Deutsche Fassung
The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism

[Note: As a matter of historical interest here is the version of this WTC page seven months after it first went up on 2001-09-13 (latest version here), published on April 13th, 2002. No change has been made to the text except for the addition of this note. At this point in the development of this page the author had realized that the story about the "Arab hijackers" was a lie, and that the Valentine-Plissken hypothesis concerning the substitution of military planes for the commercial jetliners was probably the correct explanation. The primary motive for the 9/11 hoax, namely, the American attempt to gain control of the world's oil reserves, had been realized and stated, but this had not yet been given the prominence that it was to receive in later versions of this page.]


  1. Preface
  2. A Controlled Demolition
  3. The Official Story: The Twin Towers
  4. The Official Story: The Pentagon
  5. What Actually Happened
 
  1. The Perpetrators
  2. The "War on Terrorism"
  3. What is to be Done?
  4. The Corruption of the Republic
  5. Final Questions
Related Documents on this Website


1.  Preface

A previous version of this page (to October 11th, 2001) supported the thesis that the terrorist attacks of September 11th were carried out by Arab hijackers but that the operation was actually an inside job (that is, so-called Americans planned and directed it).  There were always problems with the "Arab hijackers" theory, but since only those ready to die for their cause would deliberately kill themselves by flying planes into the Twin Towers there seemed no alternative.  New evidence, however, has emerged, and it now seems that it was entirely an inside job, with no Arabs directly involved (except those who happened to be innocent passengers on the doomed planes).  Hard to believe, perhaps (especially because of the constant repetition in the mainstream media, in the weeks following the event, of the term "suicide attack").  Shocking, yes.  But if one looks at the evidence, and thinks about it, this is what emerges.

This page also previously asserted (until October 23rd, 2001) that the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the fires (alleged to have caused the steel structural supports to melt) but rather because explosives were placed in the towers and detonated so as to bring the towers down in a controlled demolition.  While there is convincing evidence (see below) that the towers did not collapse because of the fires, but rather were deliberately demolished, the manner in which this was accomplished (whether or not by explosives) has yet to be determined.

Until February 2002 the author of this page believed that part of the official story which asserted that the four "hijacked" Boeings all crashed as stated (two into the Twin Towers, one into the Pentagon and one in a field in Pennsylvania). New evidence suggests that in fact only one of these Boeings crashed — the one that crashed in Pennsylvania.  (What happened to the other three planes, and their passengers, will be revealed below.)  In the light of this new evidence this web page underwent a major revision on April 7th, 2002.

The implications of this analysis are disturbing, but to ignore them (or the evidence itself) would be an attempt at denial which would constitute a surrender to evil.  In this matter anyone with any degree of moral awareness will want to know the truth, however unpalatable.  Continued willful ignorance on the part of the American people may result in slavery for all people everywhere.


On September 11, 2001, the 28th anniversary of the CIA-directed military coup d'etat in Chile, terrorists (but not Arab terrorists) hijacked four planes and (according to the official story) crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers, causing fires within. Again according to the official story (pre-written and rushed into print in the mainstream media immediately after the events, together with the identity of the alleged culprit) the fires then caused the steel girders to melt and the towers to collapse.

But, as will be shown below, the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts and the fires.  Possibly (but not certainly) explosives were placed besides their structural supports in the upper levels of the towers (beneath the impact level), explosives which were detonated 45 to 90 minutes after the planes hit, bringing the towers down in controlled implosions, killing several thousand American citizens and others.

The Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a large airplane.  Had one of them collapsed, that would have been amazing.  That both of them collapsed, quickly and completely into fragments, ash and dust — with no remains of their central vertical steel columns left standing — solely as a result of the plane impacts and the resulting fires, is, upon examination, unbelievable.

Due to the astuteness of some Americans, who thought hard about the U.S. government's explanation of the events of September 11th, the official story quickly began to unravel.  The big lie has been revealed for what it is (but word of this has not yet reached most people).  And the reason for it.  If you don't already know, this page will inform you as to what's really going on.  As in the "War on Drugs", in the "War on Terrorism" just say 'Know'.


2.  A Controlled Demolition

Millions of people around the world watched the WTC events unfold live on CNN on September 11, 2001, in near-disbelief.  They saw huge clouds of thick black smoke billowing over Manhattan and saw the towers collapse ... in a curious way.  They did not fall over; they imploded, in the way that most people have seen when a building is destroyed in a controlled demolition: the building does not collapse in a chaotic way, hurling debris over a wide area; rather it collapses upon itself.  This was how the WTC towers collapsed: not because they were hit by the hijacked planes, but because someone, with expert knowledge of demolition of tall buildings, brought them down.

That the towers were demolished was noted immediately by some astute observers:

From: "David Rostcheck" <davidr@davidr.ne.mediaone.net>
To: USAttacked@topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 3:12 PM
Subject: WTC bombing

Ok, is it just me, or did anyone else recognize that it wasn't the airplane impacts that blew up the World Trade Center?  To me, this is the most frightening part of this morning.  ...

If you watch the time sequence, you'll see that it happens like this:

- A plane hits tower #1, blowing a hole in it high up.  The expected things then happen:

- The building stays up.  A reinforced concrete building is *extremely* strong.  Terrorists set off a large bomb *inside* that building without significant damage. ...  The WTC towers were specifically designed to survive a direct impact from a jumbo jet - which *both do*. ...

- The second plane hits the second tower, lower and moving faster.  It blows a bigger hole through it, showering debris on the street, but the building is clearly still standing and still looks quite solid.

- The second building begins burning, also from the impact point up.

- Perhaps a half hour later, the fire in the first building *goes out*.  It is still smouldering and letting off black smoke, but there is no flame.  ...

- The fire in the second building goes out.

- Then, later, the second building suddenly crumbles into dust, in a smooth wave running from the top of the building (above the burned part) down through all the stories at an equal speed.  The debris falls primarily inward.  The tower does not break off intact and collapse into other buildings. ... The crumbling comes from the top (above the  damage).  It moves at a uniform rate.  All of the structural members are destroyed in a smooth pattern, so there is no remaining skeleton.  The  damage is uniform, symmetric, and total.

In summary, it looks exactly like a demolition - because that's what it is.

- The first tower collapses in a similar demolition wave.

There's no doubt that the planes hit the building and did a lot of damage. But look at the footage - those buildings were *demolished*.  To demolish a building, you don't need all that much explosive but it needs to be placed in the correct places (in direct contact with the structural members) and ignited in a smooth, timed sequence. ...

— davidr    (Full text of this message is here.)

This message was posted to the internet on September 11th, within hours of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Right from the beginning, some people were not deceived.


3.  The Official Story: The Twin Towers

The official story is:

  1. This "Attack on America" was planned and directed by America's enemy, Usama bin Laden.
  2. On the morning of September 11th four Boeing passenger jets were hijacked within an hour by nineteen Arab terrorists armed with boxcutters.
  3. Pilots among these terrorists took control of the Boeings and changed course toward targets in New York City and Washington D.C.
  4. Two of the Boeings flew to the Twin Towers and crashed into them, causing raging fires which melted the steel structural supports, causing the buildings to collapse completely, killing thousands of innocent American civilians.
  5. A third Boeing flew to the Pentagon and crashed into it, while the fourth crashed from unknown causes in Pennsylvania.

A nation (and world) in shock largely accepted this story, since it did provide some explanation. Even those who considered this explanation hard to believe were inclined to believe it because there seemed no other explanation (and, after all, the President of the United States was telling the world that this is how it was).

But the official story does not withstand critical examination.  It is, in fact, full of holes.  It's not just full of holes, it's a deliberate lie, designed to fool the American people and the rest of the world.

According to the official story the four jetliners were hijacked by nineteen Arab terrorists. It is certainly possible to find Arabs who are willing to die for their cause (freedom of their people from ongoing American and Israeli aggression) — although finding nineteen of them for a single mission could be difficult — but where do you find such Arabs who also know how to fly Boeing 757s and Boeing 767s?  At least four highly trained pilots are needed.  (Alleged hijacker-pilots Mohammed Atta, Marwanal Al-Shehhi and Hani Hanjour had received pilot training but were considered by their flying instructors to be incompetent to fly even light single-engined planes.)

The official story expects us to believe that these alleged nineteen on-board hijackers (acting with military coordination and precision) overpowered the flight attendants (with nothing more than boxcutters and shouted commands), forced their way into the cabin (were all eight official pilots absorbed in contemplation of the clouds?), overpowered the pilots (apparently none of them, some ex-military, could offer any resistance to hijackers armed only with boxcutters), took command of the planes, having acquired the necessary flying skills from training courses in Florida and from flight manuals, flew them expertly to their targets (good navigators, those Arabs; and flying with the skill of a trained military pilot in the case of the jet which, allegedly, hit the Pentagon), met absolutely no opposition from the U.S. authorities (including the U.S. Air Force) responsible for safeguarding America's airspace (despite the fact that the planes as they approached New York City and Washington must have been visible on radar), hit those targets and killed themselves.  Sure.  And pigs can fly. — Anyone who would believe this story obviously has nothing between their ears.


Clearly the towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts alone, because both towers stood for 45 to 90 minutes after impact. The official explanation, parroted faithfully by the mainstream media, is that the towers collapsed because burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt.  Let us examine this hypothesis as to its credibility.

Firstly, much, or perhaps most, of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers.  Furthermore, it is likely that the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers would have burnt fairly quickly (jet fuel does not burn slowly like wood).  And finally there were sprinkler systems in place in the towers, and although these systems no doubt suffered some damage it is likely that they would have been at least partially operative and would have hindered the spread of the fire (by soaking combustible material) even if they had no effect on the burning jet fuel itself.

The Twin Towers were giving off a lot of black sooty smoke, but there was little fire visible.  But to melt steel you need the high temperature produced by, e.g., an oxy-acetylene torch.  Jet fuel burning in air (especially in an enclosed space within a building, where there is much smoke and little available oxygen) just won't do it.  And if the steel columns had melted, would this have produced the implosive collapse observed?  If the columns had melted like toffee they would have bent (not snapped), causing the upper parts of the towers to buckle and tip to one side (probably the side where the planes hit), producing a collapse in which concrete and steel girders would have rained down over a wide area.  This did not happen.  These considerations (and others, given below, concerning the probable maximum temperature of the fire) show that the claim that tens of thousands of liters of burning jet fuel produced a raging inferno and caused the steel columns to melt is extremely dubious, and does not account for the collapse of the towers.



Click for enlargement Examination of the times of the events of September 11th provides further evidence that it was not the fires that caused the Twin Towers to collapse.  The North Tower was hit first, at 8:45 a.m.  The plane (not necessarily a Boeing jumbo jet though) hit the tower directly, in the center, and all the jet fuel which was not immediately consumed in the fireball entered the building, causing a major fire.  Then at 9:03 a.m. the South Tower was hit, but whoever was controlling the plane did not manage a direct hit; rather the plane hit the tower toward a corner and at a shallow angle, and comparatively little of the jet fuel entered the building, most being consumed in the fireball (click on the image at left for further evidence).


The fire in the South Tower was thus less intense than that in the North Tower.  But the South Tower collapsed first, at 9:50 a.m., 47 minutes after impact, whereas the North Tower collapsed at 10:29 a.m., 1 hour and 44 minutes after impact.  Had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the North Tower, with its more intense fire, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the fires been the cause of the collapse then the South Tower, hit after the North Tower, and subjected to a less intense fire, would have collapsed after (not before) the North Tower collapsed.

The Split-Second Error
... Exposing the WTC Bomb Plot ...
Note:  This page assumes that an on-board hijacker was piloting the plane, but its argument concerning the cause of the collapse remains valid if the plane was actually being controlled remotely (see below).


A convincing case (with numerous web references supporting his argument) that the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the fires has been given by J. McMichael in his article I Tried to be Patriotic.

... heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up.  The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. ...  Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting constantly hotter until it reached melting temperature [1538°C, not 800°C as was reported]? Or did it burn hot and steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel [the amount of steel in one of the Twin Towers] were heated molten — on one plane load of jet fuel?  ...

Here is a picture showing the top 25 floors of one tower (probably south) toppling over sideways (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg).
Why are there no reports of this cube of concrete and steel (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 200 ft. high), falling from 1000 feet into the street below?  ... Where is the ruin where the 200ft x 200ft x 50 story-object struck? Forty floors should have caused a ray of devastation 500 ft. into the surrounding cityscape.  ...

When the platters [the floors] fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest.  But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.  — I Tried To Be Patriotic

In a sequel to this article J. McMichael writes:

... the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires [in the U.K., Japan, the U.S. and Australia] was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F). ... I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.  — Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part II


As for the story which appeared in Newsweek, etc., about plucky passengers jumping the hijackers, goodbye messages left on answering machines, and so on — this was pure fiction, fabricated by some psy-war operative with training as a two-bit Hollywood scriptwriter and disseminated with the help of some willing media whore.

The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess.  "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"

Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.

But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess has people, not cartoon dumb blondes.  They KNOW what New York looks like from the air ...

She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."

But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water."  Check out that pregnant pause in every publication of the quote.  Does that pause feel right to you?  Not to me.  The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things. — Tall Tales of the Wag Movie


4.  The Official Story: The Pentagon

According to the official story, as reported by the New York Times (International Herald Tribune, 2001-10-17, p.8), the Boeing 757 which struck the Pentagon executed a 270-degree 7,000-foot descent over Washington while flying at 500 mph.  It approached the Pentagon on a horizontal trajectory (so as to maximize the damage to the building) so low that it clipped the power lines across the street (but somehow managed to squeeze between two poles which were separated by less than the wingspan of a Boeing 757).

We were told (and, of course, expected to believe) that this maneuver was executed by an Arab pilot, Hani Hanjour, who in August 2001 was judged by the chief flight instructor at Bowie's Maryland Freeway Airport as not having the piloting skills required to fly a Cessna 172 solo.  (Is there something fishy here?)

In contrast to the attention given to the collapse of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon received little attention until in February 2002 a French website appeared which reproduced images obtained from U.S. Army websites:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

These images cast doubt upon the official story that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 jetliner. For example, here is a picture of the Pentagon crash site. Can you see any remains of the approximately 100 tons of metal (including two engines) which makes up a Boeing 757?

And here's a nice one (at right). What happened to the wings of the Boeing? Presumably they would have sheared off when they hit the sections of the building (to the left and right of the hole in the side of the building) which are obviously still standing. See any remnants of wings in the picture above (or in any of the other pictures on the French website)?

No? Curious ...  Could it be that in fact no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon?

Note that the French website does not say that no aircraft hit the Pentagon. It could be taken to suggest that the damage was caused by a truck bomb, or that no aircraft struck the Pentagon, but a careful inspection will reveal that the website suggests only that the damage was not caused by a Boeing 757. What, then, caused the damage?


5.  What Actually Happened

In October 2001 two articles appeared on the web which provided the first clues to what really happened. One was Carol Valentine's "Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS". This article drew attention to the possibility of remote control of a large jet aircraft. That this technology exists is public knowledge.  It was developed by Northrop Grumman for use in Global Hawk, an automated American military jet with the wingspan of a Boeing 737.  (For further details about Global Hawk see Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS.) Since it is possible to control a Boeing 757 or 767 by means of remote control, might not the jets which hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon have been remotely controlled?  In which case there would be no need to maintain the improbable hypothesis that the four jets were simultaneously hijacked by nineteen on-board Arab terrorists.

The other article discussing the possibility of remote control of Boeing aircraft was Joe Vialls' "Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft".

In the mid-seventies ... two American multinationals collaborated with the Defense Advanced Projects Agency (DARPA) on a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked American aircraft.  [This technology] ... allowed specialist ground controllers to ... take absolute control of [a hijacked plane's] computerized flight control system by remote means.  From that point onwards, regardless of the wishes of the hijackers or flight deck crew, the hijacked aircraft could be recovered and landed automatically at an airport of choice, with no more difficulty than flying a radio-controlled model plane.  ... [This was] the system used to facilitate direct ground control of the four aircraft used in the high-profile attacks on New York and Washington on 11th September 2001. — Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft

But there's a problem with this theory: Although the technology for the remote control of a Boeing jetliner certainly exists, and could be installed (if it is not already standard) on four Boeings, getting all four remotely controllable planes to take off within an hour of each other would not be easy, and would require more people with insider knowledge than is advisable (the more people involved the more chance there is of a mistake, or of information being leaked). Not only would United Airlines and American Airlines personnel be needed to coordinate the plane assignments but also four different teams of remote controllers would be necessary, one for each remotely hijacked plane. Thus, although the Vialls web page was important in reinforcing the notion that remote control of a Boeing jet was involved, some have suggested that this theory, because of its inherent implausibility as it stands, was in fact intended to discredit the notion of remotely controlled planes being used in the September 11th attacks. Only Joe Vialls knows for sure.

Considering the stakes involved in an operation which was intended to kill thousands of U.S. citizens, there could be no room for error. What was needed was a fool-proof plan, and the remote hijacking of four planes is a scenario with too many possibilities for something to go wrong.


The actual plan which was implemented is amazingly simple when it is finally understood, and it was carried out almost (but not completely) without a hitch. It was revealed to Carol Valentine by an informant (as recounted in 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes).

To put it briefly, a plot was hatched (probably years in the making) not by Arabs but by so-called Americans (agents of the civilian "state security and intelligence" agencies and bureaus such as the CIA, military intelligence types and high-level officials within the U.S. Administration), perhaps (some would say, very likely) with a significant degree of Israeli involvement:

What happened on September 11th was this:

  1. Three planes had been made ready by operatives from the U.S. Air Force or NORAD, capable of being controlled remotely, with no-one on board:
    • A business jet loaded with high explosives.
    • An F-16 jet fighter armed with a missile.
    • A Boeing 767, painted up to look like a United Airlines jet (call this "Pseudo Flight 175").

  2. Early on the morning of September 11th Mohammad Atta and some other Arabs board American Airlines and United Airlines planes in Boston and New York under instructions from their CIA handlers, thinking they are flying to the West Coast. Atta and others, some recorded by airport security cameras, will later be declared to be "the hijackers".

  3. The four civilian jet airliners take off:
    • AA Flight 11, a Boeing 767, leaves Boston at 7:59 a.m. on its way to Los Angeles (this is the jet which, according to the official story, hit the North Tower).
    • AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757, takes off from Dulles Airport in northern Virginia at 8:10 a.m (this is the jet which allegedly hit the Pentagon).
    • UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767 (this is the jet which allegedly hit the South Tower).
    • UA Flight 93, a Boeing 757, scheduled to leave Newark Airport at 8:01 a.m. for San Francisco, is late and does not depart until 8:41 a.m. (this is the jet which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania).

  4. Pseudo Flight 175 takes off from its military base, flying under remote control, and flies so as to intercept the flight path of UA Flight 175. Radar operators tracking UA Flight 175 see the two blips merge.

  5. A half-hour to an hour after taking off the pilots of the four civilian airliners (some of whom may have been a party to the operation) are informed by radio that the U.S. is under attack by terrorists and that they are to shut down their transponders and land their planes at a military base in some north-eastern U.S. state (directions to the base are given).

  6. The pilots obey this order and change course accordingly.

  7. Pseudo Flight 175 changes course toward Manhattan. To radar operators it appears as if UA Flight 175 is now flying toward Manhattan.

  8. The business jet takes off under remote control and (perhaps after intercepting the flight path of AA Flight 11 to confuse the radar operators) crashes into the North Tower at 8:45 a.m. The event is captured on "the fireman's video", in which a small impact is first seen in the center of the tower (consistent with an impact by a business jet, not a Boeing 767), followed by a huge explosion. (George W. Bush watches the impact on closed circuit television from his limousine outside a schoolhouse in Florida.)

  9. Pseudo Flight 175 approaches Manhattan under remote control and crashes into the South Tower at 9:06 a.m. Its controllers, not used to remote control of such a heavy machine, almost miss the tower, but manage to hit it at an angle, toward one corner. The approach of the Boeing 767 and the impact are recorded by several cameras.

  10. The F-16 jet fighter, under remote control, flies at high speed toward Washington D.C. (perhaps after intercepting the flight path of AA Flight 77), descends to near ground level, makes a horizontal approach to the Pentagon, fires a missile which produces a huge explosion at the outer wall of the Pentagon, then itself crashes into the building (at 9:40 a.m or 9:43 a.m.). The event is recorded by a security camera (see below).

  11. Meanwhile all four AA and UA jets have landed at the military base to which they were directed. The passengers from the planes which were AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 are herded onto UA Flight 93. Explosives are perhaps loaded on board.

  12. The plane which was UA Flight 93 takes off from the military base (under the control of a military pilot unaware of the fate of the plane) and flies toward Washington in a fake "terrorist attack". Either on-board explosives are detonated, or the jet is blown apart by a missile fired by a U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter jet, over Pennsylvania (at 10:37 a.m.).
    Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been found up to 8 miles away (from the crash site) in a residential community [Indian Lake] where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area [this was the F-16] and burning debris falling from the sky. — Reuters, Sept. 13, as quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times

    All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes (other than those who are part of the operation) are in this way eliminated.

  13. Around midday the media whores begin to disseminate the story that this "terrorist attack" was masterminded by Usama bin Laden. An outraged America cries out for revenge against the perpetrators, which they assume (encouraged by the Jewish-dominated mainstream media) are Arab Muslim fundamentalists. George W. Bush announces his "War on Terrorism".

On the side the plotters have (under cover of a series of go-betweens) purchased put options for companies whose stocks are sure to be adversely affected by these events, such as the parent companies of the airlines whose planes are hijacked. Their intention is to make a killing, so to speak, by purchasing the right to sell stocks in these companies at a price which they know will be considerably higher than the price they can buy them at on the open market (after the September 11th attack has driven the prices down).


The French website mentioned above provided photographic evidence that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Evidence that the Pentagon was hit by an F-16 jet figher (just after firing a missile) is provided by images released by the Pentagon itself on March 7th, 2002. In the first image the outline of a jet, probably an F-16, is visible toward the right of the picture:

The horizontal trail of (what looks like) white smoke visible at the extreme right is probably from a missile which has just been fired by the F-16, which has itself moved on and has overtaken the missile's exhaust plume.

All four images were placed on the web at http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif in the form of an animated GIF, which is reproduced at right.

Frame 1: The jet approaches the Pentagon at ground level, having just fired a missile carrying a high-explosive warhead .

Frame 2: A huge, white-hot, fireball erupts from the detonation of the missile's warhead as it hits the Pentagon.

Frames 3, 4 and 5: A red fireball erupts, resulting from the impact of the jet and the ignition of jet fuel (together with the cooling fireball from the missile explosion).


In planning this operation the masterminds would have realized that, although it was possible to crash planes into the Twin Towers under remote control, this would in itself have produced only huge damage, with perhaps hundreds of lives lost, which was not enough.  What they needed was the destruction of both towers completely, for maximum psychological effect upon the people of the U.S. and the world and for the provocation of a hysterical reaction from the American people directed against Arabs and the Islamic world.  Thus they needed to arrange for the demolition and total collapse of the Twin Towers following the plane impacts.

One obvious possibility was to plant explosives in the Twin Towers, to be detonated after the impacts by the remotely-controlled planes. This possibility is discussed in detail in:

Was the WTC Demolished by the Use of Explosives?

Click for enlargement As shown in Section 3 above, the fires did not cause the collapse of the towers, but it remains unproven that explosives caused the collapse.  But the towers did collapse, and in a very strange manner, as if demolished in a controlled way, leaving almost nothing but metal fragments from the outer shell and huge quantities of fine ash and dust, without the central steel columns from the lower sixty floors either standing or fallen.  This is very strange.  Look at all that dust (click image to enlarge).  It is as if some high-energy disintegration beam had been focused on the tower, pulverizing every concrete slab into minute particles of ash and dust (and leaving a nauseous odor which lingered on in Manhatten for many weeks, causing health problems for New York residents).  But no country possesses such a disintegration beam — or if so, we have not been told of it.

The possibility that the Twin Towers were brought down by the use of laser weapon is discussed in detail in:

Laser Beam Weapons and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

But if "black" technology was used (rather than explosives) then one insight emerges: Why it was made to appear that commercial passenger jets were hijacked and crashed into the Twin Towers.  The reason would be that such "black" technology is certainly beyond the capabilities of any Arab terrorists.  Had this technology simply been used to bring the Twin Towers down then many questions would have been asked as to how this happened.  A story that Arab terrorists detonated explosives which completely destroyed the buildings would not withstand criticism, so some other "plausible" explanation for the collapse of the towers had to be provided and this was done in the form of the plane impacts and subsequent fires.  This "explanation" has an initial plausibility, and it was immediately broadcast by the mainstream media, and immediately accepted by a public in a state of shock.  Only a careful examination of this story, such as has been done in J. McMichael's article, reveals its inadequacy, leading to the conclusion that either explosives were used to demolish the Twin Towers or some "black" technology was used.

Who possesses such technology? For sure not Arab terrorists, whose expertise with destructive technology extends not much beyond truck bombs.


6.  The Perpetrators

The demolition of the WTC was part of an ongoing plan (in effect since the Kennedy assassination if not before) to destroy the American Republic (what's left of it anyway) and replace it by a de facto dictatorship (as part of the drive toward a global dictatorship in the form of a world government).

The person who, shortly after the attacks on the WTC, was announced as "the prime suspect" (without any evidence) was Usama bin Laden, who has made no secret of his animosity toward the U.S. for its support of Israeli subjugation of the Palestinians, for what he sees as the Americans' defilement of Saudi Arabia (the location of two of the three holiest Islamic sites), the continued bombing of Iraq and the Americans' support of the (as he sees them) apostate regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  The contempt with which the U.S. is regarded by certain Arab organizations, and the involvement of Arabs in the ineffective bombing of the WTC in 1993, means that Arabs are automatically suspected in any terrorist attack against the U.S. (as they were in the Oklahoma City Bombing until the government announced that Timothy McVeigh was the culprit).

Within hours of the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon Dan Rather and other mainstream media whores were quoting "government sources" as stating that Usama bin Laden was the likely culprit.  As the WTC bombers intended, most Americans immediately believed this claim and now regard him as the perpetrator of this atrocity and the entire Arab world as their enemy (a reaction welcomed by many in Israel).  Many people in Arab countries also believe he did it because for them Usama bin Laden personifies the resentment against American exploitation of the third world which they themselves feel.  But Usama bin Laden has never said that he was behind the September 11th attack, and, indeed, has explicitly denied this.

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.  As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie.  I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.  Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people.  Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.  It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people ...  — Usama bin Laden, Interview with Pakistani newspaper Ummat (Karachi), September 28, 2001. Full text here.

After one of the video broadcasts from the Al-Jazeera TV station in Qatar (which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, may have been a Western-concocted forgery, since Usama bin Laden, or someone impersonating him, is shown wearing a U.S. Army jacket — much as if Churchill had delivered his wartime speeches wearing a swastika armband and the uniform of a Luftwaffe colonel) Condoleeza Rice declared that this was an "admission" by Usama bin Laden of responsibility for the September 11th attack.  It was not, but by claiming it was she maintains the official line of blaming "Arab terrorists" and draws attention away from the true perpetrators of this atrocity.


Several thousand civilians died in the collapse of the WTC towers, and hundreds of military personnel were killed in the attack on the Pentagon — though the numbers are small compared to

America expresses outrage at the deaths of several thousand of its citizens but ignores its responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions of civilians at the hands of its military and its CIA — and still expects and demands the world's sympathy for its loss.


The attacks against the WTC and the Pentagon were brought to us by the same people (though "human" may not be the correct term for them) who brought us the murderous policies and events mentioned above as well as both the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing and the Oklahoma City Bombing.

Evidence suggests that the former was actually planned and directed, not by Arab terrorists (who were merely the operatives), but by the FBI.

The mastermind [of the 1993 WTC bombing] is the government of the United States. It was a phony, government-engineered conspiracy to begin with. It would never have amounted to anything had the government not planned it. — Ron Kuby, defense attorney, quoted in Troubling Questions in Troubling Times

In the Oklahoma City Bombing explosives were placed by the structural supports of the Murrah Federal Building, demolishing it and killing hundreds of people.  The psy-war propaganda experts then succeeded in convincing the more gullible among the American people that this was the work of one or two men using a truck full of ammonium nitrate.  (Some of the high-explosive devices planted within the building did not explode, were seen by four witnesses after the attack, and were removed by the FBI but were never officially mentioned.)  Within a few days of the bombing the Counter-Terrorism Bill was passed by Congress, a piece of legislation which provided for secret trials and seizure of assets without due process of law.

The Enemy is
Very Much
Within
 (168 KB)
The enormity of the atrocity of the attack on the Twin Towers is made worse by its being perpetrated, not by external enemies of America, but from within — by a secret group of traitors who may be American-born but who care nothing for American national pride since for them control of the U.S. is just a means toward total control of the planet.  For at least forty years this group of traitors (most of whom are present or former occupants of the White House or are working or have worked in those U.S. government organizations whose activities are hidden behind a cloak of "national security") has controlled the U.S. government by subversion of its democratic institutions, has manipulated a gullible American population and the political leadership of other countries by the skillful use of propaganda (with the help of shamelessly compliant — and Jewish-dominated — "news" organizations), has ruthlessly exploited the economic resources of the Earth for its own profit, and must now be laughing and congratulating itself that its lies appear to have been believed by almost everyone and that its plans for complete economic and military conquest of the entire planet are coming along so nicely — thanks to the stupidity of the American people, who appear to be mostly incapable of thinking about anything except their own amusement (if they are well-off, or their own economic survival if they are not) and who are willing to believe whatever their lying government tells them.

But just as the attempt by the predecessors of these traitors to establish a "Thousand-Year Reich" resulted in complete and ignominious defeat, their plans also may yet come to naught, though at what cost to the American people and the rest of the world remains to be seen.

The situation may actually be much worse than this.  The evil which has been perpetrated by these traitors, acting through the U.S. government, its military and its multinationals, the IMF and other institutions, over many years, is sufficiently great that one has to wonder whether the instigators have any concern at all for the welfare and dignity of the human species.  Furthermore, the manner in which the Twin Towers collapsed, and the nature of the resulting debris, suggest the use of technologically highly advanced means of destruction unknown to us.  The real instigators of this atrocity (and of the larger drive to enslave, or perhaps exterminate, the entire population of the planet) may actually not be human at all (see The Gods of Eden).  If so, we have a real problem.


7.  The "War on Terrorism"

Just as the Oklahoma City Bombing created a situation conducive to the government's rushing through "anti-terrorist" legislation this "Attack on America" has provided a further nice justification for eliminating whatever civil liberties the American people had up to now managed to hold on to.  In the name of "safety" and "security" the "authorities" now have a "legal" right (the appropriate legislation has already been passed by a compliant and corrupt Congress under the guise of "an emergency anti-terrorist package") to do whatever they want to monitor and control the entire population.  Anyone accused of being "a threat to the safety and security of the American people" (in reality, to the state and those who control it) will find themselves imprisoned without benefit of trial (if they do not "disappear" completely as did many of the victims of Chile's DINA secret police). Already in mid-October the FBI announced the arrest of more than 600 people, "refusing to identify most of the detainees and offering few details about why the government wanted them behind bars." (International Herald Tribune, October 15, 2001)  By December the number had grown to over 1,200, with only one of those persons charged with a crime.  Torture was being considered for those who are "uncooperative".  (Let's hope no-one in your family gets arrested, by mistake, and information is demanded from them which they don't have.)

And so one of Secretary [of Defense] Rumsfeld's first tasks will be ... to develop a strategy necessary to have a force equipped for warfare of the 21st century.  — George W. Bush, Washington DC, December 28, 2000

And, of course, this heinous act of "international terrorism" provided a fine excuse for a yet greater military build up (and justification for Bush's $344 billion war budget) — in particular the already-planned development of "defensive" missiles, allegedly to foil attacks by "international terrorists" (even though they neither possess nor need intercontinental nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles), but which might also prove quite useful in defending the U.S. from retaliation by any nation which it chooses to attack.

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind  ...  — Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations

Indeed, the U.S. government (in violation of the United Nations charter and international law) has now given itself permission — in the form of a congressional resolution — to attack whoever it wants to, to engage openly in political assassinations in the manner of Israel, and generally to wage war upon whoever it chooses to label as its enemy.  Already the number of innocent civilians who have died as a result of U.S. military action (in Afghanistan) is greater than the number of those who died in the WTC attack.  But, of course, since those killed were not Americans, Europeans or Australians, this is of no concern, except insofar as it might result in international condemnation, making it difficult to maintain the "international coalition" that the U.S. seeks to provide a fig-leaf for its planned military aggression against those countries which decline to accede to its demands.  (And, by the way, such aggression and the collateral regional wars that it will cause in various parts of Asia will, of course, be good for U.S. arms manufacturers, and other American companies with friends in the U.S. government, which profit from war.)

We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile. — George W. Bush, Des Moines, Iowa, Aug. 21, 2000

Bush has announced that America is now embarked upon a "War on Terrorism" (in his speech to the joint session of Congress on September 17th, 2001, he used the words "terror", "terrorist" and "terrorism" at total of 32 times, and "war" twelve times, so no-one would fail to get the message).  But before the U.S. retaliated by bombing Afghanistan day and night for weeks it should first have established exactly who instigated, planned and directed the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.  Despite the attempt to blame nineteen passengers on the four planes who happened to have Arabic names, this was not done.  Such evidence, if it were ever produced (and, of course, it will never be produced), must be such as to convince third parties such as the Europeans, and the evidence must be made public (not every last detail, but enough to establish the case).  Insiders such as the U.S. President, the British Prime Minister and the NATO Secretary-General declaring themselves "convinced" is insufficient.  Such declarations will fool some people, but these officials are literally warmongers and will do anything to justify their waging of war, including lying to the public about the convincingness of the alleged evidence.  Only when convincing evidence has been made public, and the identity of the attackers established, would it be possible to declare "war" without misuse of language.  Until then the "War on Terrorism" will be a propaganda campaign like the "War on Drugs" — a way of disguising the true aims and motivations of those waging this "war", which in this case is that age-old motivation: territorial and economic conquest.

But, of course, the U.S. government will never reveal who exactly planned and directed these attacks, firstly because it was an inside job, and secondly because blame must be laid upon "Arab terrorists" in order to "justify" the "War on Terrorism" and the military assaults upon Arab countries (recently and, as the U.S. and Britain plan at least, for years to come; indeed, in the words of one Pentagon official, possibly "for the rest of our lives").

Not only did Bush announce a "War on Terrorism", he even spoke stupidly of a "crusade", invoking memories of the medieval Christian crusades against Islam to recover "the Holy Land", though these days it is more accurate to speak of gaining control of the oil fields, which is another reason (actually, the primary reason) why America has given itself permission to invade whatever countries it chooses to.  And it's not just Middle Eastern oil — there are huge oil deposits in the Caspian Basin (larger than in Saudia Arabia).  In 1998 Unocal testified before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific that a pipeline across Afghanistan was crucial to transport Caspian Basin oil to the Indian Ocean.  Bush and the American oil companies would dearly like to lay such a pipeline across Afghanistan, but, say some, they cannot do so because the Taleban

have been demanding too large a per centage as their cut for allowing the pipeline project to proceed.  Hence, the oil monopoly needs to overthrow the Kabul government, install their own government, and proceed with the pipeline project. — Sherman H. Skolnick, The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 2

George Monbiot:
America's Pipe Dream
In fact from February to August 2001 the Bush administration conducted detailed negotiations with the Taliban to lay this hoped-for pipeline across Afghanistan and Pakistan so as to profit from lucrative sales to oil-hungry Asian countries.  In August the negotiations broke down, after a U.S. negotiator threatened military action against the Taliban, saying, accept our offer of a carpet of gold or you will get a carpet of bombs (see Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth).  One month later the rationale for the carpet-bombing was provided by the destruction of the WTC.


This "War on Terrorism" has three major components:

(1) A propaganda war waged firstly against the American people and secondly against the rest of the people on this planet who have access to TV and newspapers.
(2) A large increase in the powers of surveillance and control exercised by the U.S. federal government over U.S. citizens and residents and in the ability of the government to impose censorship.
(3) The use of American military force (with help mainly from the British), to whatever extent necessary, to gain control of the oil reserves of the Caspian Basin, the mineral wealth of Central Asia and whatever other economic resources in other parts of Asia that the U.S. wishes to control.

The purpose of (1) is to disguise the true nature of (3) by presenting it as the use of military force to protect Americans against future terrorist attacks.  The purpose of (2) is to stifle any protest and dissent from those Americans who are not fooled by (1) and who object to (3).  Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft & Co. know from the 1960s demonstrations against the Vietnam War that domestic opposition to military aggression abroad can bring that aggression to an end, and they wish to make sure in advance that the same thing will not happen this time.

David Cole:
A Matter of Rights
As part of the implementation of (2) Bush has as good as told the American people that they have to sacrifice their civil liberties and their rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in support of his "war", which most people seem willing, sheep-like, to do (such amazing stupidity! or is half the population on Prozac?).  Attorney General Ashcroft urged Congress to pass proposed "anti-terrorist" legislation (which is very probably unconstitutional) even before it had been committed to paper. The legislation was hastily rushed through (the same day it was introduced) over the objections of civil rights advocates by a corrupt and compliant Congress in the second week of October 2001. It consisted of 342 pages, and those who voted for it could not possibly have read it.

The American government says that America is "at war" (as if that justifies anything the government wishes to do).  But a war requires an identifiable enemy.  A war is a war between two or more opposing sides.  A "war" in which one side is invisible is a fantasy — a pretext to restrict civil liberties, to impose censorship and to deny rights guaranteed to American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.  It is a tool for psychological operations directed against both domestic and foreign populations, for deceiving the American people and others and persuading them to submit willingly to violations of their human rights.  (Though one might say that if they do submit then they deserve the enslavement that will come to them.)  And in this case, as noted above, the purpose is to suppress any domestic opposition to U.S. military action abroad.  And at home; remember that the U.S. military has been used against American citizens before — at Waco.

Click for enlargementWhat is too shocking for many Americans to contemplate is that the terrorist attacks, from which the people of the U.S. are supposed to be protected by the "War on Terrorism", are themselves part of the propaganda war.  In order to "justify" to the American people the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan and the deaths of Afghan civilians, the violent overthrow of the (admittedly reprehensible) Taleban government, the deployment of U.S. ground troops to sieze territory in Afghanistan and in other countries, and the use of whatever weapons of death the Pentagon plans to use (including "low yield" nuclear weapons), the U.S. must present its actions as being morally good and noble (as in World War II), specifically, as motivated by the desire to protect decent, innocent American citizens from the evil of terrorist attacks.

Without terrorist attacks there is no justification for the military action, so terrorist attacks there must be.  The attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon were the first (unless we count the Waco Massacre and the Oklahoma City Bombing), brought to you by those people who are directing the propaganda campaign and, indeed, scripting this entire "War on Terrorism".  And (as the CIA informed members of Congress in early October 2001) it is certain that there will be more terrorist attacks (how did they know?) — most of them far less spectacular than the destruction of the Twin Towers, but sufficient (such as the controlled release of anthrax bacteria, probably by the CIA itself) to induce in the American public a state of constant fear — made worse by their not knowing who is really behind these attacks.

Does the WTC attack feel like a movie?  It does?  Well of course it does!  It has been specifically written as a movie script.  ... This entire sequence of: hijack; first plane; second plane; Pentagon ;WTC collapse; phone calls from the planes; copy of the Koran; more attempted hijackings; arrests; plucky passengers; etc., etc., has been scripted by a crew of cynical planners who could care less that REAL people died in the Twin Towers.  — Tall Tales of the Wag Movie

In March 2002 Dick Cheney toured the Middle East trying to drum up Arab support for a second American-led war against Iraq. He was politely informed by Arab leaders to crawl back into his hole. So the Bush administration now needs another Big Catastrophe on American soil to justify the war they want to wage against Iraq. Look for something like a low-yield nuclear explosion in the vicinity of Washington D.C., sufficient to scare the congresscritters into going into the underground bunkers that have been prepared for them, leaving America in the hands of George W. Bush's "shadow government".


Wars end when one of the opposing sides is beaten into submission and can no longer fight.  But if one side is invisible then the war can never end, because there is no way to know that the opposing side has been defeated.  Indeed, if the American people begin to believe that perhaps the "terrorist threat" has begun to recede you can be sure that another "terrorist attack" will occur, courtesy of those scripting the "War on Terrorism", which will return them to their former state of fear and dread, which is just where the perpetrators want them to be.  The "enemy" will remain an invisible, diabolical presence, unseen except for its evil effects when "the terrorists" attack again.  The American people have entered what may be a long, drawn-out, nightmare, in which nothing will be what it seems.  It is The Towering Inferno, Armageddon and The X-Files suddenly emerging into daily life.

The "War on Terrorism" is the psy-war successor to the "War on Drugs".  It has been clear to almost everyone for quite some time that the "War on Drugs" is totally discredited, and those who are informed know that it is basically a component in a huge and long-running scam whereby the U.S. government finances its covert operations and (in part) its military by means of its profits from its international drug trafficking (see Prohibition: The So-Called War on Drugs for details).  It became clear to the U.S. government, especially in view of the tolerance and regulation of drug use adopted in recent years in many European countries, that it can no longer maintain its "War on Drugs" with any degree of credibility.  Thus the people of the U.S. had to be hoodwinked into supporting a new "War", and the bogeyman of "militant Arab fundamentalists" (helped greatly by a Jewish-dominated mainstream media and terrorist attacks on the WTC in 1993, probably provoked by the FBI, and on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which US Army explosives had reportedly been used) provided a useful target.

This "War on Terrorism", like the "War on Drugs", will involve the usual propaganda techniques such as lies, deception, misrepresentation of opposition viewpoints, disinformation, fake opposition and media emphasis on what is irrelevant (for example, that Mohammed Atta may have contacted an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague — of only minor interest since there were no on-board hijackers and he and the other Arabs on board were set up to take the blame).  The propaganda campaign will continue until the instigators and scripters of this "War" believe they have finally gained domination over all countries and have attained control of the entire planet and all its economic resources — or until they themselves have been defeated.


8.  What is to be Done?

Immediately after the events of September 11th there were calls for greatly increased security at airports and on planes, and many millions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars are still being spent on this.  Troops with automatic rifles stand around at airports, waiting for the next gang of Arab terrorists to burst into the departure lounge shouting "God is great!" in Arabic and threatening everyone with letter openers.  Airport check-in now takes hours, passengers are subjected to invasive searches before boarding planes, and if you look Middle Eastern then you may not be allowed to fly at all.  All this is useless and irrelevant and is a major disruption in the lives of ordinary Americans, because, as noted above, there were no suicide pilots.  No hijackers boarded the four doomed planes carrying knives and box cutters, so installing expensive security equipment at airports and treating every passenger as a potential hijacker is not only an insult but is also a complete waste of time and money (though it is sure to make a lot of money for the manufacturers of airport security equipment).

Bush's "War on Terrorism" is not about terrorism (except insofar as staged terrorist acts are an important part of the propaganda campaign) — it's about control of the Earth's economic resources, in particular, oil.  To oversimplify somewhat and to put it a tad indelicately, "It's the oil, stupid!"

Big Oil (one of Bush's principal controllers) wants economic control and exploitation of the vast oil and mineral wealth of Central Asia, and if a pan-Asian war is required to achieve this then so be it.  The Bush clique believes that such a war would enable it to remain in power indefinitely (elections will become a thing of the past or will be rigged), would be good for American (and British) weapons manufacturers, and would perhaps avert an economic depression in the U.S. (since, many believe, it has worked before, as in the 1930s military build-up to World War II).

Hiroshima, August 6th, 1945 A pan-Asian war will involve many countries, including the nuclear- and CBW-armed countries of India, Pakistan, Russia and China (not to mention the other nuclear- and CBW-armed countries that are likely to be drawn in: Britain, France, Israel and the U.S. itself), and it will mean that millions of civilians will die: shot, burnt, blasted, asphyxiated, crushed, incinerated, poisoned.  Nor will all these civilians be Asian; this war will also extend to the U.S. mainland and probably to Europe, despite what the Pentagon planners intend.  Violence will lead to more violence, and wars will escalate (remember "escalation"?) until eventually nuclear weapons are used — first "low-yield", later the big ones, in the megaton range, whose detonations (if there are enough of them, and we don't know how many will be used) will produce high levels of radiation in the atmosphere of (mainly) the Northern Hemisphere, leading to millions of cases of cancer among the populations of Western countries.

This is what should not be done, but on October 7th, 2001, the U.S., by attacking Afghanistan with bombers and cruise missiles (a military assault which was illegal under international law because military action against Afghanistan had not been specifically authorized by the United Nations), began what may eventually lead to this.

To those who believe that the attack on the Twin Towers was, at least in part, the work of foreign terrorists the answer to the question of what is to be done is:  The root causes of foreign terrorism directed against the United States must be addressed.  Those in power in the U.S. have been reluctant to do this (and will continue to resist doing this), mainly because violence, the threat of violence and a demonstrated ruthless willingness to use violence (combined with the use of mass propaganda and bribery and blackmail of officials at all levels, both elected and unelected) are the primary means by which they themselves remain in power.

The initiators of the attacks decided to implement their plan after America has provoked immense hatred throughout the world.  Not because of its might, but because of the way it uses its might. It is hated by the enemies of globalization, who blame it for the terrible gap between rich and poor in the world.  It is hated by millions of Arabs, because of its support for the Israeli occupation and the suffering of the Palestinian people.  It is hated by multitudes of Muslims, because of what looks like its support for the Jewish domination of the Islamic holy shrines in Jerusalem.  And there are many more angry peoples who believe that America supports their tormentors.

Until September 11, 2001 ...  Americans could entertain the illusion that all this concerns only others, in far-away places beyond the seas, that it does not touch their sheltered lives at home.  No more.

     — Uri Avnery: Twin Towers

In a representative democracy, such as allegedly exists in the U.S.A., can the people deny responsibility for the actions and policies of their government?  How long can they allow their government, whose leaders they elect, to commit one atrocity after another and at the same time pretend that they themselves are innocent of any wrong-doing?

Like the Four Riders of the Apocalypse, the unknown kamikaze rode their giant crafts into the two visible symbols of American world domination, Wall Street and the Pentagon.  ...  They could be practically anybody:  ... anybody who rejects the twin gods of the dollar and the M-16, who hates the stock market and interventions overseas, who dreams of America for Americans, who does not want to support the drive for world domination.  ...  Germans can remember the fiery holocaust of Dresden with its hundreds of thousands of peaceful refugees incinerated by the US Air Force.  Japanese will not forget the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima. the Arab world still feels the creeping holocaust of Iraq and Palestine.  Russians and East Europeans feel the shame of Belgrade avenged.  ...  Asians count their dead of Vietnam war, Cambodia bombings, Laos CIA operations in millions.  ...

The Riders could be anybody who lost his house to the bank, who was squeezed from his work and made permanently unemployed, who was declared an Untermensch by the new Herrenvolk.  ...

America could see this painful strike at her Wall Street and her Pentagon, as the last call to repent.  She should change her advisers, and build her relations with the world afresh, on equal footing.  Probably she should rein in the domination-obsessed Jewish supremacist elites of Wall Street and media, part company with Israeli apartheid.  She could become again the universally loved, rather parochial America of Walt Whitman and Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Abe Lincoln.

     — Israel Shamir: Orient Express

"Repent" is an apt term.  Today the United States of America is morally bankrupt.  During the coming months, or while there is still time, America (and to some extent Europe) must engage in some deep self-examination.  Americans have willfully ignored the reality that exists beyond their borders (other than sporting events and vacation destinations), often preferring to "create their own" so as to avoid acknowledging what they don't wish to see.  Americans have been completely self-absorbed, not knowing and not wanting to know the effects of their government's policies and actions on billions of people who live outside the U.S.  Those policies and actions have resulted in millions of deaths through widespread malnutrition and the persistence of eradicable diseases; in economic, social and educational impoverishment for the majority of the world's population; and in the denial of human rights for all those who live under tyrannical regimes supported by the U.S.  That is why the U.S.A. is so hated.  (And insofar as other governments — in particular, the British government — have supported, and continue to support, U.S. policies they too deserve moral condemnation.)

Sherri Muzher:
Racism: When will
We Face the Facts?
The denial by Israel of the human rights of the Palestinians, and its decades-long intransigent refusal to address their legitimate grievances, is just the most visible of the many evils resulting from morally bankrupt U.S. policies.  The U.S. (at the urging of American Jews and acting through the United Nations at a time when most Arab states were not yet members) created Israel in 1947 against the wishes of the people of the Middle East.  (The U.S. basically stole the land from the Palestinians and gave it to the Jews, and then gave the state of Israel money — currently three billion dollars per year — for all the police and military hardware — the tanks, the attack helicopters, the missiles, the grenades — it needed to hold onto that stolen territory and to steal, or "annex", even more.)  Now the U.S. has to deal with the consequences (and it is interesting to note that just prior to the WTC attack the U.S. was preparing to announce its support for a Palestinian state — mandated by the U.N. in 1947 anyway — much to the displeasure of Israel).

Arundhati Roy:
Why America Must
Stop the War Now
Less visible are the many ways in which U.S. multinational corporations conspire with the U.S. government (which does its best to coerce other governments to follow it), the IMF, the World Bank and other organizations whose undeclared purpose is to make the rich richer and to maximize their profits regardless of the widespread impoverishment this brings to many people not only in developing countries but also to those people in modern industrial societies who do not belong to the moneyed and ruling class.

The facts have long been available to any U.S. resident who cares to read The Nation, Z Magazine, or the thirty or so books of Noam Chomsky (rarely mentioned in the mainstream media).

I have often thought that if a rational Fascist dictatorship were to exist, then it would choose the American system. — Noam Chomsky, Language and Responsibility

Or any of the many audiotapes, videos, CD-ROMS, books and magazine articles exposing the immoralities of the CIA (a terrorist organization which richly deserves to be eliminated as soon as possible, preferably by an act of Congress, with its headquarters at Langley demolished and the land ploughed over).  But no — most Americans couldn't care less about the sufferings of people outside America, being too busy either trying to survive as wage-slaves in a corporate capitalist society or (for the more fortunate) constantly scanning their immediate environment for ways to "enrich" their lives.  Now they know what death, destruction, fear and dread are, what people in other countries have long known (over long periods) as a result of the actions and policies of the U.S. government and those of the corrupt regimes it has installed to serve its purposes.

So how have they responded to this revelation?  Mostly with mindless demands on their government to seek revenge and further death and destruction, and George W. Bush has pandered to this desire for revenge, declaring that he wants the alleged culprit Usama bin Laden "dead or alive".  Seems he's changed his views on revenge since the 2000 Presidential campaign:

... you cannot lead America to a positive tomorrow with revenge on one's mind.  Revenge is so incredibly negative.  — George W. Bush, Interview with the Washington Post, March 23, 2000

But after September 11th revenge was uppermost in the minds of most Americans and few of them were inclined to look at what brought this catastrophe to their land.  Were they to look for the causes of the events of September 11th they might eventually be led to ask themselves whether their government is not so hypocritical, vicious, ignoble and immoral, so much the opposite of that ideal of government expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, that it must be reformed completely, with most of its current office holders, including the President, the Vice-President, the entire Cabinet and most long-term members of Congress, removed in disgrace, before they can again think of themselves as Americans with any degree of self-respect.

Wade Frazier: The Things We Do Not Want To Know

Their mindlessness is willful, and at least partly conscious.  They do not know what is really happening because they do not want to know what is really happening.  Why?  As far as I have seen, it is because they benefit from the current arrangement (at least in the short term), and denial helps protect their flickering consciences.  ...

All those institutions that we have given our power away to — corporations, governments, churches, etc. — have largely enslaved us with our own power.  The only path to true freedom is by reclaiming our power, responsibility and sovereignty, and doing it lovingly.

During the bombing of Afghanistan in October and November 2001 there were many (poorly reported) demonstrations against Bush's intention to wage war but there can now be no return to a "peace" which allows Americans to ignore, as they have done for so long, the evils which their government perpetrates abroad.

In the weeks following the attack on the Twin Towers there were many pleas, such as those quoted above, for America to understand what motivated the terrorists to commit their heinous acts and for America to reconsider its policies and actions toward other countries.  But although such a reconsideration is highly desirable, this view still assumes that it was Arab terrorists who were responsible, and such pleas were not well-received by those (perhaps the majority) who felt that revenge was the immediate priority.


But if the attack on the Twin Towers was not, even in part, the work of Arab terrorists, but was the work of terrorists within the U.S. government itself who seek to gain control of Central Asian oil and to impose a fascist dictatorship not only upon the United States but also upon the entire world, then what is to be done?  The answer is not so different.  The only difference is that instead of the September 11th terrorist attack being the work of foreign terrorists outraged by decades of injustice and poverty in third-world countries produced by a corrupt and immoral U.S. government it was the work of a group of traitors at high levels within that corrupt and immoral government itself.  The answer remains that those traitors (prominent among whom is the Bush crime family) must be exposed, their crimes revealed, and they themselves removed from the positions of power they presently hold.  Furthermore, government in the U.S. must be cleansed of corruption and restored to conformity with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: a restoration of the American Republic.  The "anti-terrorist" legislation of October 2001 (and that of April 1995 and Britain's Terrorism Act of 2000), intended to facilitate government surveillance and control of the people so as to stifle free speech and dissent, must be repealed.

The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have a right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances.

— Harry Browne: Harry Browne on Anti-terrorist Proposals

America must also end its long history of the practice of genocide, honor the principles expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and cease its ruthless exploitation (mainly for the benefit of a capitalist ruling class) of the world's economic resources and the world's people.  This means that better-off Americans will have to give up some of the luxuries they've taken for granted, but perhaps they can make the sacrifice more readily if they remind themselves that over one billion people on this planet currently live (if you can call it living) on less than US$1 a day.

Examples of genocide within U.S. history are common enough not to be considered remarkable or even genocide. Among historic crimes which are not commonly called genocide: the destruction of North American Indian peoples, the liquidation of six million Brazilian Indians through the policies of multi-national corporations, effects of U.S. economic and military policies on the poor throughout the Americas, the Euro-American slave trade and subsequent treatment of black Americans, and the fate of the American poor.  ...

Corporate capitalism may simply be legitimized genocide by economic means.  ... Those without ethics no longer sell beads to the indians, but rockets and missiles to "underdeveloped countries," where the arms kill off as many poor people as possible.

— J. B. Gerald: Is the U.S. Really a Signatory to the U.N. Convention on Genocide?

If the people of the United States do not themselves cleanse their government of its current corruption, and return the nation to conformity with the principles of a republic, upon which it was founded, then disaster will ensue:  Either a global fascist dictatorship will result or the U.S. government will be destroyed by the combined military forces of the rest of the world.  Either of these possibilities could produce such damage on a global scale that the survival of the human species would be in doubt.

The instigators and scripters of the "War on Terrorism", who place their trust in modern technology (and propaganda), believe themselves invincible in their drive to enslave everyone, American and non-American alike.  But they overlook the fact that those Americans who have not prostituted themselves to the national security state and who, as true Americans, hold liberty among their highest values (and there are a lot of them) are unlikely to submit without a fight when they understand what is really going on.


9.  The Corruption of the Republic

The BBC's George Arney reported on September 18, 2001, that Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had stated that he had been informed by senior American officials at a Berlin UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan in mid-July that Pentagon plans for a military assault on Afghanistan had already been completed.  (This was the meeting in which a U.S. representative threatened the Taliban representatives with a carpet of bombs.)  The assault on Afghanistan had to be carried out before snow begins to fall in the mountain passes, which is around mid-October — and, indeed, it began on October 7th, 2001.  The timing of the WTC attack was thus very convenient.

The Pentagon was clearly delighted at the opportunity of trying out all the new-fangled lethal technology it had developed in the ten years since it last demonstrated its capability for mass slaughter in its 1991 terrorist campaign in the Gulf (this was in part a demonstration of its weapons systems for the benefit of potential purchasers, and the same happened again in Afghanistan).

The AC-130 [gunship, which began to be deployed in Afghanistan in mid-October] is one of the most lethal American warplanes in terms of its ability to chew up ground forces.  ... [and] because of its fearsome firepower.  It circles a target and saturates it with automatic fire from three computer-controlled guns, including cannon and heavy machine guns capable of firing 1,800 rounds a minute. The plane's guns can cover an area the size of eight football fields with a round in each square yard ... [and] has banks of electronic sensors on board capable of detecting ground targets normally elusive from the air." — International Herald Tribune, October 17, 2001, p.1

A soldier who is prepared to risk his own life when attempting to kill enemy soldiers is a brave man. Such a man is not to be despised.  But the design, development, deployment and use of this sort of highly efficient lethal technology is done, not by brave men, but by cowards — by those willing to slaughter other humans only if their own lives are not placed in danger.  It can only be done by people who are either mentally ill, morally depraved or too stupid to understand what they are really doing.

Such machines as the AC-130 gunship are just the latest in a long line of devices invented in the United States for efficient slaughter on a large scale, from the Gatling gun (invented about 1862) to the atomic bomb (the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused more than a quarter of a million deaths and injuries) to the hydrogen bomb (whose capability to cause death and destruction is almost unlimited) to cluster bombs and fuel-air bombs.


The [fuel-air] bomb works thus: there are two detonations; the first spreads a fine mist of fuel into the air, turning the area [about the size of a football field] into an explosive mix of vast proportion; then a second detonation ignites the mixture, causing an awesome explosion.  The explosion is about the most powerful "conventional" explosion we know of.  At a pressure shock of up to 200 pounds per square inch (PSI), people in its detonation zone are often killed by the sheer compression of the air around them.  Human beings can typically withstand up to about a 40-PSI shock.  The bomb sucks oxygen out of the air, and can apparently even suck the lungs out through the mouths of people unfortunate enough to be in the detonation zone.  Our military used it on helpless people [in the 1991 Gulf Slaughter]. — Wade Frazier: My Experiences in America Regarding Iraq

In early November the Americans began to drop "daisy cutter" bombs on troops in the Taleban front lines.  This "daisy cutter" is the fuel-air bomb as described above.  Only a nation sunk in depravity could descend to the use of such diabolic devices against human beings, soldiers or otherwise.  The United States thus shows itself to be depraved and barbaric.  And any nation which, by providing military support to the American war machine, condones this barbarity forfeits (as the United States has already forfeited) any claim it might have to be regarded as a civilized nation in the eyes of the world.  A barbarian nation drags its allies into barbarity also.

Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler the German nation sank also into barbarity (from which it emerged after 1945).  One of the defining characteristics of the German Nazis was their willingness to use violence to achieve their ends — not just their willingness to use violence but their willingness to use unlimited violence. As for them, for those who now control the American military juggernaut, there is no limit to the degree of death and destruction that they are willing to use to achieve their ends.  This is one reason why they may properly, truly and without exaggeration, be described as "Nazis".

Are these the sort of "leaders" that the American people really want?  These calculating, cold-blooded, racist mass murderers?  Are they representative of what America stands for?

Perhaps so.  The worship of violence, death and destruction has in recent decades become a defining characteristic of contemporary American society.  It appears in its television shows, its video games and its Hollywood-produced films. It manifests itself in the willingness of its multinational corporations to rape the Earth.  America is by far the largest manufacturer and merchandiser on the planet of lethal hardware, of military and police equipment, of machines for the production of death and destruction.  This is a sign of a profoundly sick society.

This state of affairs has not come about because the American people are inherently violent and psychopathic.  As with all social matters of this scale the historical causes are complex.  But one of them is the dominance in American society of corporate capitalism, which elevates shareholder profit above all other concerns, and which has created the social conditions where evil men can attain great power and influence, both within government and without.  The American people tend to trust their government and their political leaders (though there have always been those who could recognize corruption in individual politicians when they saw it).  This trust is given partly because of the indoctrination Americans receive as children in school but also partly because their government was in fact founded on republican principles designed to ensure their liberty and happiness.  But this trust has now been betrayed. When evil men become leaders of the nation this corruption percolates down and sickens all levels of society.

Since the end of World War II, and partly due to the absorption then into the American "security and intelligence" agencies of so many former Nazis (Gestapo, SS and Wehrmacht intelligence), the entire political structure of the United States has been infected with evil.  There have, of course, been men of outstanding moral stature, for example, Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr, U.S. Senator George Mitchell and President John F. Kennedy (whose assassination in 1961, probably involving the CIA, the FBI, the Mafia, military intelligence, American supporters of Israel and two future U.S. Presidents, Nixon and Bush Sr., was the first coup d'etat in the history of the U.S., the second being the coup which began with the 2000 usurpation of the Presidency by George W. Bush, a coup which is still being implemented in 2002 under cover of the "War on Terrorism" and has not yet been completed).

But there have also been corrupt Supreme Court Justices (Rehnquist and Scalia), primitive, blatantly racist U.S. Senators (Jesse Helms), a transvestite head of the FBI who was blackmailed into ignoring organized crime (J. Edgar Hoover), a scumbag President (Nixon) succeeded by a series of traitors possessing only contempt for the U.S. Constitution (Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.), along with a multitude of elected and unelected officials (including many judges at all levels) whose only concern was and has been their own power, prestige and material wealth, who were and are ready to support genocidal foreign and domestic policies (targeted at the expendable and the non-white both within and without the U.S.) as long as there is something in it for them.


But we should not blame only the leaders and official functionaries, corrupt and in same cases evil, though they may be.  It is not fundamentally the government which is at fault — it is the mass of the people themselves, who seem to lack the moral sense required of a people who are to restrain their government from descent into depravity.

Many Americans have consciously prostituted themselves, realizing that the CIA and gang are creating immense death and destruction throughout the world, but as long as they enjoy cheap gasoline, coffee, bananas and tennis shoes, they think it is great.  ...  Many in the upper classes think that the CIA, FBI and NSA are great institutions, keeping the chips flowing their way.  Those who condone bloodshed and exploitation in the service of their lifestyles, often coming up with highly strained rationales, will create future circumstances where they will find the shoe on the other foot.  They will experience what living like a slave is like, barely surviving while their masters live in opulence.

— Wade Frazier: Investigating Possible Conspiracies

Actually democracy itself, when implemented so that every adult (however stupid) is given a right to vote, is inherently flawed, since it inevitably becomes the tyranny of the majority.  As noted 200 years ago by A. F Tyler, democracy leads to the corruption of the financial system of any nation, because voters (in particular the stupid and self-interested ones) sooner or later discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, by electing whichever politician promises to give it to them.  In order to fulfill that promise (to some extent at least, so as to be re-elected) that politician must connive in the acquisition of government wealth by any means available, which in the case of the United States, is mainly the economic exploitation of third-world countries and of the economic resources of the planet (partly to manufacture weapons of death to sell to those and other third-world countries for financial gain).

A U.S. politician remains in office basically by stealing (together with his fellow politicians) from the rest of the world to finance the comparatively comfortable (and generally self-indulgent) lifestyle of the middle-class American voter (whether Democrat or Republican).  George W. Bush's "War on Terrorism" is a campaign, not against terrorism, but to gain total control of the Earth's economic resources so as to maintain this system of global theft.  Without continued capitalist exploitation of the planet's resources the American social and financial system will collapse.  But if it persists then we face global tyranny and probably global eco-death once the fifty billion barrels of oil in the Caspian Basin (following a similar amount from already-exploited resources) has been extracted, refined and burned, with the major risk of producing irreversible atmospheric heating.

Contrary to the widespread belief among Americans that the U.S. is a constitutional democracy, the words "democracy" and "democratic" are nowhere used in the U.S. Constitution.  The Constitution of the United States does not establish a democracy; it establishes a republic.

... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. — James Madison, as quoted in Robert Welch's Republics and Democracies

Democracy in the United States (in which the votes of dim-witted uneducated manipulable illiterates count as much as the votes of those of above-average intelligence who can understand what is best for society as a whole and not just for themselves) has finally produced a tyranny, with power concentrated in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government and denied to the states and to the people.  The other two branches of the government, the legislative and the judicial, have largely become willing tools of the executive, exactly as happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.  Everything the German Nazis did was legal, either because they appointed corrupt judges to interpret existing law as the Nazis wished or because they enacted laws to allow them to do what they wished to do (as has again occurred in the U.S. Congress with the October 2001 passage of the grossly misnamed "Patriot Act" — those congresscritters really have a perverted sense of humor).

The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.  The people do not want [that is, do not lack] virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots. — Elbridge Gerry, delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, as quoted in Republics and Democracies

But actually the executive branch no longer requires a compliant legislative branch to enact laws because it can do so itself, by means of executive orders.  The President can stipulate that something is the case and if no-one in Congress raises any objection within a few weeks (and no congresscritter has ever raised any objection to the thousands of executive orders which have been promulgated) then whatever the President has stipulated becomes part of the law of the land.  This mechanism of executive orders provides near-dictatorial powers to the U.S. President.

And George W. Bush has now issued an executive order giving him the legal right to order the killing of anyone deemed to be a terrorist (Bush Gives Green Light to CIA for Assassination of Named Terrorists).  Interestingly, it seems that although the executive order is presented as applying to foreign "terrorists" there is nothing to prevent it from being applied to domestic "terrorists".  A "terrorist" is a "terrorist" whether he is within the borders of the U.S. or beyond.  And who's to say a "terrorist" cannot be an American citizen?  Thus George W. Bush has now given himself the legal right to order the killing of any American citizen that he chooses to label as a "terrorist".  The American Republic has indeed fallen upon grim times.

A tyrannical executive branch of the U.S. federal government, arrogating all rights and powers to itself in blatant disregard of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, has now embarked on a war of aggression against the rest of the world (particularly against any countries whose actions may threaten American economic dominance), having cynically duped the American people (by carrying out a fake terrorist attack which took the lives of thousands of them and then blaming "Arab terrorists") into believing that this is a just and moral war.  It is an administration that is dominated by men who have no moral scruples, who seek only to increase their own power and wealth, who have only contempt for the principles upon which the United States was founded, who are in fact traitors to the American Republic, and who deserve to receive the penalty for treason — and that soon, before they succeed in extending the tyranny which now exists in the United States to encompass the entire planet (or else produce by their actions the enormous death and destruction resulting from another world war, with large-scale use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons).


10.  Final Questions

  1. In view of the $30 billion given annually to the FBI, the CIA and other U.S. "intelligence" agencies, why were these agencies completely unaware (or so they say) of this conspiracy before they saw its results on CNN?  And why has this (apparent) incompetence been rewarded with yet more billions?
  2. AA Flight 77 (the jet which crashed into the Pentagon) was hijacked at about 9 a.m., at about the same time as the Twin Tower impacts, and its change of course back toward Washington, or its transponder having been turned off, would have been known to flight controllers, who were aware of the impacts; why, then, were U.S. Air Force jets not scrambled to intercept AA Flight 77, when there were U.S. Air Force jets at seven locations normally ready to take off at ten minutes' notice?
  3. What is on the flight data recorder and the cockpit recorder from UA Flight 93, the jet which crashed in Pennsylvania?  Were there any recorded radio transmissions from this jet just prior to its crash, and if so what were they?  Why, exactly, did this jet crash?  Was it shot down?
  4. "Workers at Indian Lake Marina [six miles from the place where UA Flight 93 crashed] said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash [or the attack on the jet] at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday." (Pittsburg Post Gazette, Sept. 13, 2001)  If this plane was not shot down, but rather remained intact until hitting the ground, how could this debris travel the six miles from the crash site to Indian Lake in minutes when there was only a 10 mph wind blowing?  (For wind-borne debris to travel six miles in, say, six minutes requires a 60 mph wind.)
  5. Were the conversations between the pilots of the other three hijacked planes and air traffic controllers recorded?  If so, what did those pilots say?  Were those recordings siezed by the FBI?  Were (alleged) transcripts given by the FBI to the mainstream media? Were those transcripts fabricated to provide false evidence in support of the "Arab hijackers" story?
  6. Considering that all persons on board all four planes died, how did the FBI come up so quickly with a list of names of the alleged nineteen Arab hijackers — including aliases used by fourteen of them, in some cases seven aliases (see the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2001-09-27)?  Did they simply pick out all names on the passenger lists which sounded Middle Eastern?  Indeed, were those names on the passenger lists at all?  If not, why not?  Or did the FBI know in advance the names (and aliases) of the "Arab hijackers" on those flights?
  7. Why did the South Tower collapse first, 47 minutes after it was hit, rather than the North Tower (which was hit first and collapsed 1 hour and 44 minutes after being hit), even though the fire in the North Tower (the alleged cause of the collapse) was more intense?
  8. Would jet fuel burning in an enclosed space (with little oxygen available for combustion) actually produce temperatures high enough (1538°C, i.e. 2800°F) to melt massive steel beams (and all the steel beams, since steel conducts heat efficiently) enclosed in concrete in just 47 minutes?  If so, wouldn't the Twin Towers have buckled and bent, rather than collapsing upon themselves in the manner of a controlled implosion?
  9. Why were such huge quantities of ash and dust produced?  How could fire convert concrete into dust?  Has the ash been chemically analysed to determine what it really is and how it might have been produced?
  10. Is it not the case that the Twin Towers collapsed, not because of the airliner impacts and the fires, but because they were expertly demolished (even though we do not yet know exactly how this was accomplished)?
  11. Who stood to benefit from the complete destruction of the Twin Towers?
  12. In September the Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an inquiry to establish who benefited from the unusually high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options.  Why has this inquiry stalled?  Why have those who benefited from the purchases of these put options not been identified (or at least, not publicly)?
  13. Is it not the case that this atrocity was planned and carried out by elements at high levels of command in the U.S. Air Force, the CIA and the Justice Department (possibly with the involvement of well-placed civilians outside the government), acting under orders from high levels within the U.S. Administration, and that those same elements are now directing a propaganda campaign against the American people to justify a war of aggression in Asia and the Middle East aimed at controlling the oil and mineral wealth of those regions?
  14. After the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, in which 168 people died, and after the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, in which 230 people died, official investigations on a major scale were initiated.  In the attack on the WTC thousands of people died.  Why has no official commission been set up (including structural engineers) to investigate what actually happened?  (This is different from: Who did it?)  Why is there no official inquiry which is asking questions like the questions asked here?  Is it because this would destroy the credibility of the official explanation and would reveal the official deception being used to justify the "War on Terrorism"?

The U.S. attack on Afghanistan has had major repercussions in the Islamic world, and it is now planning similar attacks on Iraq, Iran and North Korea (which the U.S. regards as a threat to its economic interests because if it made peace with South Korea this would open up an overland trade route between Japan and Europe via Russia).  Further military campaigns will have unforeseeable consequences and could lead to nuclear war between India and Pakistan (possibly drawing in China and Russia).

If Bush's "War on Terrorism" is expanded beyond Afghanistan (in particular, to Iraq) it will probably lead to the overthrow of those Arab regimes whose leaders are in the pay of the Americans (in the case of Egypt, to the extent of a good chunk of the two billion dollars per year military "aid").  Will Middle Eastern oil continue to flow to the Western industrial societies and to Japan and to China?  What might be the consequences for those countries (especially as regards feeding their people and keeping them warm in winter) if oil supplies are cut off for an extended period of time?

Have America's geopolitical strategists thought this through?  Perhaps they have, and see advantage to themselves in the form of the eventual realization of the goal that the Nazis set for themselves in the 1930s: a global fascist dictatorship achieved by the use of military force, and the consequent enslavement of all humans (with those unfit to work being eliminated).

We ordinary Americans are being led, step by step, down the road to a dictatorship more evil and all-pervasive than that of the late Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party of the German aristocracy. — Sherman H. Skolnick: The Overthrow of the American Republic, Part 2

And what if the U.S. warmongers achieve their aims of gaining control of all sources of oil in Asia (and the Middle East and North Africa), and of the mineral wealth of Central Asia?  Will the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese feel secure in the knowledge that the United States will surely sell them whatever they need to maintain their industrial economies — and their military capabilities?  (The Russian and Chinese leaders surely understand the long-term threat to their national sovereignty, and are acting accordingly.)

Or is there something even more sinister going on?  Is the goal "at the highest level" the extinction of the human species?  If so, will the American people prove to be "useful idiots" facilitating the attainment of this goal?  Or, on the contrary, might they yet awaken from their ignorance, their stupidity, their greed and their egoism, take a hard look at themselves, understand what their lying, vicious, rapacious, hypocritical government is doing in the name of "freedom and democracy", and rein in and reform that government, reconstitute their nation as a republic as the authors of the Constitution intended, and save the world, as they believe (or used to believe) is their manifest destiny?


Related Documents on this Website

(other than the principal sections)

  1. David Rostcheck Message concerning the WTC Attack
  2. J. McMichael: I Tried To Be Patriotic
  3. J. McMichael: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics! Part II
  4. Fintan Dunne: The Split-Second Error
  5. Fintan Dunne: The Blockbuster
  6. Bloomberg News: Insurers Debate: One Accident or Two?
  7. Ummat: Interview with Usama bin Laden
  8. Joe Vialls: Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft
  9. Carol Valentine: Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
  10. Plane that Hit the Pentagon
  11. Was the WTC Demolished by the Use of Explosives?
  12. Christopher Bollyn: Laser Beam Weapons and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
  13. James S. Adam: Troubling Questions in Troubling Times
  14. spartsg@ix.netcom.com: The Enemy is Very Much Within
  15. The Associated Press: SEC Releases List of Suspect Trades
  16. United Nations: Preamble to the U.N. Charter
  17. U.S. Senate: Congressional resolution
  18. John Pilger: Blair has made Britain a Target
  19. George Monbiot: America's Pipe Dream
  20. Three reviews of Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth
  21. Former German Minister Speaks Out About September 11th and After
  22. David Cole: A Matter of Rights
  23. Thomas Jefferson: The Bill of Rights
  24. Lee Rodgers: The Duplicity of the War on Drugs
  25. Carol Valentine: Anti-war.com: Slyly Justifying The War On Islam
  26. Wade Frazier: The Things We Do Not Want To Know
  27. Marc Bumgarner: Why They Hate Us — A Re-Examination
  28. Sherri Muzher: Racism: When will We Face the Facts?
  29. Harry Browne: On Anti-terrorist Proposals
  30. J. B. Gerald: Is the U.S. Really a Signatory to the U.N. Convention on Genocide?
  31. Arundhati Roy: Why America Must Stop the War Now
  32. Philip Agee: Producing the Proper Crisis
  33. John Stockwell: The Secret Wars of the CIA
  34. Robert Welch: Republics and Democracies
  35. On Democracy in Our Republic
  36. Propaganda Techniques
  37. The Declaration of Independence
  38. New Declaration of Independence
  39. Reply to Criticism of this Page
  40. 9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes
  41. Bush Flubs it Again: Details and Confirmation of Prior Knowledge
  42. Bush Gives Green Light to CIA for Assassination of Named Terrorists
  43. The CIA as a Terrorist Organization
  44. A CIA Reading List
  45. The CIA: Audiotapes, Videos, CD-ROMs, Books and Articles


Last modified: 2002-04-13 CE

Top of page (Contents)
The CIA Serendipity Home Page