to those flights were not deregistered or formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005, more than four years after they were allegedly destroyed in the 9/11 atrocity. Not only that, official US Bureau of Transportation Statistics data clearly shows that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day.
So if official FAA and Bureau of Transportation records showed these very serious anomalies that would have completely destroyed the fable of terrorists hijacking and crashing those airliners, why were they whitewashed by the 9/11 Commission? There can only be one reason - that this would have opened up a new can of worms and shown that the only entity capable of staging that atrocity was the administration of George W Bush.
On 11 July 2008, a Freedom Of Information request was sent by Aidan Monaghan to the National Transport Safety Bureau (NTSB), the US federal agency that investigates all airline crashes in the USA. Monaghan requested copies of NTSB records that positively identified the four alleged airliners used in the 9/11 attack. This was the staggering response Monaghan received.
The NTSB, that carefully collects crashed aircraft parts and reassembles them and thoroughly investigates the cause of crashes, including positively identifying the aircraft involved, has absolutely no record whatsoever and allegedly was not able to identify any of the airliners that were supposedly involved in 9/11. Why not?
There is only one explanation and nothing else makes sense. The wreckage of that airliner that allegedly crashed to the ground in Shanksville Pennsylvania seemingly vanished completely. Not one scrap of aircraft could be identified by the NTSB. Why? The answer is simple. An airliner did not crash at that place and there was no aircraft wreckage there and that was confirmed by the local coroner Wally Miller, who was at the scene.
The same goes for the Pentagon, where an entire Boeing 757 airliner allegedly vanished completely. How could this be, when the wingspan of this aircraft was 125 feet and the aircraft was 155 feet long. The hole was only 16 feet in diameter and certainly nowhere near deep enough to accommodate a Boeing 757's fuselage in any way. But what about the flight data recorders (black boxes) from any of the aircraft?
Titanium-reinforced and engineered to survive intense fire, flight data recorders are highly resistant to damage. They are painted bright orange, despite their black-box nickname and equipped with both radio and sonar beacons. Thanks to this design, they have survived and been recovered even after the most dire of crashes. For example, TWA Flight 800 exploded in a gigantic fireball off of Long Island New York and the flight recorder was still recovered in less than a week more than 100 feet down on the ocean floor. Yet despite this durability, the government claimed that no flight recording device from either plane was ever recovered from Ground Zero.
When the NTSB issues a report on a crashed aircraft, it always lists the serial number of the flight data recorder. It has done so with every aircraft crash between 1991 and 2006, with the exception of the four aircraft that alleged were used in the 9/11 atrocity? Why not? There is only one feasible explanation. The NTSB does not have those serial numbers because there were no flight data recorders because none of those aircraft or missiles used in the attack were commercial airliners. In fact, the FBI has stated that it has no documentation to prove that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon as American Airlines flight 77.
US authorities state that they recovered the flight data recorder from American Airlines flight 77 that allegedly struck the Pentagon. But there was a major foulup by the conspirators, because the data downloaded from it was created over four hours before the flight data recorder was found. In other words, the story about the discovery of the flight data recorder was invented.
Literally every single finding of the 9/11 Commission has been discredited completely. Even its report is not worth the paper on which it is printed. The complete disappearance of all four flight data recorders from the aircraft allegedly used in 9/11 just tells any sensible person that the whole attack was a false flag operation and the only entity that had the resources, the access, the funding and the technology to commit this atrocity was the US government.
One very interesting fact has emerged from the 9/11 debacle. In virtually every case, terrorists who commit atrocities always claim responsibility for them. Groups like the Red Army Brigade, Baader-Meinhof, Shining Path, Jemaah Islamiyah, ETA, Chechen separatists and all the others have always tried to gain as much mileage from their actions as possible and have never been shy to admit to their crimes.
But ever since the 9/11 atrocity was committed, the US administration and the Neocons have blamed Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for it and have stated that Bin Laden himself took responsibility for the attack. What is interesting is that on the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists poster of the now allegedly deceased Bin Laden that appeared on their website on 03 May 2011, there is no mention that he was wanted for the 9/11 atrocity. Why not? Note the word "Deceased" under Bin Laden's picture, which proves that this poster came from the FBI website in May 2011.
Also note the reasons on the poster that the FBI gave for seeking Bin Laden, as follows:
So why has there never been any mention in any FBI material of Bin Laden being wanted for the 9/11 attack? Here is the answer to that. On 08 May 2002, nine months after 9/11, FBI Director Robert S Mueller told the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary under oath, "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper, either in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot." In other words, nothing whatsoever to connect Bin Laden to 9/11.
So what did President GW Bush use as evidence to accuse Bin Laden of this atrocity when he waged war against Afghanistan nine months previously to the admission by Mueller? The truth is that Bush did not have a shred of evidence to connect Bin Laden to 9/11, yet he immediately blamed Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and attacked and invaded Afghanistan using that pretext. It was literally no different than the pretext of WMD that the Americans fabricated to attack and invade Iraq in 2003.
It has now been comprehensively proven that a number of videos purporting to be of Bin Laden confessing to the 9/11 atrocity were fabricated by the CIA.
On 23 September 2001, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice held a news conference where she stated, "We have definitive proof and evidence that links Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to the attacks on September 11 and we will release this information in due time." The world is still waiting for that definitive proof.
In October 2001, a video emerged, purporting to be of Osama Bin Laden accepting responsibility for 9/11. It is clear to any observer that the person purporting to be Bin Laden was somebody else. The tape featured a fat Osama laughing and joking about how he'd carried out 9/11. The video was also mistranslated, in order to manipulate viewer opinion and featured the fat Bin Laden praising two of the hijackers, but he got their names wrong.
This fake fat Osama wore gold rings, a practice totally in opposition to the Muslim faith. The biggest mistake in the video showed the fat fake Osama using his right hand to write on a pad, whereas it is well known that the real Bin Laden was left-handed and that fact is even on the FBI poster. At that time of 9/11, Bin Laden was suffering severe renal failure and was thin as a stick. That video was so badly concocted that nobody in their right minds could believe it was the real thing.
One has to ask - who would benefit by this fakery? After reviewing all the evidence available, one can see that Bin Laden had never been wanted for 9/11 by the FBI, as attested to by none other than FBI Director Robert Mueller under oath to a US Senate Committee on the Judiciary. So there was no evidence for President GW Bush to demand that the Afghan government hand Bin Laden over to the USA. At that time, Bush knew there was no evidence to link Bin Laden to 9/11 and he could not fulfil the Afghan government's demand to furnish such evidence.
But Bush needed a pretext to attack and invade Afghanistan and very conveniently, that fabricated tape suddenly appeared.and in October 2001, Bush ordered US forces to attack and invade Afghanistan. But this was exactly like the fabricated pretext of WMD that Bush used to attack and invade Iraq. The only people who could benefit from this fabrication was President George W Bush and his cronies. The evidence is overwhelming.
On 05 June 2006, journalist Ed Haas from the Muckraker Report contacted FBI Headquarters and spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there was no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted Terrorist poster on the FBI website, Tomb said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Tomb continued, "Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11." Haas asked, "How does that work?" Tomb replied, "The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."
Let that sink in. President George W Bush initiated the attack, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in October 2001 on the pretext that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. But when that admission was made by FBI official Rex Tomb, the war had been running for nearly 5 years - and there was still not a scrap of evidence to connect Bin Laden to the 9/11 atrocity.
Although the US administration has continuously pointed the finger at Bin Laden for 9/11, the Americans obviously never wanted to apprehend him alive because they had no evidence that he was responsible. This is most probably why he was allowed to escape at Tora Bora in late 2001. There have even been strong allegations that US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld even facilitated Bin Laden's escape.
No serious attempt was ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamic parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official significantly said that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". That statement alone proves that the USA wanted to continue and escalate the bogus War On Terror and of course if Bin Laden was indeed captured and put on trial, there would be no reason to continue this phony and illegal war.
The US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden", which further proves the utter duplicity of the USA, which just wanted any pretext to maintain its bogus war. The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News on 19 December 2002 that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US Air Force complained that it had had al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough. None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
In May 2011, US President Barack Obama announced that Osama Bin Laden was allegedly killed in Pakistan. According to news reports, his body was immediately dumped at sea, before any credible and independent observers had any opportunity to even ascertain that it was indeed Bin Laden and exactly how he was killed. So why did the Americans do this? Why did they so hastily dispose of any evidence that it was indeed Bin Laden that they killed?
It has been obvious throughout the whole time since 9/11 that the last thing the Americans wanted was to put Bin Laden on trial. He would have been acquitted for lack of evidence against him and this would have opened up the whole can of worms on 9/11 and brought the truth out and with it, the arrest of all the Bush administration people who actually were behind this attack.
This would have made the USA the greatest pariah nation in the world, a nation that murdered 3000 of its own citizens in a false flag operation to generate a pretext for an illegal and unjustified war. In fact, if this were to be proven by a new investigation, no nation would ever trust the Americans again and the USA would never recover from the devastating economic and political fallout that such a revelation would produce.
According to top Kissinger deputy Steve Pieczenik and US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Bin Laden was already dead by 2003 and stated that he was on ice, ready to be produced when it was most effective for the government. So when the Barack Obama administration, seeing Obama flagging in popularity, most probably decided to take Bin Laden out of the freezer and stage a mission to "capture" him and make Obama into a hero.
So once Bin Laden had allegedly been located, US SEAL Team 6 was sent in to assassinate him. If any of this was real, they could have easily captured Bin Laden and dragged him back to the USA to be put on trial, but of course that was out of the question because Bin Laden had been dead for many years. In any case, putting a live Bin Laden on trial would mean that he could spill the beans on the entire false flag operation, so that could not be allowed to happen. In any case, it could not have happened anyway because Bin Laden was dead.
Like at the 9/11 site, where important evidence was removed hastily, such as the steel from the Twin Towers before forensics could be conducted on it, the Americans pretended to kill Bin Laden and very rapidly stage a performance where a body was buried at sea off the USS Carl Vinson before it could be examined by any independent person or organisation. There is no other logical explanation for this.
However, WikiLeaks revealed that leaked emails from US security company Stratfor stated that the body of the terror leader was actually sent to the USA for cremation. The emails were allegedly obtained by the hacker group Anonymous from Stratfor, an organisation dealing with analysis of intelligence and geopolitical analysis. Stratfor is also known as the Shadow CIA in intelligence circles and thus would be very cosy with the US administration.
Stratfor's vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, wrote that he believed that Bin Laden's body was taken to Dover, Delaware on a CIA plane and then onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda Maryland, according to one leaked email.
In a statement on 27 February 2012, Stratfor revealed that in December 2011, hackers compromised Stratfor's data systems and stole a large number of company emails, along with other private information of Stratfor readers, subscribers and employees. Some of those emails were published by Wikileaks. This admission proves that those leaked emails were genuine and not fabricated.
And continuing with this very nasty and lethal fabrication, very conveniently for the government and probably perpetrated by the Obama regime, shortly after this bogus assassination, at least six SEAL Team 6 members who were involved were killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan, thus removing any of them from possibly testifying as to the exact circumstances of the incident. Of course these deaths were just par for the course in the 9/11 false flag operation, adding to the extraordinarily high mortality rate of witnesses to many aspects of this atrocity.
It may never be known what really happened to Bin Laden unless one or more of the real perpetrators of 9/11 spills the beans, but it is interesting to see various commentaries from people who would know and understand how the USA really operates and how it conducts its false flag operations. For instance:
During the period 04 to 14 July, 2001, only two months prior to the 9/11 atrocity, Bin Laden was in the American Hospital in Dubai. According to United Press International on 31 October 2001, Bin Laden underwent kidney surgery and treatment under Dr Terry Callaway. According to both the French Le Figaro and Radio France International, Bin Laden was visited by a top CIA agent. This report is further substantiated by CBS anchor Dan Rather, Peter Bergen, investigative journalist Barry Petersen and Professor Michel Chussodovsky.
More astonishing is the fact that just a day prior to the 11 September attacks, Bin Laden was undergoing treatment in the Military Hospital in Rawalpindi itself, according to French newspaper Le Figaro on 28 January 2002. So both the Pakistani military establishment and the Pakistani ISI Intelligence Service, as well as the CIA, were more than aware of Bin Laden's whereabouts.
According to Pentagon sources, Bin Laden's voice could not be detected beyond 14 December 2001. Yet many video and audio recordings of somebody purporting to be Bin Laden emerged to prop up the US administration narrative that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. However, Professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University is the world's leading expert on these tapes and has studied every tape since then. It is his analysis and that of Diana Lee, Wayne Madsen as well as others that they are fakes.
The first fake Bin Laden tape was allegedly found in a deserted house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan and released by the Pentagon on 13 December 2001 It shows a stout and healthy man posing as Bin Laden and making the claims of the destruction of the WTC. The most glaring error in the video is that the Bin Laden duplicate is signing the confession letter with his right hand. Bin Laden was left-handed.
Another fake Bin Laden video appeared just prior to the US presidential election on 29 October 2004, a few days after George W Bush had lost the first Presidential debate to John Kerry the Democratic nominee. The calls for a jihad against the USA helped to boost Bush's ratings and was a factor in his ultimate victory.
The Bin Laden audio tapes began to arrive in 2002. These tapes were also meant to achieve and create a climate of fear at the global level. However the experts at the IDIAP, the world's premier voice identification institute based in Switzerland, clearly stated that the voice on the tapes was not that of Bin Laden.
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda tapes also appeared in India and the political agenda seemed to be the same. On 08 June 2007, an al-Qaeda tape surfaced in Kashmir, claiming that Al Qaeda had established a base in India. It appeared only a day after an Israeli Military delegation arrived in India to advise the government to combat Islamic terror in Kashmir. Even certain Indian intelligence and military sources rejected the tape as a fake.
A number of very credible organisations and experts have shown that Bin Laden had probably died back in late 2001 or early 2002, but the 9/11 Commission completely whitewashed this evidence in order to sustain the myth that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Also it probably explains why SEAL Team 6 did not bring Bin Laden back to the USA after they allegedly found him in Pakistan. This would explain why they said that they disposed of the body at sea, for the simple reason that a DNA test would prove that the body alleged to be that of Bin Laden was not him at all and the whole conspiracy would start to unravel.
It is very obvious that the US administration had something to hide about the whole alleged Bin Laden assassination, including the very real possibility that the person that SEAL Team 6 killed was not Bin Laden at all. Killing the most wanted terrorist on the planet and making the evidence of this public would have been something for the Americans to brag about, however facts about the entire affair have been mysteriously suppressed for no good reason and that is very suspicious in itself.
For instance, internal e-mails among US military officers indicate that no sailors watched Osama Bin Laden's burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson, although the US administration stated that traditional Islamic procedures were followed during the ceremony. Why were sailors not permitted to observe this event? One would think that every sailor on this vessel would have wanted to see this historic occurrence. There is no law against non-Muslims being at a Muslim burial.
The US Defence Department said in March 2012 that it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing Bin Laden's body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden's body on the USS Carl Vinson. This is so ridiculous that it beggars belief. With the assassination of the most wanted terrorist, does the US administration really expect the public to believe that nobody took photographs of his alleged burial at sea? This is just nonsensical and shows that the Americans have something to hide.
Even more ridiculous, the Pentagon also said that it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for Bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of Bin Laden's body if he were killed. So in one of the most significant military operations in recent history, an illegal incursion into a sovereign nation by US forces to assassinate the most wanted terrorist in the world, the US military expects the public to swallow this fiction that there is no paperwork whatsoever of the event? How utterly ridiculous is this?
The CIA, which ran the Bin Laden raid has been given special legal authority to keep information from ever being made public and has not responded to requests for records about the mission. Why not? This mission was trumpeted by the President of the USA across all world media, so why would the CIA be suppressing information about it?
One would think that the CIA would consider this event to be a very significant step in the fight against terrorism, but everything the Americans have done so far points to the fact that SEAL Team 6 committed an illegal act and a monstrous blunder by conducting a military operation against a sovereign nation and murdered the wrong person. This is the most credible reason why the US Defence Department cannot find any photographs or video taken in the raid or the burial at sea, including no witnesses to the event, no autopsy or DNA results, no death certificate - nothing.
This information merely shows that that USA has tried to fool the world again. It was bad enough that the Americans murdered 3000 of their own people in the 9/11 atrocity and fabricated the whole Bin Laden terrorist story, but every fact that keep emerging about this event merely adds to the litany of evidence of the USA's monstrous criminal course of behaviour, including the two major wars that were fomented by this criminality.
It is interesting to note that the Bin Laden family has been involved with the Bush family for decades. George W Bush's first oil venture in 1979 with a company called Arbusto was financed partly by the Bin Ladens. George W Bush's father, the former president GWH Bush, had the Bin Ladens as investors in his company, the Carlyle Group, one of the largest military contractors in the USA. So what did the Bushes do with the Bin Ladens after 9/11?
It is a fact on record that in the weeks following the 9/11 attack, the administration of George W Bush allowed a private Saudi-chartered jet to fly all around the USA to pick up more than 20 members and associates of the Bin Laden family and spirit them out of the USA, all this during the blanket no-fly period when all civilian aircraft in the USA were forcibly grounded and no aircraft from overseas were allowed to enter.
Why were these Saudis, especially the Bin Ladens, allowed to be taken out of the USA on a Saudi aircraft without so much as being questioned by US authorities? Why did they receive such privileged treatment, seeing that nearly the alleged perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi citizens and the Americans accused Osama Bin Laden as the mastermind?
The full list of the 9/11 hijacker's names was released on 14 September 2001, three days after the attack. The question is - how did the FBI get all those names, when not one of them were on the passenger manifests of those aircraft? There is only one way that this could have happened. The FBI already knew those names BEFORE 11 September 2001. Here are the nineteen men identified on the FBI website as the hijackers.
Quite amazingly, at least seven of the men were subsequently confirmed as being alive after 9/11. And even stranger, none of the names listed are shown on the passenger manifests of the hijacked flights. Why not? They all had to board those aircraft, showing passports or other identification documents and be entered onto the passenger manifests. So where did the FBI get those names just three days after 9/11, if they were not on the passenger manifests? The only explanation for this is that the conspirators supplied the FBI with those names, so that they could tie 9/11 to Islamic extremists instead of having questions raised as to who really committed the atrocity.
An even more important question - how could any of these hijackers still be alive, if their aircraft were totally destroyed in the collapse of the Twin Towers?
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 and 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.
"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." - ABC News.
"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, 23 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 Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months." - Wal Fadjri, 21 September 2001.
"Abdul Aziz Al-Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines" - BBC, 23 September 2001.
"A pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking, as well as being dead and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation." - Independent, 17 September 2001.
"Saeed Al-Ghamdi is one of three hijackers that US officials have said are linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network." - BBC. However, 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, 23 September 2001.
"Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Al-Ghamdi." - BBC, 23 September 2001.
"Abdel Aziz Al-Omari and Saïd Hussein Gharamallah Al-Ghamdi, are well in life, the first in Saudi Arabia and the second in Tunisia for nine months." - Wal Fadjri, 21 September 2001.
"..... not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington." - Saudi Embassy.
"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 22 September, Associated Press reported that Al-Shehri had spoken to the US embassy in Morocco.
"His photograph was released by the FBI and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack." - Daily Trust, 24 September 2001.
"He (Al-Shehri) 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 (Al-Shehri) named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well." - BBC, 23 September 2001.
"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, 23 September 2001.
"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, 23 September 2001.
"Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.
"..... there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar may also be alive." - BBC, 23 September 2001.
Experts and scientists who examined particles from the WTC site after the 9/11 attack have stated categorically that traces of high-intensity thermite and nanothermite were found. The significance of this is that most experts state that aircraft crashing into the Twin Towers alone would not have caused them to collapse in the way the videos clearly show.
Those two aircraft were fuelled with aviation kerosene and there was certainly not enough fuel on both to cause the demolition of the Twin Towers. Aviation experts stated that most of the fuel on those aircraft would have burned off in a matter of minutes and most of it outside the towers.
In fact the videos show that the aircraft merely struck the buildings and caught on fire, with literally all their fuel being consumed immediately, but nothing much happened for a while. Then all of a sudden, each of the Twin Towers collapsed on itself in what many demolition experts described as a controlled implosion, exactly as if explosives were placed inside the Twin Towers to cause this to happen.
Many eyewitnesses reported hearing explosions at intervals, just before the towers collapsed. But if all the fuel on those aircraft was consumed in the initial fireballs on impact, what caused those explosions in the Twin Towers? Aviation fuel does not explode like a bomb, so the obvious explanation is that there were explosives set off in the Twin Towers to demolish them.
The presence of thermite and nanothermite on the site has never been explained and every attempt to raise this matter has been stymied. The videos do not lie and it is apparent that the Twin Towers did not collapse immediately the aircraft struck them. Neither of the buildings toppled over, as would be expected if one side of them was substantially weakened by the aircraft impacts. Both towers collapsed vertically, exactly the way they would have been brought down in a controlled demolition using explosives.
But 7WTC was not struck by anything except some minor debris from the twin tower and all of a sudden, a good seven hours later, it collapsed upon itself after eyewitnesses saw bright flashes and heard loud explosions. Again, the only explanation for this is that 7WTC was blown up internally by explosives in a controlled demolition.
Nothing else can explain what happened, simply because there would have been no explosives in 7WTC, just an office building, in the normal daily course of events. The only explosives that could have been in that building at the time would have had to be planted there by the Americans themselves. Nobody else had the sort of access to the building that would give them the opportunity to place explosives on critical structural members.
Teresa Veliz was working on the 47th floor of the World Trade Centre North Tower when Flight 11 hit the building. She stated the following:
Many people heard explosions coming out of the twin towers before they collapsed. Some stated that they had heard explosions coming from the lower levels, nowhere near the levels where the aircraft impacted. Albert Turi, the chief of safety for the New York City Fire Department stated to a NBC news reporter Pat Dobson that he had received word of the possibility of a secondary device - another bomb going off.
Turi also said that he tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but there was another explosion and then an hour after the first aircraft crash, there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers. He thought that there were explosive devices planted in the buildings.
Numerous interviews with firefighters on the scene had one thing in common, that every firefighter stated that he heard and saw explosions, including explosive damage to the lobby of the north tower and bodies of dead people, 78 floors below where that aircraft had hit. Firefighters were inside and outside the towers before they collapsed. Their radio transmissions were recorded and logged as a matter of course, yet for more than a year, the New York Port Authority blocked the release of the tapes of those transmissions.
In November 2002, the tape was finally released to the New York Times and other news outlets. The probably reason for the delay was that the comments from very credible firefighters who were right there would have raised many embarrassing questions when things were fresh in the minds of Americans. Firefighters were recorded saying the following:
In all the videos of the collapse of the twin towers, explosions can be seen bursting from 20 to 30 floors below the collapsing sections. The only explanation for this is that the twin towers were brought down in a deliberate demolition by explosives planted on many levels and when the time was right, the perpetrators triggered a controlled sequence of detonations to collapse the towers into their own footprints. There is no other way that the towers could have been demolished in this way.
Demolition theory proponents, such as physicist Steven E Jones, architect Richard Gage and software engineer Jim Hoffman argued that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures.
Jones presented the hypothesis that thermite or nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings and stated that he found hard evidence of such explosives in the WTC dust. Nanothermite is very difficult to produce and generally only technically advanced governments can manufacture this substance, certainly not a bunch of Islamic terrorists.
The official government story of Flight 93 crashing in a field at Shanksville in Pennsylvania is preposterously untrue. The wreckage of the alleged aircraft that was claimed to be the hijacked airliner was spread over a 10km (6 mile) area. If that aircraft had impacted the ground intact, by virtue of the passengers overpowering the alleged hijackers, then the wreckage would be within a couple of hundred metres of the impact site, just like all other similar aircraft crashes.
Go to Google Images and look at the thousands of photos of aircraft that have crashed into the ground. In every single case, extensive wreckage of those aircraft can be seen - except for the wreckage of Flight 93, where not a scrap of aircraft or its contents can be found.
However, the fact that wreckage that was found was spread over a 10km area means only two things, that either this aircraft actually broke apart in mid-air first at a fairly high altitude, or there was no aircraft and the scenario was fabricated with planted aircraft parts. And how would a very robust Boeing airliner disintegrate like that? The only feasible explanation is that it was either destroyed by a bomb on board or it was shot down. In fact, many eyewitnesses stated that they saw another small aircraft above them when the airliner allegedly crashed.
When a large airliner crashes to the ground, there is plenty of debris and aircraft parts right at the crash site, as these photos show.
But all the photos taken of the Shanksville crash site have one thing in common - no aircraft parts or anything else.
Here are comments from Wally Miller, the Somerset County Coroner who was on the scene.
The hole in the ground at Shanksville where the airliner had allegedly crashed had no aircraft wreckage. There were no wings, elevators, rudder, fuselage, windows, engines - nothing, not a scrap of aircraft parts whatsoever. There was no fire. There was no luggage. There were no bodies. A US Geological Survey aerial map of the area shows that the hole in the ground where Flight 93 allegedly crashed was already there in 1994, a good seven years prior to the 9/11 atrocity.
The truth is that the US administration knew of this hole in the ground and set it up as the alleged crash site shortly prior to 11 September 2001 by dumping bits of metal into it and some flammable material to create some smoke and flames. Then when 9/11 happened, the US administration "discovered" the staged crash site for the benefit of the gullible American public. Of course coroner Wally Miller soon revealed it as a hoax, but this too was whitewashed in the 9/11 Commission report.
So what really happened to Flight 93 and Flight 77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon? A television report on 11 September 2001 at 11:43am stated the following:
Another very strange occurrence happened earlier on the day at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport on that day. At around 10:00am, the airport was evacuated due to reports that a hijacked aircraft was going to land. Passengers were ordered to leave, but could not drive. They were not allowed to get their cars from the parking lots. Buses were not allowed to leave and all freeways were closed. Bus drivers were told that if they attempted to exit, they would be shot. This is before the alleged hijacked aircraft even got to this airport.
According to Associated Press and local Ohio papers, Delta Flight 1989 with an alleged bomb on board landed at 10:10am and United Flight 93 landed at around 10:45am. The Delta aircraft was directed to an isolated area of the airport and passengers waited for two hours before being evacuated to Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) headquarters. This Delta flight was not part of the 9/11 plot and the difference in treatment between this aircraft and Flight 93 is remarkable.
But if aviation authorities had a report that there was a bomb on board Delta Flight 1989, the normal procedure would have been to immediately evacuate the aircraft completley. But the passengers were made to stay on board that aircraft for two hours. In other words, the authorities knew very well that there was no bomb.
Flight 93 landed at 10:45am, but the 200 passengers were not taken to FAA headquarters, but to an evacuated NASA research centre. So what happened to the 200 passengers from this flight? They seem to have vanished into thin air. But of course if the official narrative claimed that Flight 93 crashed into a field in Shanksville Pennsylvania with all passengers killed, then those passengers from Flight 93 that landed in Cleveland at 10:45am obviously would not be permitted to survive and tell their story, blowing the whole hijack fabrication apart.
A logical assumption would be that the plotters in the US administration knew that there were no hijackers aboard Flight 93 and it was going to be diverted to another airport, its passengers dealt with to silence them, the hole in the ground at Shanksville Pennsylvania filled with scrap and burning garbage to stage a phony crash, aircraft parts scattered around a large radius to gild the lily, so to speak and the Salomon Brothers Building being demolished by explosives.
There could only be one logical reason for this set-up. The plotters had to have somebody to blame for the 9/11 atrocity. The alleged aircraft that hit the twin towers were destroyed. So the only way that the plotters could state that Al-Qaeda hijackers had perpetrated this was by allegedly that people on the ground were being contacted by passengers using cellphones or airphones on one of the aircraft before it was destroyed.
However, the plotters did not expect people to investigate this very convenient scenario and it was quickly proven that this could not have occurred.
Research by Professor AK Dewdney, Professor Emeritus of the University of Western Ontario, showed that the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones. So like the other phases of the alleged attack, the official explanation of what happened to Flight 93 was a lie.
Another blatant fabrication was the allegation that some of those passengers on Flight 93 used seat-back airphones to make some of those calls to people on the ground. United Airlines categorically stated that the Boeing 757 aircraft that was used for Flight 93 was not fitted with satellite airphones, therefore those alleged calls could not have been made. The Boeing 757 aircraft designated Flight 77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon also did not have seatback airphones.
Two reporters contacted American Airlines to verify this and asked, "Are there any onboard phones at all on AA 757s that could be used either by passengers or cabin crew?" The response was: "AA 757s do not have any onboard phones, either for passenger or crew use. Crew have other means of communication available." These means of communications were the flight deck radios for pilots to communicate with Air Traffic Control and certainly not available or accessible to passengers.
One of the calls was purportedly from Mark Bingham to his mother Alice. The caller said, "Mum, this is Mark Bingham." When did anybody ever call their mother and use their full name? Would you believe a call from a person who rang his mother and said, "Mum, this is your son Barack Hussein Obama."? No way! If this call from Bingham was real, he would have said, "Mum, this is Mark." The caller also stated twice that he was using the aircraft's airphone to make the call and he asked Alice "Do you believe me?" twice. Why on earth would a son say that to his mother? But there was one major problem that exposed this whole fabrication, the fact that this aircraft was not fitted with airphones.
Two people were reported to have made calls from Flight 77 on 9/11 with information about the hijacking. The 9/11 Commission presented these as evidence. Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, allegedly called her parents. Then Barbara Olson allegedly called her husband, US Solicitor-General Ted Olson, who stated that she reported that the flight had been hijacked and the hijackers were wielding knives and box cutters. Ted Olson did not say that Barbara Olson mentioned stabbing or slashing of the crew or passengers. Ted Olson stated that Barbara Olson said that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call. All of the passengers were in the back of the plane. Barbara Olson had been seated in first class.
After this call, Ted Olson allegedly tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft. He contacted the Department of Justice Command Centre and requested that they send someone to his office. He also allegedly told the Department of Justice Command Centre that his wife's flight had been hijacked and gave them the flight number. But this was complete nonsense.
Real-life tests have proven that Renee May's alleged cellphone call would have been impossible in 2001, along with any other cellphone call from aircraft. Ted Olson gave contradictory statements about how his wife Barbara Olson made the calls. Three days after 9/11, Olson said on one TV show that she must have called from the aircraft's seatback airphone, then on another TV show, he stated that she had used a cellphone, before eventually settling on the airphone story. But the problem was that Flight 77 was not equipped with seatback airphones and in fact Ted Olson's story was contradicted by the FBI.
Logic dictates that if cellphone calls from aircraft in 2001 would have been impossible to sustain for any more than a second or two at the most and the aircraft from which those alleged calls were made were not equipped with satellite airphones, then those phone calls could not have been made from those aircraft. The descriptions of Muslim hijackers with boxcutters could not have been given by the passengers on board those aircraft. The only logical explanation is that those phone calls were faked by the US administration as part of the fabrication that Al-Qaeda committed the 9/11 atrocity.
Firstly, it should be understood that using cellphones on aircraft will not affect their control or safety. It is illegal to make cellphone calls from aircraft, however if you dare, you could try the experiment yourself the next time you fly on a commercial passenger aircraft, remembering that modern cellphones and the cells that they communicate with are a lot better now than they were in 2001.
When the aircraft gets over 5,000 feet, which normally takes about two minutes, try to initiate a cellphone call. See if you even get a signal from a cell. You won't. But even if you actually manage to somehow fluke a connection to a cell on the ground, you will not be able to sustain that connection for more than a second or two before it drops out. At 10,000 feet or more, you will have absolutely no hope of making a cellphone call from any aircraft.
The truth is that Barbara Olson and Renee May could not have made those cellphone calls from those hijacked aircraft. Those alleged calls, including the call from Mark Bingham, were complete fabrications. And who would have fabricated them? The answer is - the very people who trotted them out to bolster their lies about the hijackers - the US administration, as part of the whole 9/11 false flag operation that the Americans committed. They are the only ones who had the motive to do this.
According to official US government reports, less than one hour after the Twin Towers at the WTC were hit, a Boeing 757 heavy passenger jet allegedly crashed into the Pentagon in Washington DC. There has been a lot of speculation as to what happened, however as with the Twin Towers and the Salomon Brothers building in New York City, there were plenty of eyewitnesses on the scene at the Pentagon who took many photographs and observed some strange anomalies.
A Boeing 757 is a large aircraft, however many photographs taken directly after the alleged impact show absolutely no wreckage of any aircraft. Satellite images taken at the exact time of the alleged impact also do not show anything remotely like the wreckage of a large passenger aircraft.
The damage to the Pentagon is certainly not consistent with the official version of the attack. Just the kinetic energy of a large aircraft weighing in excess of 130 tons and full of volatile jet fuel striking the Pentagon at up to 400kph would have literally destroyed a much larger part of this building than all the photographic evidence shows.
The above photo shows the hole where the purported Boeing 757 aircraft struck the building. So where is the wreckage of the aircraft? The official investigation said that the aircraft was entirely consumed by fire, but the left side of the hole shows no fire damage whatsoever. How could a huge fuel-laden Boeing 757 airliner burst into a fireball big enough to completely consume it without scorching and setting fire to everything around it? The truth is that it could not and it did not.
The above photo is a close-up shot of the left side of the hole left by the alleged Boeing 757 airliner that was supposedly totally consumed by fire and vanished. Note the completely undamaged computer monitor at the top of the photo and the book on the lectern at the bottom of the photo. If a massive fuel-laden airliner had hit the building in that spot and exploded in flames enough to make it disintegrate, one would imagine that everything around the vicinity would have also caught on fire. However, the hard evidence shows no sign of this and flammable items such as that computer, book and wooden lectern are completely intact, with not a sign of the slightest scorching.
There is no way in the world that a large Boeing 757 airliner hit the Pentagon and vanished completely, as the 9/11 Commission and NIST narratives go. Where did the wings go? They could not possibly have folded up and gone inside the hole because the hole is not deep enough. An airliner is actually made of flimsy alloy and even at high speed, if it hit a solid concrete building such as the Pentagon, it would literally fold up and most of the aircraft would wind up on the lawn outside. So where did it go? The truth is that it did not go anywhere because it did not hit the Pentagon. This damage was clearly inflicted by only one thing - a missile.
The above telephoto shot shows the book on the wooden lectern in the left side of the hole in the Pentagon. There is no trace of scorching or burning that would have completely incinerated these items if a fuel-laden Boeing 757 airliner had burned up to nothing right next to them. The explanation given by the official 9/11 investigation can only be described as complete and utter crap. The evidence is there for all to see - no aircraft parts, no fiery conflagration, just a hole in the Pentagon that is far too small to accommodate a huge Boeing airliner.
The official story claimed that the Boeing 757 airliner of Flight 77 was hijacked and piloted by Arab terrorist Hani Hanjour all the way from the US midwest to the east coast, executed a 330 degree downward spiral at 530 miles per hour from a cruising altitude of at least 35,000 feet before allegedly striking the Pentagon. This is just a great load of utter nonsense.
The problem is that Hani Hanjour, who had trained to fly small four-seater Cessna 172 light aircraft was considered to be a dreadful pilot. It is simply impossible for somebody like Hanjour, who could not even handle a tiny Cessna, to climb into the command seat of a sophisticated jet airliner with three inertial navigation systems, two three-axis autopilots, an electronic Flight Management System and a cockpit full of TV screens with fancy multi-facet displays and take over and make the sort of complex maneuvres that this alleged airliner made before allegedly striking the Pentagon.
Could anybody in their right mind imagine that this Arab dickhead Hani Hanjour, who had extreme difficulty handling a little Cessna 172 single-piston engined four seater light aircraft, literally jump into the captain's seat on an extremely sophisticated Boeing 757 twin-engined jet airliner and even know where to start? There is no way that Hanjour would even know how to disengage the autopilot or enter data into the Flight Management System, let alone control that aircraft with pinpoint precision. There was no way that Hanjour could have navigated it all the way from the midwest of the USA where it was allegedly hijacked and perform that amazing 270 degree high-speed descending turn and strike the Pentagon.
According to many airline pilots with tens of thousands of hours flying experience on Boeing 757 airliners, the speed of the turns Hanjour allegedly made and his pinpoint precision control of this very sophisticated airliner is a complete fabrication. Even experienced commercial pilots who were endorsed on other airliners but not a Boeing 757 would have great trepidation in jumping into the left-hand seat and without any substantial practice, trying to perform the sort of flying that Hanjour was alleged to have done, remembering that Hanjour was considered to be a rotten pilot, even on tiny single-engined Cessnas.
I was a commercial pilot for three decades and considered myself to be very skilled and experienced. Yet I know damn well that I could never have performed the manoevres and aircraft handling that the US administration claimed that the very inexperienced and completely incompetent Hani Hanjour allegedly made. So Hanjour could not have done what the US administration claimed in the fabricated 9/11 Commission report.
On 27 November 2009, Pilots For 911 Truth published a simple fact about the flight of Flight 77 which makes a conventional hijacking scenario impossible. According to Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Ssafety Bureau (NTSB), the flight deck door was never opened in flight. The status of the door was polled every 5 seconds from 12:18:05 GMT to 13:37:09 GMT and each poll logged the door as closed. In other words, nobody entered the cockpit of the plane during the flight, therefore it could not have been flown into the Pentagon by an Arab hijacker.
So what happened? Taking all the hard evidence available, the 9/11 Commission finding into the Pentagon attack is just a load of utter garbage. Examine the hard facts:
Here are two photos of a Boeing 757 airliner engine. This engine is large enough for a fully-grown adult to stand upright inside the engine intake. In fact, this engine has a diameter of 2.75 metres or 9 feet. The compressor blades, combustion chambers and turbine rings are made of special alloys that have to obviously withstand temperatures well in excess of the temperature of burning jet fuel, literally because that is exactly what they do - have intense jet fuel and superheated air mixture going through them constantly in operation.
The temperature of jet fuel burning in air is no more than 315ºC (600ºF), but gas turbine components such as the second and third stage high-speed compressor blades, combustion chambers and turbine rings and blades are made to withstand temperatures in excess of 1300ºC (2400ºF) - FOUR times the temperature of burning jet fuel. So how is it that not a trace of two massive gas turbine engines or a single turbine blade was found in the rubble of the Pentagon, when there was no possibility whatsoever that those parts could have melted or disintegrated in any fire?
Yet the official line from the investigation claims that virtually every part of the airliner was consumed by the fire from the jet fuel. Yet there is no scorching of the left side of the hole, no high-temperature engine compressor or turbine blades or any other Boeing 757 parts to be found. In other words, there is no way on earth that a Boeing 757 airliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11 and vanished in a ball of flame. Every piece of hard evidence proves otherwise, so what is actually proved is that the official investigation deliberately covered up this false attack.
A Boeing 757 airliner could not have possibly hit the Pentagon, simply because all the evidence proves that this could not have happened, according to the image above. If a Boeing 757 airliner slammed into the Pentagon, its wings would have extensively damaged parts of the building on each side of the hole and they are not damaged at all. Even windows right in the line of impact are not even broken.
Most of the fuselage, especially the rear of the aircraft, would have remained on the grass outside the building, yet there was not a trace of fuselage, ailerons, rudder, the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) turbine in the tail - nothing whatsoever. There were no scorch marks or impact marks on the ground outside the hole, as satellite and other photos have revealed.
Nobody looking at this depiction could believe that an entire Boeing 757 jet airliner squeezed its way into that hole in the Pentagon and completely vanished in a ball of flame. Most of the aircraft would have landed outside the Pentagon and apart from fire damage, would have been largely intact. Of course the only logical explanation for this is that a Boeing 757 airliner did not hit the Pentagon. The damage is completely consistent with a missile strike.
Other images examined extensively failed to show any wreckage of a Boeing 757. Aircraft parts found on the scene, such as a wheel and an engine component were not from a Boeing 757. Many windows adjacent to the impact point were still intact. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is far larger than the demolished part of the Pentagon, meaning that whatever struck this building was much smaller.
A CNN reporter at the scene of the Pentagon attack stated categorically that there did not appear to be any evidence that a jet airliner crashed there. The official claims that the aircraft disintegrated due to the intense heat - titanium engines, fuselage, wings vanished completely is complete nonsense, easily disproven by eminent engineers and the visual evidence.
It was estimated that this Boeing 757 airliner that allegedly struck the Pentagon would have had the majority of its fuel on board - around 86 tons of it that would have been ignited if this aircraft had crashed and burned, as per the official story. The photographs and video clips prove that the damage to the Pentagon is completely inconsistent with this explanation. Extensive computer modelling and analysis by experts also exposes the lie that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon.
Obviously if the wings of this alleged Boeing 757 did not penetrate the wall of the Pentagon, logic dictates that most of the aircraft would have remained on the ground outside. But there was no crater, skid marks or burn marks where the aircraft would have impacted. There were no seat cushions, no rudder, no wings, engine nacelles, windows, fuselage parts, passenger bodies, baggage, freight, nothing that would be found in the wreckage of a large passenger jet on the ground. There were some aircraft parts found, but even those were highly suspicious.
Official reports regarding one of the engine parts found at the scene stated that it was the rotor from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) manufactured by Honeywell in the tail of the Boeing 757. However, engineers at Honeywell examined high resolution photos of this component and categorically stated that there was NO WAY that this was any part of an engine that Honeywell manufactured. In fact it was identified by an expert as the rotor from a JT8D engine from a US Air Force A-3 Skywarrior. In other words, that rotor was deliberately planted on the scene.
The official US government report stated that the bodies of the passengers from this alleged Boeing 757 airliner were able to be identified either by their fingerprints or by their DNA. Officials claimed that the remains of all but one of the people on Flight 77 were identified. Human remains were shipped to the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base and to the DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Maryland for identification by forensic pathologists and anthropologists. Two of the forensic scientists who were enlisted in the effort were Douglas Owsley and Douglas Ubelaker, both of whom were also involved in the identifying the mutilated remains of the victims of the Waco Massacre.
However this stinks of a complete cover-up. PBS Newshour reported that the passenger bodies and Pentagon military casualties were burned beyond recognition and were not expected to be recovered or identified. But the official report states that they were. However, the US Defence Department later admitted that it dumped the alleged remains of the passengers and military personnel in a landfill.
So if all but one of the people on Flight 77 were identified, why were they not accorded proper funerals and burials, but dumped in a landfill? There can only be one explanation, that the government did not want any independent people to demand those bodies and examine them forensically before burial and thus uncover the lies about this incident.
The official report has more holes in it than a sieve. What kind of fire can completely vaporise an entire airliner consisting of aluminium, tempered steel and most of all, titanium alloy engine parts that can withstand the extreme temperatures inside gas turbine aircraft engines and yet leave human bodies intact so that their fingerprints or DNA can be examined? The answer is that no fire could possibly do this.
There are far too many anomalies in the official but provably fabricated US administration version of the Pentagon attack. It is one thing to try and spin a yarn without anything to disprove it, but when hard evidence in the form of photographs, satellite images, eyewitnesses and experts completely contradict this official version, there is only one inevitable conclusion that can be drawn. It is obvious that the Pentagon attack was part of the whole 9/11 false flag operation and was arranged by the only entity with the capability of committing this atrocity and being able to plant evidence to try and cover it up - the US government.
Here is the most intriguing part of this scam. Washington DC has a population of over 600,000 people. Even back in September 2001, many people in a modern nation such as the USA had cameras and some had mobile phones with built-in cameras. So when an airliner purportedly hit the largest office building in the world in the capital city of the most powerful nation in the world where there would have been tens of thousands of people in the near vicinity, many of them with cameras and phones with cameras in their pockets, one would assume that there would be thousands of photographs of that airliner burning or exploding all over the Internet.
The side of the Pentagon that was struck is less than 90 metres (100 yards) from the South Washington Boulevard, one of the busiest highways in Washington DC. Google Maps has a measuring facility that will show how close this road is to the side of the Pentagon that was hit. Yet of all the people who would have driven on that highway at the time of the attack, not one of them seems to have taken a single photo.
One would imagine that within a few seconds of the attack, traffic on the South Washington Boulevard would have ground to a halt, as motorists pulled out cameras or their camera-equipped mobile phones and taken thousands of photos of this incident, less than 90 metres from them. But where are there any photos of Boeing 757 aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon - wings, engines, fuselage, rudder or any other parts? Not a single photo has emerged. Why? Because there was no airliner wreckage at all.
There is a wonderful facility called Google Images that indexes hundreds of millions of photographs and images of literally everything on the Internet. There is virtually nothing that has been photographed or drawn that cannot be found on Google Images. Put in any search criteria and images of it will be found, no matter how crazy, way-out or rare. But if one does a search on Google Images for airliner wreckage at the Pentagon, where there are literally images of everything on the planet, there is not one single photograph of the wreckage of a Boeing 757 airliner at the Pentagon.
In fact, in July 2011, checking further on Google Images using the search criteria "Airliner Pentagon" or "9/11 Pentagon" brought up an initial collection of 68 pages of photographs and drawings, each page having around 12 images. This was more than 800 images, however out of that collection, there was not one photo showing an airliner or genuine airliner wreckage at the Pentagon. It is inconceivable that such a major event as a terrorist attack using a large passenger jet airliner to strike the headquarters of the entire US defence establishment was not photographed by one single person.
US news broadcaster CNN sent reporter Jamie McIntyre to the Pentagon immediately after the crash of the alleged Boeing 757 airliner and he made the following statement verbatim:
So there was McIntyre, right on the scene shortly after the alleged impact of a huge Boeing 757 airliner on the Pentagon and there was only one problem - there was no aircraft. There is no credible video taken by anybody of this amazing incident, despite it being part of the worst attack of all time on the USA. But it gets more incredible, in the true sense of the word, incredible meaning NOT CREDIBLE.
"There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile"
"I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon - all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident."
"The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight."
"The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon."
Here is a credible eyewitness who has previously had some experience shooting video of aircraft crashes. But what did Bob Pugh see when he arrived at the Pentagon just after the alleged airliner hit? He didn't see anything resembling aircraft wreckage. His clip is probably the best of all the Pentagon videos.
So here is yet another person right on the scene just after this attack on the Pentagon and he didn't see any aircraft wreckage and the hole in the Pentagon was no more than 20 feet tops, as he said. He didn't see any marks on the grass, so whatever hit the Pentagon remained airborne. However a Boeing 757 airliner is 125 feet wingtip to wingtip, so it could not have hit the Pentagon and squeezed itself inside without the bulk of the aircraft landing on the grass outside.
But all the photos, videos and satellite images show absolutely no damage to the grass outside the crash area. So there is no conceivable way that whatever hit the Pentagon was a Boeing 757 airliner. All the evidence shows this, yet the official story from the US government still claims that a Boeing 757 airliner hit the Pentagon. Nazi Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels stated that if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it and this is exactly what the US government has been doing.
April Gallop, who was employed at the Pentagon at the time the alleged aircraft struck on 11 September 2001 stated categorically that although she was right on the spot and was even showered with debris, she saw absolutely no sign of any aircraft parts, certainly not of any airliner.
Gallop stated, "While I was coming out of the Pentagon, I didn't see any evidence of metal, aeroplane seats, luggage, nothing that would give me any indication that it was a plane that had hit the building. I lost one shoe, so I was walking through the area bare-footed, so I was particularly careful to try to make sure I did not step on anything sharp. While I had my son on my shoulder, I did not have jet fuel over my body, my son did not have jet fuel over his body and people that had helped did not have jet fuel over their body, so again there was nothing on the inside that would give me any indication that there was a plane on that particular day that hit the building."
Gallop continued, "A lot of people that were in the area where I was located - and again I did ask because I, you know, maybe I was off in my judgement, but speaking with everyone, it was conclusive that no-one else in the area where I was located had seen any parts of planes or luggage or baggage or anything of that nature."
Gallop claimed that when she was in the hospital after the incident, men in suits visited her more than once. She stated, "They never identified themselves or even said which agency they were from.: She continued, "The men who visited all said that they couldn't tell me what to say, they only wanted to make suggestions. But then they told me what to do, which was to take the Victim Compensation Fund money and shut up. They also kept insisting that a plane hit the building. But I was there and I never saw a plane or even debris from a plane. I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people."
So there is the video testimony of a Pentagon employee who was right at the impact point, yet did not see one piece of aircraft wreckage inside or outside the Pentagon. Now a Boeing 757 airliner is 47.3 metres (155 feet) long, 38 metres (125 feet) wingspan and 13.6 metres (44.6 feet) tall. Maximum takeoff weight is over 100 tons. So if a Boeing 757 airliner hit the Pentagon, what happened to it?
The hole in the Pentagon wall wouldn't accommodate the entire aircraft, so most of the fuselage and wings would have remained outside the building on the grounds. But there is no sign of this and not even a mark on the lawn. All the hard evidence, backed by eyewitness testimony proves only one thing, that a Boeing 757 airliner did not hit the Pentagon on 11 September 2011 and no amount of whitewashing by the US government and its stooges can prove otherwise.
The Pentagon is the most guarded building on earth. There are more CCTV cameras covering the Pentagon than any other building on the planet. Yet the US government has refused to release any footage that purportedly show a Boeing 757 airliner hitting the Pentagon on 11 September 2001. The only images that the government released to the public are rough and indistinct, but the important thing to note is that none of them remotely show a Boeing airliner.
The FBI had 85 Pentagon security camera video recordings and refused to release all but one of them to the public and the clip that was shown was completely inconclusive in proving that a Boeing 757 airliner had hit the Pentagon. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, might provide decisive evidence about the attack, but the FBI will not make them available.
The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon and confiscated film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack but they refuse to this day to release that video. The FBI also visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack.
A number of lawsuits were launched under the US Freedom of Information Act and the FBI eventually released some video security footage, but none of the clips showed the alleged strike on the Pentagon. The video clips that could have revealed what actually happened have not been made available. One has to wonder what the FBI is hiding and when the evidence is examined, the obvious answer is that the suppressed video footage would most probably show that something other than a Boeing 757 airliner hit the Pentagon.
It is preposterous to think that the US government expects anybody to believe that utter nonsense that of all the CCTV cameras at the Pentagon, the only footage that the government claims was a Boeing airliner does not show that at all. Even worse is the actions of the FBI in confiscating CCTV video from a hotel and convenience store that most probably showed exactly what hit the Pentagon. That footage would have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it was most probably a missile launched by the US military, the only entity to have such weaponry.
There were a number of satellites taking photographs of the Washington DC area on 11 September 2001. A search of Google Images produced many satellite photos of the Pentagon, showing damage and scorching, but not one single satellite photo taken on the day or the couple of days after the incident showed any sign of the wreckage of a large Boeing 757 jet airliner.
The only photos that relate to an aircraft engine are shots of a turbine rotor that have been identified by experts as definitely not being either the main Rolls Royce RB211-535E4 turbofan engine rotor, or the Honeywell GTCP331-200 Auxiliary Power Unit from the tail area of a Boeing 757 airliner. That component was identified by experts as coming from a JT8D engine from a US Air Force A-3 Skywarrior.
So how did that rotor get there? Only two scenarios are possible. The first is that an A-3 Skywarrior laden with explosives hit the Pentagon, which would tally with the size of the hole in the side of the Pentagon and the rotor landed on the ground outside. So who would be able to arrange for a US Air Force military jet to do this? Certainly not a bunch of Al-Qaeda cowboys. Only the US administration or one of its clandestine arms would be in a position to do such a thing. The other scenario is that a missile hit the Pentagon and the US administration planted that rotor.
Here is one frame from the official video clip that was released by the US government of the alleged Boeing 757 airliner that hit the Pentagon. A number of people have carefully analysed it and there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon could not have been a Boeing 757 airliner.
Even though the original video frame is very unclear, it is obvious that the profile of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was most probably an A-3 Skywarrior or similar, which even explains the turbine rotor from that particular model of aircraft being found at the scene.
The profile of the Boeing 757 airliner is of completely different proportions to the aircraft captured in that official video clip frame. It is also obvious that the authorities who tried to make the world believe that a Boeing 757 airliner struck the Pentagon did not count on so many people investigating their patently false story and debunking it with hard facts.
On 12 October 2001, one month after 9/11, the then US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld gave an interview to Parade magazine. Among other things, Rumsfeld let the truth slip out as to what really struck the Pentagon. He said:
So in his haste to make a case that Islamic terrorists committed this atrocity, Rumsfeld blurted out that it was really a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon. Rumsfeld made a number of slips when talking about 9/11, proving that he had inside knowledge of this false flag operation or more likely, was one of the perpetrators.
On 10 September 2001 at about 17:30 on the day before 9/11, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld announced to the world that the Pentagon could not track some $2.3 trillion in transactions. This announcement alone would make the USA and the US military the laughing stock of the world. How could an accounting error of that magnitude be suppressed? Would it not require that all the financial records be forensically examined to find out where this massive sum of money disappeared?
But amazingly, on the following morning, the entire accounting department tasked with finding the missing $2.3 trillion was wiped out, files and all, by the strike on the Pentagon. Even more amazing was the fact that whatever hit the Pentagon managed to destroy the very department and the files that would have most probably revealed the greatest misappropriation of money in the history of the world.
If the Pentagon had been struck on any other side instead, this incredible embezzlement would have been extremely hard to conceal. So there was a motive for the Pentagon strike - not to attack the military itself, but to destroy incriminating financial records. This was literally the same motive that was used to demolish 7WTC, the Salomon Brothers Building with internal explosives, not an aircraft strike, to destroy the incriminating SEC investigation files of Enron and other companies.
The complete absence of any photos of a Boeing 757 airliner at the Pentagon and the rotor from an A-3 Skywarrier military aircraft found at the impact site clearly proves that the only entity capable of pulling off such a massive scam was the US administration and nobody else. Nobody else could arrange for a Skywarrior to be used on US soil, certainly not a bunch of Saudi Arabs.
There are many unanswered questions about the Pentagon incident. Any person standing under the final approach path at an airport who has watched large jet airliners coming in to land just above their heads could not help but hear the deafening noise of their engines. So if Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, why did one witness, Steve Riskus, who was sitting in his car outside the Pentagon just before it happened, fail to hear the thunderous noise as a 60 ton Boeing 757 flew past his car, literally past his windscreen, just inches above the grass? Riskus was not deaf, yet he did not hear that alleged aircraft.
So where are the hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses in the immediate vicinity who would have seen the huge Boeing 757 airliner hit the Pentagon if this occurred? Washington DC is not an uninhabited desert - it is a densely populated city and the seat of government of the most powerful nation on the planet. And why were the security tapes from the Sheridan Hotel, a petrol station and other buildings nearby confiscated by the FBI before anyone could examine them - tapes that would show an aircraft or missile hitting the Pentagon and identifying what it was?
The Boeing 757 airliner of flight 77 had two huge gas turbine engines, each with a diameter of 2.7 metres (9 feet) that contained components made with special high-temperature alloys. The official explanation for the lack of wreckage stated that the heat from the burning jet fuel vaporised the entire plane. This is scientifically impossible. The engine components had a melting point far in excess of burning jet fuel, so the wreckage of the engines should have easily been found, but there was not a trace of them in the rubble of the Pentagon.
Examining all the facts and evidence at the Pentagon and taking into account all the blatant anomalies, there is only one plausible explanation and that is, the alleged attack on the Pentagon was not committed by a Boeing 757 airliner, but was a carefully staged incident that could have only been arranged by the US administration or one of its black operations organisations.
There was one interesting piece of information that emerged from the US Bureau of Traffic Statistics that showed that two of the aircraft allegedly involved in the 9/11 attack had no wheels-off or departure times. In other words, those two aircraft legally did not take off from Boston Airport or Dulles Airport. All airports, including Dulles, are monitored by video, however there has never been one millimetre of footage produced of passengers checking into the boarding gates. The answer is very simple - that footage does not exist, because those passengers did not board an aircraft that did not depart.
Flight 77 was supposedly hijacked by Muslims shouting Hollywood-style Islamic extremist slogans. However, the flight manifest revealed that there were no Arabs or passengers with Muslim-sounding names on Flight 77. The flight crew were all well-known to the airline and not suspects. The passenger manifest revealed the following names (with ages if available):
Paul Ambrose 32, Yeneneh Betru 35, MJ Booth, Bernard Brown 11, Suzanne Calley 42, William Caswell, Sarah Clark 65 Asia Cottom 11, James Debeuneure 58, Rodney Dickens 11, Eddie Dillard, Charles Droz, Barbara Edwards 58, Charles Falkenberg 45, Zoe Falkenberg, 8, Dana Falkenberg 3, Joe Ferguson, Wilson Flagg of Millwood, Dee Flagg, Richard Gabriel, Ian Gray 55, Stanley Hall 68, Bryan Jack 48, Steven Jacoby 43, Ann Judge 49, Chandler Keller 29, Yvonne Kennedy , Norma Khan 45, Karen Kincaid 40, Norma Langsteuerle, Dong Lee, Dora Menchaca 45, Christopher Newton 38, Barbara Olson 45, Ruben Ornedo 39, Robert Penniger 63, Lisa Raines 42, Todd Reuben 40, John Sammartino, Diane Simmons, George Simmons, Mari-Rae Sopper, Bob Speisman 47, Hilda Taylor, Leonard Taylor, Leslie Whittington 45, John Yamnicky 71, Vicki Yancey, Shuyin Yang, Yuguag Zheng.
So where are the Muslim terrorists? The truth is that there were none. But since then, efforts have been made to indicate Muslim-sounding names on Flight 77, even though they weren't on the manifest. There seems to be credible evidence that some of the passengers on Flight 77 have surfaced under different identities after undergoing plastic surgery.
What is really strange is the collection of alleged passengers on Flight 77. Among them were a senior scientist with the US Navy, retired Army, a third-generation physicist whose work at the Navy was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. They don't even know exactly why he was headed to Los Angeles on the doomed American Airlines Flight 77.
Then there was a Boeing engineer in Integrated Defence Systems; he served in the US Air Force for four years and for the National Security Agency for 14 years. There was a director of program management at Raytheon, US Army (retired) who helped develop and build anti-radar technology for electronic warfare. Raytheon's website notes that they are leaders in every phase of the Precision Strike kill chain; are the world's leading organisation at Missile Defence; provides state-of-the-art technology to detect, protect and respond to terrorism and provide Homeland Defence and that their technology forms the eyes, ears and brains of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance systems, from the Predator to the Global Hawk.
There was a retired naval aviator who worked for Veridian Corporation, a defence contractor who was working with military aircraft and weapons systems, a Navy test pilot who worked on the development of the F18. "He had done a number of black programs, which means top-secret," said his son. "We were given no details." There was an electrical engineer with defence contractor BAE Systems, the largest technical support supplier to the US Navy. BAE Systems is an industry leader in flight control systems, which are present on nearly every US military aircraft. BAE electronic warfare systems such as their jamming system are vital to the US Navy operations.
There were two Boeing propulsion engineers: a lead Propulsion Engineer and a Project Manager with Boeing Satellite Systems and a lead engineer for Boeing Satellite Systems, a software architect with Lockheed Martin Corporation, US Army (retired). There was a manager in the systems and software architecture department, a Vice President for software development, EMSolutions and retired Lieutenant Commander, Navy. He spent 20 years in the US Navy, where he developed high capacity signal processors, multi-processor application software and innovative signal processing algorithms. EMSolutions maintains a facility security clearance and has contracts with Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation (BMDO) and BAE Systems.
There was a technical group manager at Xon Tech, a defence-related research and development firm. He previously worked as an engineer at the Naval Research Laboratory. There was also a technical manager of Xon Tech, a retired Navy Rear Admiral, former Navy pilot and retired American Airlines pilot. There was a senior executive at the Defence Department, a budget analyst/director of the programming and fiscal economics division who worked at the Pentagon and a former Navy electronics technician who worked as a Department of Defence contractor with Vrendenburg Corporation in Washington.
There was a managing partner and co-founder of Stratin Consulting and retired Marine Corps Lieutenant and Vietnam War veteran, a lawyer who had worked with the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. And there was Barbara Olson, attorney, CNN commentator and wife of the United States Solicitor General.
The odds against this being a random group of 53 American Airlines passengers are simply astronomical and literally beyond belief. There were more top secret security clearances on this one passenger aircraft than in most large cities in the USA. And why were all these boffins, security geniuses and military types on the one aircraft leaving from Boston to go to Los Angeles? Could it have been a complete coincidence? Statistically it would be impossible. And out of all these passengers, who were the terrorist hijackers with the Muslim-sounding names, who did not appear on the passenger manifest? The whole Flight 77 scenario stinks to high heaven and is obviously fabricated.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) was convened to investigate this attack. However, a lot of credible testimony from experts and eyewitnesses was either discounted or ignored completely. This seemed to indicate that the Americans had something to hide, especially when there was absolutely no credible reason why 7WTC, a massive squat 47 story office block, collapsed a whole seven hours after the Twin Towers were destroyed without being struck by anything more than some minor rubble that hardly even broke any windows.
Soon after the day of the attacks, major media sources published that the towers had collapsed due to melted steel. Knowledge that the temperature of burning jet fuel would not melt the steel support structure of the WTC contributed to the belief among skeptics that the towers would not have collapsed without external interference, something other than the impact of the aircraft and the burning fuel.
The 9/11 Commission did not claim that the steel was melted, but rather that the weakened steel, together with the damage caused by the impact of the aircraft, caused the collapses. At 1,000°C, steel weakens to roughly 10% of its room temperature strength. It was reported that a simulation model based on the assumption that combustible vapours burned immediately upon mixing with the incoming oxygen showed that at any given location, the duration of gas temperatures near 1,000°C was about 15 to 20 minutes. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were 500°C or below.
It was most interesting that Colonel George Nelson, MBA, US Air Force (ret) and former US Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority, graduate of the US Air Force War College with a 34-year Air Force career stated, "The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view."
The problem with the 9/11 Commission's claims was that there was no aircraft impact on 7WTC. There was no jet fuel fire. Virtually nothing except some minor rubble hit 7WTC, certainly nothing that would make a 47 storey office block implode on itself in a controlled demolition. So why did the 9/11 Commission completely ignore this? There can only be one explanation and that is - the Americans themselves caused the 9/11 atrocity and it came unstuck when that third aircraft did not arrive to hit 7WTC.
But it was very convenient for some that 7WTC was destroyed, because this building contained offices for the NSA, the CIA, the Port Authority and more importantly the SEC, containing all the files relating to the ongoing criminal investigation into the Enron fraud amongst other cases. A lot of deadly and embarrassing evidence against a lot of very important people was destroyed in 7WTC, to the point where this could even be the real and valid reason why this building was deliberately demolished.
Considering the anomalies in the 9/11 atrocity, one has to wonder about subsequent events, such as the American demands on the Afghan government to hand over Bin Laden. Did the Americans know that the Afghans couldn't get their hands on Bin Laden by that time and this made a great pretext for attacking and invading Afghanistan?
One also has to wonder why Bin Laden was allowed to escape capture at Tora Bora in December 2001. If the Americans had captured Bin Laden then, they would not have had any reason to remain in Afghanistan, but more importantly, the Americans would not have been able to make a plausible case for an invasion of Iraq by alleging that Iraq was infested with Al-Qaeda. It is well-known that when Bin Laden approached Saddam Hussein for support, he was completely rebuffed and there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq at the time.
Of course the world knows that the Americans concocted false pretexts against Iraq with their very blatant lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the presence of Al-Qaeda, knowing that there were no WMD or Al-Qaeda in Iraq at the time. The Americans were looking at every possible way to give them a reason to attack and invade Iraq to seize control of its oil and this was proven conclusively by the admission of US Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz and others to that effect.
Let's say that just after the 9/11 attack in 2001, the Afghans managed to get their hands on Bin Laden and Mullah Omar in 2001 and handed them over to the Americans. The Americans would certainly have executed them. So then what? Would the execution of Bin Laden and Mullah Omar have stopped Islamic terrorist attacks against the USA? The eradication of two men would not have made the slightest difference - other jihadists would have immediately stepped into their shoes and nothing would have changed. In fact there would probably have been an increase in Islamic terrorism against the USA because of this.
So looking at this whole situation logically and taking account of all the known facts, eyewitness accounts and the very convincing video clips, one can only really come to one stark conclusion, that the Americans planned the 9/11 incident as a false flag operation in order to create such outrage in the USA that nobody would question the Bush administration's move of declaring that open-ended "War On Terror" that would allow them to use any pretext against any nation to attack them.
That bogus "War On Terror" enabled the Americans to foment pretexts to go to war with Afghanistan and then with Iraq, despite the fact that the alleged terrorists that the Americans claimed committed the 9/11 attack were not Afghans, but Saudis and Yemenis, the plot was concocted in Hamburg Germany, the plotters were trained to fly in the USA and the Afghan government had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.
After all, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, a real attack, pushed the Americans into World War Two, whereas prior to this, the USA was reluctant to enter this conflict for two years. So why not stage a terrorist attack so outrageous and so violent, that the American public would get behind the US administration and give GW Bush and his cronies the green light to go to war with anybody? Of course this was proven by the incredible popularity rating after 9/11of an otherwise lackadaisical and inept President Bush.
A US-fomented war would also generate trillions of dollars of business for US arms manufacturers and the Americans would not have cared about going into debt, simply because the Americans would just keep printing those dollars, knowing that deliberate manipulation of the currency market would result in inflation that would erode the USA's debt anyway.
US writer and blogger John Kaminski has a very good understanding of the evidence that shows clearly that the 9/11 atrocity was carried out by agents of the US government.
Kaminski has written an excellent piece called 9/11 Was A Hoax - The American Government Killed Its Own People that sets out a lot of hard evidence that shows why the official US government version of 9/11 is a load of utter rubbish and a complete cover-up. It can be downloaded from the Downloads page.
There is no way that any person watching these video clips of the demolition of 7WTC could conclude that this building was destroyed by debris from the Twin Towers or small internal fires. From the video clips, even the windows of 7WTC seem to be intact. The same goes for the Pentagon, where it is more than obvious that it was not struck by a Boeing 757 airliner.
There are literally hundreds of video clips of this incident, virtually all of them proving that 7WTC was not destroyed by terrorists, debris falling, fire or anything else except explosives or thermite in a controlled implosive demolition.
Also, many video clips clearly show that there was the same sort of explosives or thermite in the Twin Towers to ensure that they were duly destroyed when the aircraft hit.
Apart from all those other video clips, there many lengthy clips that completely expose the truth that 9/11 was an inside job to create the pretext for the USA to gain control of parts of the Middle East and Caucasus regions for economic and strategic purposes.
These documentaries can be found on the Internet and one can only only come to the conclusion that the 9/11 incident was probably the biggest deliberate con-job in the history of the human race and that it was perpetrated by the government of the USA, the only entity that had the access and that could have pulled this scam off.
There are also many video clips that reveal that the 9/11 conspiracy was committed by the US government and important witnesses have been murdered or died mysteriously under very suspicious circumstances.
The more one looks at the video clips, the more one can be drawn to the inevitable conclusion that the 9/11 atrocity was planned and executed by the Americans.
A number of very important and credible eyewitnesses that contradicted the official US government explanation of 9/11 have died under very suspicious circumstances.
These deaths of people who could have shed a lot of light on the real 9/11 atrocity and the real perpetrators are far more than just coincidental. Only one entity could have really killed all of these people in this way and had the motive to do so to cover up its crimes - the US government.
The real plan seemed to be for the Americans to use their false flag 9/11 scam to create the pretext to invade Afghanistan, topple the Taliban so that US oil company Unocal and others could construct an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and reap many billions of dollars. Then this invasion could be used as a stepping stone for the invasion and occupation of Iraq to seize control of its oil and just steal it. This is clearly proven by the public statement - actually the confession - of US Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz in the GW Bush administration.
At an Asian security summit in Singapore in June 2003, only three months after the USA attacked and invaded Iraq, Wolfowitz was asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) had been found.
Wolfowitz said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil".
The USA "HAD NO CHOICE" in Iraq? Of course the Americans had a choice. They could have simply refrained from concocting false pretexts and waging a completely illegal war on Iraq and causing the needless deaths of well over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.
British journalist George Wright's report in The Guardian newspaper on 04 June 2003 entitled Wolfowitz - "Iraq War Was About Oil" is the ultimate admission of American criminality, made by a very senior member of the Bush regime's administration. It is in fact the confession of one of the greatest war crimes in recent history, publicly made by one of the chief perpetrators. This article is available on the Downloads page.
Everybody now knows that Iraq had no WMD and no Al-Qaeda presence and most people around the world realised it back in 2001. The Americans just blatantly fabricated the pretexts for their illegal attack and invasion. Under normal conditions, those pretexts would not have been enough to convince the gullible American public for them to support the attack and invasion of Iraq.
But if the USA was already embroiled in its bogus "War On Terror" and the lies about threat of Iraqi WMD falling into the hands of terrorists could be pushed, then those and fabrications could be sold to the American public and the rest of the world as unquestionable facts. Then Iraq could be attacked and invaded as part of that "War On Terror." And that is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, the invasion of Afghanistan itself did not go to plan. The Americans thought that they would be welcomed with open arms by the Afghans, whose government really had nothing to do with 9/11 and they found a massive resistance to their attack and occupation. The Americans planned to use Afghanistan as a springboard for the invasion of Iraq and possibly Iran after that, but it didn't work.
The demonisation of Iraq and Saddam Hussein had been planned well before 9/11 and hard evidence has emerged that US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair had plotted to invade Iraq literally one month after Bush became president in 2000.
The plan sounded good, but at the time, the Americans did not realise that they would be bogged down in a Vietnam-style quagmire for a decade. So they invaded Afghanistan because with the 9/11 scam, they now had fabricated what appeared to be a legitimate reason to go to war, even though there were no Afghans involved in 9/11. Afghanistan was invaded and the barrage of accusations against Iraq commenced, including the bogus WMD and even the outright lie that Al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein.
This nonsense might have fooled the gullible American public, however most informed people knew that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein hated Bin Laden and his organisation with a passion and would have probably killed Bin Laden on sight. Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party thugs ran Iraq with an iron fist and it was inconceivable that Al-Qaeda could establish any credible presence there at that time.
So the Americans, along with the compliant British, went to war with Iraq in 2003 as part of the grand plan to seize Iraqi oil, but as in Afghanistan and previously in Vietnam, the Americans found that they were not greeted as liberators, but as hated invaders. The Iraqi resistance was strong enough to bog the Americans down in years of asymmetric conflict to the point where the USA had lost that many troops that in 2010, the Americans decided to withdraw their forces - in other words, cut and run.
There are plenty of conspiracy theories about 9/11, but often even the most outlandish theories often have a small grain of truth hiding in them. It does not matter what people might believe about this incident, but often the best-laid plans go astray and just one very suspicious occurrence can eventually expose the most carefully arranged plot.
One can speculate about many things to do with 9/11 and come up with all sorts of reasons, but there are some things that simply cannot be explained in rational terms, other than a deliberate false flag operation. The destruction of 7WTC, a massive squat 47 storey building that was not struck by anything more than some minor debris and collapsed in what appeared to most experts to be a controlled demolition a good seven hours after the Twin Towers were destroyed was not explained by the official investigation. Neither was the Pentagon incident with the non-existent Boeing 757.
The only people in a position to accomplish the mining the Twin Towers and 7WTC with explosives in this way were the Americans themselves. Not even the very inventive and resourceful Israelis could have got away with planting that much explosive in three massive skyscrapers in a building complex that already had excellent security, due to a previous attempt to destroy it in 1993 by Muslim terrorist Ramzi Yousef and others.
The same goes for the Pentagon attack, where it was more than apparent that this building was hit by either a missile, a small jet aircraft or an unmanned drone, as some eyewitnesses have claimed. Again, only the American government would have been in a position to accomplish this and then try and cover it up.
The alleged cellphone calls by Barbara Olson and Renee May that could not have been made from the hijacked aircraft add to the mountain of evidence that proves that the 9/11 atrocity was a carefully staged false flag operation. But like all complex schemes, this one also had a lot of loose ends and the perpetrators did not consider that so many people had cameras on their phones and so much information was available on the Internet that would provide enough hard evidence to expose the plot.
One of the other reasons for the USA's prolonged occupation of Afghanistan was confirmed by none other than US four-star General David Petraeus, now the director of the CIA. He was commander of US forces in Afghanistan.
On 15 August 2010, Petraeus appeared on US TV show Meet The Press, where he stated the following:
Petraeus literally pulled the rug out from under George W Bush with this interview. It was very apparent that the USA really wanted to get its hands on the massive lithium deposits in Afghanistan. So ever since the Americans discovered back in 2007 that Afghanistan had over one trillion dollars worth of valuable strategic minerals, they have been trying to figure out a way of annexing them too.
However, even this did not work out for the Americans, as the Chinese signed contracts with Afghanistan and became the first foreign nation to exploit that country's mineral wealth, after the Americans had expended an estimated $3.7 trillion dollars on their lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus all the lives of their forces that were lost.
There have been many conspiracy theories over the decades. From the Moon landing, the Roswell UFO Incident, the John F Kennedy Assassination, Jewish world domination, the Philadelpia Experiment and many more, these are conspiracy theories, but without enough evidence to substantiate them and some of them are just outright stupid. So when does a conspiracy theory become a true conspiracy?
Very simply, a conspiracy theory becomes an outright conspiracy when enough hard evidence turns that theory into reality. There have been many conspiracy theories that have actually become true. The Dreyfus Affair, Project MK-ULTRA, Operation Midnight Climax, Operation Ajax, Operation Mongoose, Operation Northwoods and even the Watergate Scandal were all conspiracy theories at the beginning that turned out to be real conspiracies, because hard evidence revealed them to be real plots.
The evidence presented here does exactly that. It proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the 9/11 atrocity was no theory - it was a plot concocted by none other than the only entity that could have committed it - the regime of President George W Bush. Sure, Bush was a dummy, just a puppet who was manipulated.
But one can easily come to the conclusion that the real movers and shakers behind the 9/11 plot were Vice President Richard Cheney, along with a few other very smart people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the members of that damning "Project For The New American Century, a think-tank proposing American world domination by any means possible. And as Sherlock Holmes stated, when all other possibilities are eliminated, what remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth. And that is exactly what I have done.
Don't take anybody's word for this - think about all of this and go watch those Youtube clips. The facts are inescapable and the only possible explanation for the 9/11 atrocity is that the Americans did it, deliberately committing the greatest act of mass murder in the history of the USA to create a false pretext to attack and invade Afghanistan so that American oil interests could build pipelines from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and to also use Afghanistan as a staging post to invade and occupy Iraq to annex its oil.
Asking the right questions will easily show that the answers point the finger right at the US government and the administration of former President GW Bush, former Vice-President Richard Cheney and the inner White House circle at the time. Here are some questions and Hotheads defies any person to provide an answer that does not implicate the USA in this heinous crime.
Since my exposé of the World Trade Centre atrocity and the subsequent Afghanistan and Iraq wars was published, I have been criticised as a crazy conspiracy theorist and a person who really requires that mythical tinfoil hat. However, none of those critics have ever managed to refute one single thing that I have claimed. But now a very senior British diplomat has verified ON THE RECORD literally everything that I have said about these events.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan finally spilled the beans about the reason for the World Trade Centre atrocity and why Afghanistan and then Iraq were attacked, invaded and occupied by US and British forces.
The 9/11 atrocity and subsequent Afghanistan and Iraq wars had nothing to do with Bin Laden, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or anything like them. It was about deposing the then recognised government of Afghanistan to try to get that pipeline laid between Uzbekistan and the Pakistan coast. It was about fabricating false pretexts to invade Iraq to grab its oil and to stop Saddam Hussein selling it to the Europeans for Euro and bypassing the Great US Petrodollar Scam.
Apart from Murray's revelations about the illegal kidnapping and "rendition" of people taken to be tortured and killed, he made the following statements - and don't forget that this is, as they say, "straight from the horse's mouth."
What more can I say? Craig Murray was right on the inside of all those 9/11 events and subsequent illegal wars and he has backed up to the hilt what I have claimed for all those years. Now my critics can go and crawl back under their respective rocks, but I doubt that I will ever get apologies from them. But most importantly, I feel a sense of relief that my research into the 9/11 atrocity and subsequent events were right on the money and Murray's revelations ON THE RECORD have completely vindicated everything that I have said.
There are literally another million questions that need to be asked - questions that would most probably further nail home the responsibility for this crime onto the USA and certainly not Bin Laden. When I find more corroborating evidence, it will be published here.