Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
“When I first heard of [9/11 truth] and how the NIST "scientists" involved in 911 seemed to act in very un- scientific ways, it was not at all surprising to me. By 2001 [when I retired from NIST], everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures. There was no chance that NIST people "investigating" the 911 situation could have been acting in the true spirit of scientific independence, nor could they have operated at all without careful consideration of political impact. Everything that came from the hired guns was by then routinely filtered through the front office, [including the NSA] and assessed for political implications before release ... In essence, we lost our scientific independence, and became little more than "hired guns" ... NIST had become fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm.” Former NIST Senior Scientist, Oct, 2007
“To date many of the relevant [9/11] facts have not been publicly examined or constructed by a prosecutor or an independent jury in one of the 50 US states ... Under the Bush administration ... NIST [and] the 9/11 Commission ... gave incomplete and subjective accounts of the 9/11 events ... The NIST investigation, because of clear contradictions and the implicitly admitted mistakes, does not persuasively demonstrate at all that the three towers [WTC 1, 2 and 7] fell down because of the impacts of the planes and the fires ... It is impossible to accept the conclusions of these bodies, which are against the truth ... [The] evidence demonstrates that there is a need for a new, independent and international investigation
into the events of 9/11.”
Ferdinando Imposimato, Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, former Senior Judge and Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy, panellist judge at the ‘International Hearings on the Events of September 11 2001’, Toronto 2011
‘The 9/11 Toronto Report - International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001’, pp.361-385, 2012
Multiple facts indicate that the official investigations cannot be considered credible.
What are the credible facts then?
Part 2 - Evidence-Based Facts
An introduction to some of the most credible facts, many published in peer-reviewed journals
1. Nano-thermite high-tech explosive discovered in the dust of WTC collapses
“We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center ... The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) ... [W]e conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’, Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank
M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2: 7-31, 2009
‘High Tech Incendiaries in WTC Dust - Experts Speak Out’ (5:15) Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2. Molten metal and extreme temperatures before, during and for several weeks after the WTC collapses
Molten metal in various forms confirmed by four independent scientific studies (RJ Lee, US Geological Survey, FEMA, Jones et al.) finding temperatures as high as 2,760’C (5000’F) before, during and for several weeks after the WTC collapse, compared to a maximum possible temperature of 1,000’C (1,800’F) for jet-fuel ignited office fires. Molten metal and extreme temperatures are consistent with thermite reactions.
‘Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction’, Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and C. Grabbe, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Jan 2008
‘Melted Steel Beams and Molten Iron - Experts Speak Out’ (9:23) Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
3. Nano-thermite presence supported by “extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals” among other characteristics
“Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires ... The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic nanocomposites, at Ground Zero, has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC ... These facts, coupled with evidence for extremely high temperatures at the WTC, suggest that investigators should examine the potential for such pyrotechnic materials at the
‘Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials’, Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones, The Environmentalist Journal, Vol. 29, Issue 1, 56-63, 2009
Laws of physics violated by official explanation of WTC 7 collapse
“Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain [WTC 7’s] total collapse [according to the official explanation].”
‘The collapse of WTC 7: A re-examination of the “simple analysis” approach’, Robert Korol, Paul Heerema, Ken Sivakumaran, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada, Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics, Vol. 2, Issue 1, 25–31, 2016
5. Free-fall acceleration through the path of greatest resistance
Symmetrical, straight-down, free-fall acceleration of WTC 7, and near free-fall acceleration of WTC 1 and 2 through the path of greatest resistance, signifying zero and near-zero resistance from the total undamaged structure. Free-fall acceleration was confirmed by the official NIST investigation with no explanation provided. The laws of physics indicate that the only possible explanation is controlled demolition.
‘Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11’, David Chandler, AE911Truth, 16 April 2014
WTC 7 Free Fall Acceleration (3:42)
‘Experts Speak Out’, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
6. Witness testimony of explosions
Official collection of 9/11 first responder oral histories contain many that describe explosions.
“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” Firefighter Richard Banaciski
“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
“[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’.” Paramedic Daniel Rivera
‘Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, Jan 2006
‘118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers’, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 2, August 2006
‘Eyewitness Reports of Explosions - Experts Speak Out’ (3:58) Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
7. Horizontal ejection of human bone fragments
Horizontal ejection of human bone fragments including over 750 human bone fragments of WTC victims discovered on the roof of the 40-story Deutsche Bank building 250 feet from the South Tower.
‘WTC Bone Fragments Still Surface a Decade After 9/11’, AE911Truth, Jan 2012, Article referencing The New York Times, ABC News, Boston Herald
Unsymmetrical damage cannot cause symmetrical collapse
“... the main puzzle was how two buildings with highly asymmetric damage could fail vertically downwards into the strongest part of the buildings — their steel-columned cores. And not only fail vertically, but at a speed that indicated structural resistance being removed sequentially from under the collapse wave. Few engineers would imagine buildings a quarter-of-a-mile high failing vertically, into their main structures, rather than failing laterally — given the eccentric damage ... The building performance on 9/11 matched controlled demolition. It
does not match fire-induced collapse.”
‘60 Structural Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Demolition of Three WTC High-Rises on 9/11’, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 2014
9. The hypothesis of controlled demolition accounts for the facts
“... fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-
reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities.”
‘15 years later: on the physics of high-rise building collapses’, EuroPhysics Magazine, July-Aug 2016 V5.1 15
10. Pentagon internal explosives
Physical evidence and eyewitness testimony converge to show that internal as well as external explosions occurred at the Pentagon on 9/11.
‘The Pentagon Attack Papers’, Barbara Honegger, White Paper, Jan 2011
11. Anomalies of the air defence
“In short, a whole set of highly improbable events occurred simultaneously on that morning ...
- The key people responsible for managing a hijacking were absent from their command posts right in the crucial hours.
- Important telephone and radio connections didn ́t work until after the attacks were over.
- A hijacked plane disappeared in a radar gap, and nobody is willing to explain.
- A wargame projecting a hijacking was taking place simultaneously.
- The airbase that should have protected the capital was not able to send fighter jets within an hour of time.
- Interceptors from alert bases were scrambled with unexplained delays and then diverted several times.
... It is not credible that Bin Laden was responsible for these anomalies, nor that they were sheer coincidences.”
‘Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11’, Paul Schreyer, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol 33, Oct. 2012
‘The Air Defense on 9/11: Anomalies and Questions’, Global Research TV (19:00)
12. Stand-down order of air defence
Norman Mineta, US Secretary of Transportation, testified to the 9/11 Commission that he witnessed in the Presidential Emergency Operations Centre, a conversation in which Vice President Cheney was informed multiple times of “the flight that came into the Pentagon”. The official narrative claims that the White House/Pentagon did not know of the incoming aircraft until after the crash, hence no air defence, alarms or evacuation occurred and 125 people died.
Additionally, it appears that Cheney confirmed a stand-down order to not shoot down the incoming aircraft to the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission Report states the official shoot-down authorisation was given after the Pentagon crash.
‘9/11 Report testimony altered to hide Cheney role in Pentagon hit’, Digital Journal, Feb 2015
Norman Mineta, US Secretary of Transportation, 9/11 Commission Testimony (3:55)
13. Multiple war games on 9/11 related to the actual event
On 9/11, at least five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defence agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using real planes. A possible way of assisting the execution of the attacks by planning and initiating activities under the cover of a “drill”. Brief article
‘The Military Drills On 9-11: ‘‘Bizarre Coincidence’’ Or Something Else?’, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, 123– 145, 2006
9/11 War Games – Where Was Our Air Defence? (9:47)
14. The official accounts of activities of six political and military leaders with central roles on 9/11 are contradicted by many facts
“One of the most remarkable features of 9/11 is the fact that the official accounts of the activities of six political and military leaders with central roles on 9/11 – roles that put them in position to affect the outcome of crucial events of that day – are challenged by facts suggesting that each story is false or at best dubious ... This interlocking evidence clearly points to the need for further investigation into the roles of key government and military officials on
September 11, 2001.”
‘Overview of Contradicted Claims about Key Military and Political Leaders’, The 46 Consensus Points, 9/11
Consensus Panel - 23 member, evidence-based research body into the events of September 11, 2001 15. Evidence of government complicity
“... the Pentagon, CIA and State Department maintained intimate ties to al-Qaeda militants as late as 2001 ... the very forces blamed for the 9/11 attacks – and that officials in the FBI were covering up the evidence.
... the [Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence] ISI chief ... was accused [by the FBI] of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks ... the ISI chief held several “mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council” [the week of 9/11],
including with CIA director George Tenet.
Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks” ... the senior State Department official received a call from a foreign agent under FBI surveillance asking for help to “get them out of the U.S. because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans.” The official promised “he would ‘take care of it’.”
... high-level corruption compromised the ability of the U.S. intelligence community to pursue ongoing investigations of those planning the 9/11 attacks ... [another example] of the abuse of ‘national security’ to conceal evidence of criminality.”
‘Why was a Sunday Times report on US government ties to al-Qaeda chief spiked?’, Special Report, Ceasefire, 17 May, 2013
16. Evidence of CIA complicity
“... a list of thirty-five different occasions where the two alleged hijackers were protected in this fashion [by the CIA], from January 2000 to about September 5, 2001, less than a week before the hijackings ... 9/11 [and other events] can be seen as events that were indeed “engineered,” along the guidelines set out in 1962 in the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposals for [Operation] Northwoods ...
The motives ... may have had to do with the much larger neo-con objective being imposed on American foreign policy at this same time: the consolidation of U.S. global hegemony by the establishment of U.S. forward-based bases around the oil fields of Central Asia.”
‘Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia’, Dr. Peter Dale Scott, University of California, Berkeley, The Asia-Pacific Journal, March 2012
17. The War on Afghanistan was pre-planned with
the actual start date known at least 2 months before 9/11
“... the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks ... senior American officials in mid-July [stated] that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October ”. The actual start date was 7 October.
US 'planned attack on Taleban', BBC News, 18 Sept. 2001
18. Insider trading confirmed during the days before the attack
“Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks.”
The 9/11 Commission Report states the “highly suspicious trading” was by “A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda”. (p.499)
‘Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001’, Allen M. Poteshman, University of Illinois, Journal of Business, Vol. 79,
No. 4, 2006
‘The Money Trail’, ABC News, Sept. 2001 (2:32)
Multiple facts indicate that the official investigations cannot be considered credible. (see Part 1)
Multiple credible facts indicate the official conspiracy theory (Al Qaeda conspiring to attack America) is false. Therefore it is not known what the truth is. Therefore a proper, independent investigation is required to determine the truth.
An assessment of these facts without prejudice indicates that the possibility of an alternate conspiracy theory (an ‘inside faction’ was involved in the attacks) is supported by these facts.
Is there an historical context that also supports the alternate conspiracy theory?