This is where I write about Political Theory.
Please enjoy my 2009 essay on September 11th.
The most fundamental goal of academia is the pursuit of wisdom, knowledge and above all else, truth. History is replete with situations where the status quo is turned on its head and the paradigm of the world changes forever. The purpose of this research paper is to demonstrate the ongoing pursuit towards what has become known as “9/11 Truth”. Thousands of scholars, doctors, lawyers, firefighters, pilots, students, and others are demanding a closer look at what many people are simply ignoring as a possibility. In my paper, I will outline the official explanation of the atrocity that took place on September 11, 2001 and then examine the alternative hypothesis that many around the world favor. Based on the findings of both government officials and independent scholars, I will demonstrate the likelihood of a controlled demolition scenario. The official government report gives no answers, but only raises more questions about that day. It is essential to academic freedom that the people of the world begin to look at these findings with a fully open mind and demand that their questions be answered.
One of the most disturbing aspects of September 11 is that many people are completely uneducated in regard to the events that took place that day. The vast majority of the population is completely willing to accept the story they are told as truth. For example, a very low number of individuals are even aware of the collapse of World Trade Center 7; many people are only aware of the collapse of the Twin Towers, which were hit by commercial airliners. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. It was also the farthest building away in relation to the two other towers that collapsed. Why did the tower farthest away catch fire and collapse while towers closer to the collapsed towers remain standing? Although this building burned for several hours, there is no logical reason to suggest it could collapse from fire alone. Even an organization like FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) has little to say in regard to the fires that supposedly caused the collapse of WTC 7. In the World Trade Center Building Performance Guide, FEMA states: “Currently, there is limited information about the ignition and development of fires at WTC 7, as well as about the specific fuels that may have been involved during the course of the fire. It is likely that fires started as a result of debris from the collapse of WTC 1. ”
If one accepts the FEMA report as a likely explanation, then one should do so with the knowledge that that FEMA explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is “a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact. ” The entire document is based on events that potentially could have taken place. Underneath FEMA’s long-winded document, there is still not an actual explanation of how WTC 7 could have possibly collapsed.
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
If we are to accept the official report, we should be aware of the fact that WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only high-rise buildings in the history of architecture to collapse due to fire. Not only do these massive structures collapse, they do so in a perfectly symmetrical fashion at free fall speed. These characteristics are found only in cases of controlled demolition. The fact that these towers came down in the manner that they did should be a major red flag for any questioning individual. Although they give the impression that they seek the truth, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technologies) give us no actual explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings 1,2, and 7.
First, let’s examine the symmetrical collapse of Building 7. Dr. David Ray Griffin is one of the most important names in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He is a world class theologian and specializes in Process Theology, which is the study of breaking apart and understanding arguments. He has been pursuing the truth of September 11 at the detriment of his own career and explains that this building did not burn anywhere near long enough to produce a collapse: “Another problem with the claim about a late-blooming fire would be that, if the fire did not really get going until about 3:30 [according to the official story], they would have only had two hours to cause damage…Given the fact that raging fires that have gone on for over sixteen hours in steel-frame high-rises have not produced even partial collapse, the idea that a two hour fire could somehow produce a total collapse is completely implausible”. Indeed, FEMA’s hypothesis that a building that was burning on only one side can produce a completely symmetrical free-fall collapse defies all logic. Even when we look to computer visualization technology to aid us in our understanding of that day, we only come up with more questions. Jim Hoffman, a software engineer who works in applying the scientific visualization of mathematics explains:
The damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower’s south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically—toward the south. But World Trade Center 7 fell straight down, into its footprint.
Considering the hard science-based arguments here, it is not surprising that government sponsored explanations are unable to explain them away. In 2007, the 9/11 Truth Community wrote a letter to the NIST asking them to correct their original explanation for Building 7. NIST responded saying: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction…we are unable to provide for a full explanation of the total collapse”. Here again is another case where the official explanation cannot actually prove what they are claiming to be the truth.
Let us now look to the Twin Towers and the evidence for controlled demolition. We should first attempt to understand the official explanation for the collapse of these massive structures. Both FEMA and NIST explain that the towers were designed to withstand the impact from a commercial airliner. Even John Skilling, one of the two structural engineers that were responsible for the designing of the Trade Center, has stated that the towers were built to withstand such an impact. In 1993, he said that if one of these buildings were to suffer an aircraft impact: “there would be a horrendous fire” and “a lot of people would be killed,” but “the building structure would still be there”. If this were not enough we can also look to Frank DeMartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center who said: “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at that time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners”.
Based on the statements from these experts, we can only logically conclude that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of jetliners. The argument has been postulated that the towers were unable to withstand the impact of a 767 which is larger in size. However, Dr. David Ray Griffin provides us with two different analyses that suggest that due to the lighter weight and faster speed that, “a Boeing 707 would do more damage that a Boeing 767”. This being the case, “if the Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 767”. Considering the towers were designed to withstand such devastating impacts, it is not surprising that we see organizations like FEMA or NIST creating such elaborate explanations for the collapse of these buildings.
One of the greatest fallacies perpetuated by advocates of the official story is that the jet fuel burned so hot that it melted the steel columns, causing the building structure to collapse. This idea has been widely accepted. In fact, some of the scientific community has even accepted this preposterous idea. Chris Wise, a structural engineer, was quoted as saying “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning…The columns would have melted.” Statements like these are easily refuted when one learns that the fires in the buildings could not have possibly been hot enough to melt steel. Even NIST has had to come clean and admit: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit”. This being the case, the official story of NIST has become that the steel was weakened to the point where it retained only about 10 percent of its structural integrity and collapsed in on itself. Not surprisingly, this answer still fails to provide an explanation for a total symmetrical, free fall collapse.
Another elaborate piece of propaganda that has found its way onto national television (and thereby the minds of many supporters of the official theory), is that the weakened floors were unable to support the weight above and began to progressively fail, creating a pancaking effect. Again NIST tells us this is not the case: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers…Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon”. While the towers did not collapse in a pancake-style collapse, they did still collapse symmetrically, at free fall speed. And no official explanation to this date has presented an argument that can logically explain the free fall collapse of all three of these buildings. The biggest weakness in the official story is that even if one believes that the fireproofing was dislodged and the fire burned hot enough to weaken the steel columns, only six floors would have been affected, leaving the remaining 104 floors perfectly intact and unharmed. The laws of physics could not have allowed the bottom halves of these buildings to just give way and collapse at free fall speed.
One of the main challengers of the official story is physicist and archeometrist Steven Jones, who explains why the official story cannot be true. The official theory violates the Law of the Conservation of Momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics. Jones explains: “as upper-falling floors strike lower floors, including intact steel support columns, the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass…How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?”. He also states bluntly that: “In endorsing the pancake theory, therefore Kean and Hamilton’s 9/11 Commission endorsed a theory that was irrational in the sense of contrary to a well-established law of physics.”
Since we have concluded that the official explanations for the collapse of these buildings is lacking, we now are forced to ask the question: what could make these towers collapse in such a fashion? At this point, the most shared theory amongst the scientific community is that the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers was the result of a well-planned, controlled demolition. This theory is not based merely on the premise that the buildings collapsed in the exact same fashion as a controlled demolition, but also offers much more evidence to suggest controlled demolition, which I will now explore.
The first argument involves the molten pools of steel observed at Ground Zero. Many photos and eyewitnesses have documented this molten steel as still burning several months after the attacks. One of these individuals is Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer for the World Trade Center, who said: “21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running”. These pools were burning so hot that they could not be put out despite the following factors: several inches of dust and debris covering the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings, millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris piles, several rainfall events occurred at Ground Zero, some heavy; and a chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles. We have established the fact that the jet fuel fires were not burning anywhere near hot enough to melt steel. How then, do we account for the presence of these pools of liquid metal fires that cannot be extinguished even with the aid of chemical suppressants? Many researchers will confirm that, “such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust or chemical suppressants”. One such chemical energetic material is known as thermite, which Steven Jones explains: “Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, which we call ‘thermate,’ will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble”. What can be concluded then, when FEMA can give us no explanation regarding the oxidation and sulfidation of samples taken from World Trade Center 7? FEMA (based on work by a Worchester Polytechnic Institute Investigative team) said: “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been indentified…A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed”.
Truly, a detailed study of this phenomenon is needed. While FEMA and other government-sponsored explanations can provide us with no such study, the 9/11 Truth Movement has responded with a theory that supports the facts and does not contradict the laws of physics. The support of the alternative theory only continues to grow; we can see evidence of this as more and more scholarly journal articles begin to surface. Very recently an article was published, detailing the discovery of thermitic material in the dust recovered from the World Trade Center wreckage. The twenty-five page document was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, a highly esteemed and peer-reviewed article.
The conclusion of this article reads: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material”. While this is indeed a major scientific discovery, one that ought to be brought to public attention, it is most unlikely that these findings will ever be seen on the evening news. The political implications of such a discovery are vast. Regardless, such a claim should be brought onto the main stage where it can be properly discussed and further examined without partisanship or prejudice. The fact that discoveries of this nature are kept in the shadows where the fewest number of people will learn of them should be considered a crime against science. One has to wonder though, as more and more evidence continues to pile up in favor of the alternative theory, what sort of inconclusive explanation will be fed to the public through the mainstream media?
A common response to any crime is that the perpetrator will wish to eliminate any sort of evidence that suggests the identity of the guilty party. As this is the case, we should take into account other evidence that is being eliminated. One such example is the quick removal of wreckage from Ground Zero. After any sort of crime, the first step is to look for clues as to how the crime was committed. Worryingly, the New York Daily News reports:
Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city’s decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city’s hasty move has outraged many victims’ families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.
It can only be said that this last statement is completely ridiculous. Investigators most definitely had the right to preserve the wreckage and it is astonishing that so much steel was allowed to be disposed of without proper a proper analysis being conducted. According to FEMA, “of the estimated 1.5 million tons of WTC concrete, steel, and other debris, more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling…Four salvage yards were contracted to process WTC steel:
• Hugo Nue Schnitzer at Fresh Kills (FK) Landfill, Staten Island, NJ
• Hugo Nue Schnitzer’s Claremont (CM) Terminal in Jersey City, NJ
• Metal Management in Newark (NW), NJ
• Blanford and Co. in Keasbey (KB), NJ
FEMA reports that engineers traveled to these sites to gather samples for later studies but since we have to question the legitimacy of the FEMA document from the beginning, how can we be certain that the follow-up methods described by FEMA did in fact take place?
Many individuals have questioned the actions of the Federal Aviation Administration on September 11. Besides the problem that “FAA personnel, from top to bottom, are portrayed as repeatedly failing to follow standard procedures on 9/11, even though these men and women are highly competent individuals who, prior to that day, had carried out these procedures regularly” , we also come across the problem of an FAA official destroying a tape recording from that day. Matthew Wald, of the New York Times reports: “At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording that same day describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said in a report today”. According to the inspector general, the tape’s destruction was attributed to “poor judgment”, but one has to wonder what sort of testimony was recorded on the tape, before the decision to destroy it was made. What kind of poor judgment would allow a supervisor of the Federal Aviation Administration to destroy data of any kind in the event of a national emergency?
Many people will argue that there is no way explosives could have been brought into highly secure buildings like the World Trade Center without being discovered by security. This claim is no longer a credible one, due to the fact that scientists have discovered explosive material that could not otherwise be there, but it’s highly interesting to discover that “Marvin Bush (the president’s brother) and Wirt Walker III (Marvin and George’s cousin) were principals in a company that provided security for the World Trade Center (with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002)”. When we further investigate how far the reach of the Bush family extends, it comes as no surprise that these men were in charge of security during the attacks of September 11.
I am not going to delve too deep into the situation of the Pentagon. However, it should be said that the fact that the FBI still refuses to release confiscated video tapes from that day can only be considered as concealing damaging evidence. Griffin writes: “The fact that both the FBI and the Pentagon refused to release these and other videos, even after FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests were made, led critics of the official conspiracy theory to charge that the videos must show that whatever hit the Pentagon was not an American Airlines Boeing 757”. While there has been much debate in regards to what hit the Pentagon, it cannot be denied that the refusal to release said videos only suggests complicity. Any proper student of September 11 is also aware of the many discrepancies associated with the Pentagon incident, but the objective of this essay is to give an overview of the situation.
Although we have already established the lack of credibility of Kean and Hamilton’s 9/11 Commission Report, we cannot forget to mention the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta. Mineta’s testimony was conveniently omitted from the final report because it did not fit with the government-sponsored explanation. According to Mineta’s testimony, Vice President Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC (Presidential Emergency Operations Center) sometime before 9:20. This contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report that suggests Dick Cheney did not arrive until almost 10:00. Besides this point, Mineta’s testimony reveals the complicity of the Vice President. During his testimony, Mineta says:
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?
The idea that Dick Cheney would have allowed this may be a surprising fact to some, but what is more surprising is that the 9/11 Commission Report would completely omit this very important testimony. This account completely dashes the credibility and reliability of Kean and Hamilton’s report.
In any sort of crime we must ask, who stands to benefit? Many people are not aware that the World Trade Center complex came under private ownership for the first time in mid-2001. Silverstein Properties became the first private lease holder in the history of the complex. The New York Times reports:
The federal jury that decided that Larry A. Silverstein, the commercial leaseholder on the site, was entitled to collect up to $2.2 billion from nine insurers. This is twice as much – $1.1 billion more – than the amount of coverage he carried for a single occurrence from the nine insurers. Mr. Silverstein’s lawyers argued that the two airplane attacks on the twin towers on 9/11 were separate occurrences and, for the first time in his legal battle with his insurers, a jury agreed.
Aside from Silverstein profiting, we see evidence of prior knowledge in the unusually large number of transactions that took place before the attacks. CNN writer Rick Perera writes: “An unexplained surge in transactions was recorded prior to the attacks, leading to speculation that someone might have profited from previous knowledge of the terrorist plot by moving sums of money”. There is even more reason to suspect prior knowledge when we learn about the multiple ‘put’ options and the unusual way the stock market was played prior to September 11. ‘Call’ options reflect the belief that a stock will increase in worth whereas ‘put’ options reflect the belief that a stock will decrease in worth. Investigative journalist Jim Marrs writes: “Between September 6 and 7, 2001, the Chicago Board of Options Exchange reported 4,744 put options on UAL but only 396 call options. On September 10, there were 4,516 put options placed on American Airlines compared to only 748 calls”. These numbers are more than unusual; they are almost certainly evidence of prior knowledge and insider trading. Many educated professionals have concluded that these numbers are evidence of some sort of insider trading; one of these men, Dylan Ratigan, a writer for the Bloomberg Business News, has said: “This could very well be insider trading at the worst, most horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life, or this would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind, if it was a coincidence”. After all of the evidence has been exposed and objectively reviewed, it cannot be logically concluded that these events were just another coincidence.
The idea that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition is, of course, incredibly controversial. The idea that our own government would stage such events is so horrendous, that it is unsurprising how many Americans refuse to even consider such a concept. If one examines history, it does not take long to find other circumstances where the U.S. has staged incidences, known as false-flag operations, in order to achieve some other end. Dr. David Ray Griffin describes two of the more widely known U.S. false-flag operations: “…the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff created various scenarios for such an incident in 1961, to be called “Operation Northwoods,” that would, in their own words, ‘provide justification for U.S. military intervention in Cuba’; and in 1964 the U.S. government fabricated tales about an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify an attack on North Vietnam”. These are just two of many events in history where the government has created an incident to achieve their goal. Are we supposed to believe that the U.S. government suddenly grew a conscience in the last forty years? Or is it more likely that they are doing everything they can to maintain their current superior position of power in the world?
The 9/11 Truth Community is growing for only one reason: the vast and growing amounts of evidence that proves controlled demolition. Richard Falk, a professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University, wrote:
Any close student of 9/11 is aware of the many serious discrepancies between the official version of what took place and the actual happenings…David Ray Griffin and others have analyzed and assessed these discrepancies in such an objective and compelling fashion that only willful ignorance can maintain that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book, and that the public should move on to address the problems of the day.
We cannot move on to the problems of the day—this is the problem of the day. I have examined a vast amount of empirical evidence. We have seen that the official stories have gone out of their way to defy the laws of physics. I have provided large amounts of data that shows these buildings could not have come down the way in which they did. Multiple scholars have repeatedly demonstrated that the official argument holds no weight. More and more studies continue to confirm that some sort of explosive, thermitic device was present in the buildings. We have also seen testimonies and facts that provide evidence for some sort of foreknowledge.
As the 9/11 Truth Movement continues to grow and further establish that the official story is impossible, we will see the media continue to suppress and even slander these ideas. This is known as yellow journalism and it is the largest opponent of the truth. The majority of the American people do not take the time to investigate or research for themselves and blindly believe what their television and their government tells them. Fortunately, there is so much evidence that this issue cannot remain in the shadows for much longer and will soon emerge onto the main stage where it rightfully belongs.
FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collections, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, New York, May 2002
Commission (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Authorized Edition, New York: W. W. Norton
NIST, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2008
David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About 9/11 and the Bush Administration. (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch, 2004)
K.R. Ryan, J.R. Gourley, S.E. Jones, Environmental anomalies at the World trade Center: evidence for energetic materials, (Environmentalist, 2009)
Dr. Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? Journal of 9/11 Studies, September 2006/Volume 3
David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch, 2004)
Jim Marrs, The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11, and the Loss of Liberty, (New York, NY: The Disinformation Company, 2006)
Lipton E, Revkin AC, Nation Challenged: the firefighters; with water and sweat, fighting the most stubborn fire. The New York Times, November 19, 2001
James Williams, WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News: The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, (Bentham Open Access, 2009) Article can also be found here:
Hoffman, Claims of Severe Damage to Building 7, http://wtc7.net/damageclaims.html