5: 9/11 - Conspiracy of
Let us try to be concerned here with the 9/11 conspiracy only. There
may well be a number of others, but wandering off into those would
mean: a) that we'll never get done, and b) this writer can easily be
as a conspiracy nut. There is a need to look briefly at Pearl
Harbor, as it has a bearing on 9/11. But let us go no further than that
Also, there's no need to state - if the finding is that the official
story does not hold up - what actually did happen. It may be that the
true scenario of the 9/11 events will be shrouded in mystery for a
while yet. So with that in mind, let us spare ourselves some time (and
headaches!) by avoiding endless speculation about exactly what
wickedness may have taken place on that awful day.
There is no argument about whether 9/11 was a conspiracy.
Bush and his government said it was - a terrorist conspiracy. But if it
is found to be a US-led
then the plot - with
all its sub-plots - has to be of obscene proportions.
Hold on though, in this e-book it is claimed there was an antiChrist in
White House at the time. Is it altogether surprising then, that even
key, pivotal event as the 9/11 attack could be staged? The deception -
if that's what it was - took place
on an antiChrist scale. Incredible as it may seem, maybe that's
should expect? Anyway, if there were any
murky goings-on, let us shine a light on them, and let this be to the
Glory of Jesus - the One Who came to us "full of grace and truth" -
(This is not to say that, if there was a home-grown plot then George W
Bush was in on it all along. Just that from the plotters' point of
"right" man was in the right place at the right time.)
But before going any further, this writer owes some people an apology.
unheard-of, outrageous assault - 9/11 - it took place on American
soil and struck at both the heart of America's financial capital, and
the national military HQ. Many
lost loved ones on that day. And millions more across America
were shocked to the core at this violation of their personal sense of
security. Can't we just let it rest? Why keep going back to 2001 and
raking over the coals of that sorrowful day?
Agreed, if the official version of 9/11 is indeed the truth, then to
keep on muckraking where there is no muck is inexcusable. There has
been enough grief, without more reminders of it. But if the administration lied to us,
then the actions that were based on their 9/11 narrative have no moral authority.
The chaos that has been created in Afghanistan and in Iraq in the wake of 9/11 are criminal acts.
There can be no rest in America's soul if we her people
have cooperated with a US government given to criminality.
God is honored by the truth. So let us proceed, sensitively.
Conspiracy. It's worth noting perhaps, that the writer was at one time
skeptical about "conspiracy theories." Mostly they seemed to be anti-semitic;
and they offered little evidence. They came from people who appeared to be
hate-filled. It seemed sensible to discount them, by and large.
And on that awful day in 2001 - there was certainly no inkling that
this could be in any way a "home-grown attack." Watching the scene
unfold on US network TV, it did strike this witness as incredible all the same -
surely it was a scene from a movie? And he felt guilty that on one
level, he could see people dying, and yet why wasn't it registering with him as real? For it
certainly was real, and its 3,000 victims still cry to us with silent pleas for
recognition and justice.
But this scribe had no reason to doubt the official account - that 19 terrorists
had taken over four planes, and attacked the United States with three
of them (the fourth plane being rendered harmless by brave passengers
who tackled the hijackers). By 2003 though, this witness was engaging
in peaceful protest, along with millions of others - these were not
only in the USA but around the world. A Bush government seemed to be hellbent on
attacking Iraq (again). This intent was put forward to the American
people as a necessary response to 9/11. What? With no evidence that
there was the slightest collusion between bin Laden, the supposed
leader of a terrorist network (which the US administration referred
to as "Al-Qaeda"), and Saddam Hussein?
The millions were ignored, and the Iraq invasion
went ahead. At the same time it began to emerge that an Iraq invasion had been a firm part
of the neocon agenda since well before 9/11(1)
Still it did not occur to this chump of a writer that America could
be made to turn on herself! That elements of the US government could be
so callous and devious as to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the loss of
up to 3,000 mortal lives? No way.
The first inklings - about how genuine the 9/11 story was - may have begun
then. There had been some straws in the wind, mind you, early on.
Firstly there was the speech GWB gave just 16 days after 9/11. By means
of this address (at Chicago's O'Hare Airport) Bush encouraged Americans
to carry on as normal: "Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your
families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed." As we see
it now, these remarks could be paraphrased this way: "Don't worry. So the
World Trade Center's been destroyed. That'll cost billions. I've
declared a so-called "War on Terror" - and that'll cost trillions. But just go and
enjoy yourselves - spend, like before." [We'll put the price tag on the
The second event that had an odd
ring to it was the
became the USA Patriot Act - introduced (in its final form) to Congress
on October 23,
2001. This bill had so many detailed measures in its hundreds of pages
that no legislator supporting it, claimed to have read it all prior to
voting on it. The act seemed strange: were such draconian limits to
Americans' freedom really necessary?
Note. With the wisdom of hindsight, this writer should have been
asking, How could such an intricate, comprehensive bill have been
drafted, checked, honed, and finalized in a scant six weeks? And also,
How could "terrorists" know to attack members of Congress and the media
deadly anthrax with such precise timing? Recalling that the effect of
attacks was to
stifle debate on the Patriot bill, and to grease the skids under its
. Lest any of us harbor any illusions
that the Patriot Act is a good thing, it might be worth your while
having a look at how this act was used against Susan Lindauer(4)
Returning to 2003, it must have been around this
time - the invasion of Iraq - that the Holy
Spirit began to alert this witness to the fact that GWB could be a key
figure. And then there were those "Bush Knew" revelations. Folk might
argue that a
doesn't have to divulge all to the people; sometimes it's better to
keep alarming news quiet. But that's only true if that president then
makes good and sure that such a threat is responded to, and that all
needed steps to head it off and defuse it are taken care of. Which is
not what happened ahead of 9/11(5)
This witness now has a very different view about all this talk of
a US government that was asleep. However, that was his take on things
at the time - these days he tends to see this as a lesson in not being
Still, at the time the picture was incomplete as far as this scribe is
seemed the US government had been worse than incompetent - it had sadly
neglected its duty to the American people. This wasn't the
nation that this immigrant had come to know at all. It didn't make
sense. But things began to fall into place
when he became aware of the 9/11 Truth movement. That might have been
as late as 2006, and it marks a turning point in the narrative
At first this scribe was taken aback at what he was being told by 9/11
Truthers, but given time to reflect on the material, it made more and
more sense. Now he is decidedly grateful for all the
careful work that this movement has done.
At this point, the account is effectively being turned over to the 9/11
Truth movement. Let us examine together what is being claimed, and see what we make of it.
Jesus told him, "I am the Way--yes, and the Truth
and the Life."
John 14:6 (TLB)
Shanksville - "United
Airlines Flight 93" (UA93). The official account: This
flight was hijacked by 9/11 terrorists, but they were fought with by
courageous passengers. And so, instead of the plane crashing into a
building, we are told this is what happened:
... the aircraft plowed into an empty field in
Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes’
flying time from Washington, D.C.(6)
As mentioned, on the day of 9/11, this writer took at face value the
news being broadcast. And the reported crash at Shanksville brought the
9/11 tragedy home - it happened in our state: we were living in Mexico,
Pa., just 183km. (114 miles) away. The story which came out shortly
after 9/11 was heartwarming: about the passengers who had resisted the
terrorists - passengers who sacrificed themselves to prevent a further
It's natural to want to believe this comforting story still. But can
we? Isn't there too much evidence against it? Now, this writer is not
going to be able to lay before you what actually did happen in a corner
of rural Pennsylvania that day - the events are shrouded in mystery.
However, enough is known to be able to say this:
story describes something that does not seem to line up
with the facts on the ground. Meaning that the above words - a quote from The
9/11 Commission Report
- surely cannot be true. Why not? Because
the crater which the Boeing 757 of flight 93 allegedly made, in said
Pennsylvania field, is incredibly small.
The best way to see this is through the photographs taken at the
. If these are compared with photos of a
genuine jet airliner crash in Pennsylvania (US Airways Flight 427), the contrast between a
real crash and an apparently fudged one is only too clear(8)
Well if UA93 did not finish up in that crater at Shanksville, what did
happen to it? A reasonable question - this scribe is not sure of the
answer. David Ray Griffin(9)
and many others - who
have looked diligently for the truth about 9/11 - believe a large aircraft
was shot down in that vicinity, on 9/11. Certainly, aircraft debris was
scattered over several miles, so a USAF air-strike could indeed be the
answer. Was the target flight 93, and were the passengers aboard? We
don't know. For there was even a report that morning (genuine?) of UA93
landing at Cleveland after
had supposedly crashed in Pa, and of passengers being evacuated.
If you're interested to research UA93 further,
one place to start could be here(10)
. Be warned though, the amount
of information and disinformation about flight 93 - on the Internet and elsewhere - is
huge. And when a person has sifted it all, there remains - in this
writer's opinion - a large degree of mystery. (Which is not to say that
the writer is not grateful for all the good, thorough research that has
been done. Without the clear evidence that this work has brought to light,
we would be in a poor way indeed!)
Just supposing that the official story on UA93 was an elaborate
fiction. Why would we even begin to think that the government may have
lied in this way? Well, it turns out that there was indeed motive - in
the industrial-military complex. As a result, some key decision-makers
could have been persuaded to assent to a 9/11 plot. At the end of this chapter, that
aspect will be gone into more fully. For now, let us hold back from
Suffice it to say, looking at this Shanksville, Pa story, we have to
admit - right now, there is confusion here. However, when all the known
events of that terrible day are assessed, it should become clear that
the UA93 saga is part of a pattern. So let us continue, and see where
the evidence leads.
Also, however much fog surrounds the Pa crash, there are deeper and
more profound mysteries, as can be seen in the following verse.
- And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness:
- God who was revealed in the flesh,
Was vindicated in the Spirit,
Beheld by angels,
Proclaimed among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory.
I Timothy 3:16 (NAS 1975)
Pentagon - "American Airlines Flight 77" (AA77). Again, let's
start with the
government's account of what happened on September 11, 2001. According
to The 9/11 Commission Report, this is what took place:
At 9:37, the west wall of the Pentagon was hit by
hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757. The crash caused
immediate and catastrophic damage. All 64 people aboard the airliner
were killed, as were 125 people inside the Pentagon (70 civilians and
55 military service members). One hundred six people were seriously
injured and transported to area hospitals.(11)
And again, this writer had no reason to doubt anything that was
being said. The
fact that military and civilian public servants were the targeted
victims surely meant the officials' story was true. After all,
"everyone" knows deep down, that the government is not about to attack
its own employees, is it? This thought didn't even have to be
formulated - it was just there.
Then pages were seen on the
Internet by the writer, putting some cracks in the public version of
the 9/11 events at the military HQ. Very like the Shanksville, Pa
situation, it seemed that the damage, initially, did not compare with
the wholesale destruction that would be caused by a large jet airliner.
deaths and injuries of Pentagon personnel, Lord knows, were real. But
the hole in the building's facade could not possibly have accommodated
most of a
757-200 - which is what officialdom said passed through there.
Some time after (about 20 minutes after) the building was first hit,
part of the Pentagon's West wing collapsed. Now the
damage is great. The 9/11 Commission Report
only shows a
photograph of the
building after this collapse. The Pentagon Building
does show a couple of pre-collapse photographs; but the authors gloss
over one fact. Namely that the amount of damage to the Pentagon facade
- compared with what a Boeing 757 would have inflicted - does not stack
Why would these official documents play down important evidence like
Could it be to paper over an obvious truth - that the relatively minor
damage to the building that was apparent in the first minutes after the
could not possibly have come from a Boeing 757?(13)
lot more that you might want to consider about the declared strike of
AA77 on the Pentagon. Firstly, there are questions about the Building
. Then there are many
questions about the piloting of said AA77 by Hani Hanjour - the man
stated in The 9/11 Commission Report
to be the pilot for
. Finally, there are two good
summaries of the outstanding questions about the hit on the Pentagon
. Both authors quite naturally go into
what might have hit the military HQ, since they rule out the 757 story.
As mentioned at the head of this chapter, in this e-book we don't have
unerringly what secret plots the conspirators got up to. Assuming for a
moment there were home-grown plotters - they know what they did.
There is another common feature between the attack on the Pentagon and
the 9/11 events in Shanksville, Pa. Namely that these two locations
both lend themselves to mystery. If there was a government plot, then a
remote area in Pennsylvania is ideal. Few folk live there; as a result
the number of eye-witnesses who saw the actual formation of the small
crater there, was zero.
The Pentagon - one of the world's largest office buildings - would seem
to be the opposite of that situation. But, being a military
installation, it can be rendered remote to the outside world. Men and
women in the armed forces operate under a code of discipline, as is
well known. This means that anyone seeking to find out the truth about
9/11 may be at a grave disadvantage when it comes to the hit on the
Pentagon. Whatever information is given to the
outside world tends to be what is judged by the military to be that
which "the general public" needs to hear. This somehow gets wrapped up
"patriotism," and sadly in this case often seems to translate into:
comes to 9/11, never mind the niceties about what actually occurred.
To conclude this section then, the attack on the Pentagon has more than
its share of mystery about it. Thankfully though, enough is known to
say this: though the official story is backed up by some of the
facts on the ground speak louder than those voices. Indeed looking at
the impossibility of fitting a 757 into the West wing facade, a person
begins to wonder: Why did the government make it so obvious that the
story is fake?
So when it comes to 9/11 and the Pentagon, again many elements remain
cloudy, mysterious. But
such questions are put into perspective when we dare to look at the
Grace and Greatness of our God:
But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he
to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to
his servants the prophets.
Revelation 10:7 (KJV)
World Trade Center 1 (WTC1) -
"American Airlines Flight 11" (AA11). The official account of
what happened to the first of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, is
in The 9/11 Commission Report:
At 8:46:40, the hijacked American Airlines Flight
11 flew into the upper portion of the North Tower, cutting through
floors 93 to 99. Evidence suggests that all three of the building’s
stairwells became impassable from the 92nd floor up ...
The North Tower collapsed at 10:28:25 A.M., killing
all civilians alive on upper floors, an undetermined number below, and
scores of first responders.(17)
There is not a word in The
9/11 Commission Report
this enormously strong tower
should suffer a
total, lethal collapse - 110 stories falling to the ground in seconds.
there is this statement, among others:
No one anticipated the possibility of a total collapse.(18)
fireball was produced when the aircraft hit
the tower, but it
is understood that most of the jet's fuel would have burned off in
minutes. Certainly fires burned from the moment of the impact
until the tower went down, one hour and 42 minutes later. But would
these fires have been hot enough to rob all the steel in the building
of its strength? Because to collapse in the brief time it did means
that WTC1's massive core columns behaved more like bundles of straw
than pillars of steel.
Yet the evidence says that the
Twin Towers' fires were not
a) No extensive window breakage occurred, showing the fires did not
exceed 600-700deg.C (1100-1300deg.F) (19)
b) The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found just
three steel perimeter columns with temperatures over 250deg.C
(480deg.F), and the two steel core columns they could analyze did not
c) On February 13, 1975, the North Tower suffered a serious fire that
burned for three hours, and involved floors 9 - 19. Window breakage and
flames shooting out of the building pointed to temperatures exceeding
700deg.C (1300deg.F). The tower stood(21)
If the above temperatures are compared with the melting point of steel,
it's easy to see that they fall far short of that point: structural
steel melts at about 1500deg.C (about 2750deg.F) (22)
And indeed, NIST denied that the fires had been sufficient to cause
steel to melt in any of the WTC towers(23)
So if the fires were not intense, then did the
collapse occur due to
the impact of the aircraft (plus whatever damage resulted from the
We need to be aware that, designed into the WTC towers was the
capability to withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707. This
is a comparable aircraft to the 767's which allegedly hit WTC1 and
Neither Twin Tower fell in the minutes
following the plane
strikes. This would seem to confirm that their design was indeed
conservative, and that these structures were extremely strong. They
should have continued to stand, just as the Empire State Building stood
in 1945, despite being hit by a B-25 bomber.
Again, if the fires could not bring down WTC1, and
the plane couldn't
either, nor the combination of the two factors, what did?
Something very peculiar: people
have gone on record as witnessing molten
in the basement of
WTC1 (and those of
WTC2 and WTC7 also). But we have seen that this did not happen as a
result of fire(25)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) examined some of the
steel in the WTC debris - before it was carted away. FEMA found: "[a]
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur
..." In other words, somehow a mixture that melted at the lowest
possible temperature ("eutectic") was present in the basements(26)
This mixture is consistent with the use of thermite cutter charges in
. Is this what caused WTC1 (and
WTC2 and WTC7) to
collapse? If we aren't sure as to the answer, maybe it's because the
physical evidence at the WTC crime scene was swiftly carried off and
shipped to Asia(27)
. Surely itself a crime?
suggests that enough evidence on the WTC1 collapse is shown here
to be able to say with absolute confidence that the official story does
not stand up. However, let us end this section with a few more facts
that kind of cry out for answers:
a) WTC1 was the first of the Twin Towers to be hit, and the second to
fall. One hour and 42 minutes elapsed from the plane strike to the
collapse. This compares with just 56 minutes that occurred between the
second aircraft flying into WTC2 and its collapse. Strange, considering
the plane that struck WTC1 - officially the 767 of AA11 - hit the
building square-on, whereas the impact of the plane hitting WTC2 -
officially the 767 of UA175 - was
off-center. Also, the fuel loads of the two planes - according to
official figures - were similar, but more of the fuel burned off in the
outside WTC2, than was the case for WTC1(28)
b) The only explanation for the WTC building failures put forward in The
9/11 Commission Report
is that of a "pancake collapse."(29)
not elaborate on this, understandably, as it makes no sense in terms of
. And there were no observed
c) Finally, it's surely worth remembering that total collapse does not
occur in steel framed high-rises, in the absence of earthquakes. Except
of course, when they fall due to controlled demolition(32)
The writer hopes that this treatment of the WTC1 9/11 events has at
least caused you to question the official story. Thanks to some very
dedicated work by the 9/11 Truth Movement, you may well be seeing The
9/11 Commission Report
, for instance, in a different light. The
two sections deal with the other two buildings that suffered total
collapse on 9/11 - WTC2 and WTC7.
First let us recall with sadness all those who mourn for the victims of
towers' falls. But let us also be aware that we humans do not have the
last word on the subject. There is a Comforter far more qualified than
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance
of our God; to comfort all that mourn ...
Isaiah 61:2 (KJV)
World Trade Center 2 (WTC2) - "United Airlines Flight 175" (UA175).
From the official account in The
9/11 Commission Report:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds ..."(33)
This was the first tower to fall; none of the
expecting this to happen. The fact that the collapse came as a total
have added to the number of mortalities. Not only the occupants and the
first responders inside the building, but the people on the ground who
were slain by falling debris - all were caught in a lethal trap.
We have seen in the WTC1 section above that it did
not make sense for
WTC2 to fall before WTC1. The South Tower was the second to be struck,
plane's impact was less damaging, and more of the jet's fuel burned
outside of WTC2 than with WTC1. It should have stood long after WTC1
The fact that the 9/11 collapses were unique among
steel-framed high-rises has also been covered in the WTC1
. There remains one salient
point that applies to WTC2
(and probably WTC1 but we don't know this for sure):
The plane crash into WTC2 was well photographed and
videoed - unlike
that for WTC1, where just one low-definition video has been released to
the public. In image after image of the plane nearing the South Tower,
the same anomaly
crops up. There is
an extra appendage carried under the fuselage of the plane. This may be
the source for the flash that can be seen in some of the images, just
before the plane strikes the tower.
Of course, the writer is going into a mare's nest
of controversy with
this one. Information and disinformation - where is the truth? This
Quaker doesn't claim to be knowledgeable at all in this field. However,
here is an retired military leader whose testimony should carry weight.
This is from a video interview he (Glenn MacDonald) gave to 9/11 Ripple
"One of the things that jumped out at me when I looked at
of the video of Flight 175 as it went into the World Trade Center is it
appeared to me that there was something on the underfuselage of that
aircraft that did not belong there, at least not with a commercial
"Now, I'll tell you where I have seen attachments that look like that
-- on military aircraft ...
"Well, the pod could have been a number of things. It could have
been even a missile attached. It could have been some kind of
explosive attached. But whatever it was, it didn't belong there
in a commercial flight ..."
There are two other websites with good coverage of this topic - the
first one has excellent images, and the second provides
counter-arguments to the many disinformation artists(35)
By the way, it is encouraging in this context to recall that: "... God
is not the author of confusion ..." - I Corinthians 14:33 (KJV).
Of course, it is easy to pooh-pooh this statement in a number of ways:
The artifact could have been a trick of the light, or it was the wing
fairing (standard swellings of the fuselage on both sides of a 767).
Or, the pod could have been edited into the images. However, the pod is
there in a large number of images - some are still photographs, some
are from videos - taken at different angles and points of view. And we
can't be sure at this stage. But we do
have cause to wonder at the high emotion levels generated by this
topic. It is certainly a
fact that a piece of military hardware proven to be on the plane that
hit WTC2 would blow the official story out of the window.
Is it proven absolutely? Well, this witness cannot say that. It would
supposes, the testimony of the perpetrators to prove it at that level.
this scribe does say that he believes in the images, and the entry
point evidence marked on the building. He sees no good
reason to rubbish these findings. They are more likely to be true than
untrue, given all the other strange and secret things about 9/11. And
so he will continue to hold that there was some equipment slung under
whatever plane struck WTC2 (and probably the WTC1 plane also), until
someone can prove otherwise.
If that seems ugly, to think that elements of our government would
stoop so low, sorry, but yes it is ugly. And, tragic as 9/11 was, it is
part of a cruel pattern: There is a well-known saying, "The first
casualty in war is truth." How are we going to respond to that reality?
Let us never
give up the search for truth. And let us allow ourselves to be
comforted, because surely we must wait on God for the final answer:
For the LORD shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her
and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the
garden of the LORD;
joy and gladness shall be found therein,
thanksgiving, and the voice of melody.
Isaiah 51:3 (KJV)
World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) - No Flight at All.
On 9/11, this 47 story steel-framed high-rise collapsed entirely - in
under seven seconds - at 17:20. It was separated from the North Tower
by a building - WTC6 - and by Vesey Street. Unlike WTC1 and WTC2, WTC7
imploded and fell down largely
in its own footprint(36). The Twin Towers, by
contrast, exploded - huge
clouds of ash and heavier debris
radiated out from each tower, and covered a wide area(37).
The WTC1-WTC2 falls
resulted in thousands of mortalities, whereas it's thought there were
no casualties when WTC7 came down, thankfully.
Sections 1-4 above each
began with the official
account in The
9/11 Commission Report. What does that report have to say about
WTC7? Well, it states that WTC7 was the location of New York
City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM). The response of the OEM
prior to 09:30 is covered. The fact that the civilians were evacuated
from WTC7 after the South Tower was hit is reported on. The evacuation
of the remaining staff - that is, from the OEM - starting at 09:30 - is
also noted. Finally, an engineer who states - just before WTC2
collapses - that the Twin Towers are expected to come down, is said to
be at the front of WTC7(38).
And that's it. Didn't WTC7 collapse? You wouldn't know it from
9/11 Commission Report. The total loss of WTC7 doesn't get a
mention in any of the report's 567 pages. Well that's strange, isn't it
strange aspect of 9/11)? Please bear in mind the 9/11 Commission's own
The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete
accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as
to how to prevent such attacks in the future.(39)
WTC7 was the first and only steel-framed
high-rise to suffer total collapse as a result of fire(40)
It had a real estate value approaching $1 billion(41)
. And it
fell on 9/11. That's not newsworthy? Apologies if you knew all along about WTC7, but
this writer didn't know about the loss of a third high-rise on 9/11
until when: 2005, 2006? Yet he was watching US network TV coverage on that day in 2001. How
come he missed it? It seems that he is not alone: the reporting
of WTC7 coming down on 9/11 was missed by a majority of Americans.
Apparently, this event was downplayed on the
day of 9/11, and thereafter was pretty well dropped by the media(42)
So the fall of WTC7 was effectively hidden from the public. And this was right
in line with the activity of some of the tenants in WTC7. Secrecy
was a work-related matter for a number of the people who worked there.
The following government security agencies - the CIA, Department of Defense
(DOD), FBI, and US Secret Service - were operational in that building.
A great deal of the business of WTC7 was about knowing and keeping
Actually, the government had said something, before
2005-6 about WTC7's fall (but this witness missed it). FEMA had reported on the 9/11 collapse of
WTC7 in 2002, as part of their findings on the WTC as a whole. But the theory that FEMA
presented as to the cause of this very odd collapse, they also said they weren't
ball was passed to NIST, who reported on WTC7's collapse seven years after
the fact, in 2008(44)
. At last, a government body
was saying what caused the total failure of this WTC high-rise. NIST
said WTC7 fell because one key column failed, as an indirect effect of fire.
Now, it doesn't take an expert to see that even if
the loss of one column could bring down a modern building, it would produce a relatively slow, uneven,
collapse. Yet NIST had conceded that WTC7 came down, in part anyway, in
They also stated that controlled demolition (CD) didn't occur. And
the way NIST proved this was by doing a computer simulation of the
effect of laying RDX (a WWII-originated material) explosive against a
single column. They didn't simulate the effect of laying CD charges against
multiple columns, saying that preparations for such a blast scenario
could scarcely happen without detection. Nor did they try the effect of other type charges,
such as thermite/thermate. So, on the basis of their scenario
CD didn't happen, couldn't happen.
But the hallmarks of CD were present for all to see.
There is more than just the observed free-fall acceleration as WTC7
went down. This can be seen by checking out the first-rate summary of
WTC7's controlled demolition signs in this webpage (its right-hand column)
authored by Architects &
Engineers for 9/11 Truth(46)
There is also a fine rebuttal of NIST's conclusions - available at
the same ae911truth.org website(47)
By ruling out CD, but on grounds that are clearly inadequate, what
are NIST signaling? Aren't they sending a coded message? "We can't say
that CD happened - we're the government - but obviously it did
happen. So draw your own conclusions." This writer thinks we may be in
debt to NIST.
To summarize on WTC7 - this witness can see why he was slow to pick up
on the fact that this high-rise was the third one to fall on the day.
News of this event had to be choked off. The collapse of this 47-story
building could not withstand close scrutiny. It was not explainable by
planes, or terrorists, or diesel fuel, or the limited fires that broke
out. (And by the way, for what reason did fires break out, given WTC7's
location away from the Twin Towers?) Experts felled that building.
Experts who had government approval to be inside it, and to prepare it
for a controlled demolition when the late afternoon of 9/11 arrived.
In the writer's opinion, in the above sections, we have moved from the
event with the most mystery around it - the crater at Shanksville, Pa -
to the one that is the most clear-cut - the fall of WTC7. Suppose the
collapse of this tower had been the only thing that happened on that
awful day of 9/11. It would have had the full glare of publicity.
Then if there had been no proper investigation as to causes, there would have been a public outcry.
A mass movement that would have been unstoppable, demanding answers.
But this event was overshadowed by the lethal, horrific destruction at the
Twin Towers, and at the Pentagon. So whoever did this was able to cloak
the WTC7 criminality, and is still hiding the truth. This witness is certain that WTC7 came down because
the building had been rigged for CD. We need an answer, don't we, as to how that
Maybe you too have reached that conclusion?
When we face up to the grim fact that WTC7 was brought down by CD, we
can also accept the logic that CD must have felled the Twin Towers
also. The remaining events of 9/11 then fall into place. The West Wing
of the Pentagon was not assailed the way officialdom said it was, any
more than the crash in Pennsylvania followed the script we were fed.
The government has lied to us, not for the first time, sadly, but maybe
this is the biggest lie? The culprits have to be elements in the US
administrative machine. Who else had the
resources to carry out such terrible devastation, with such coordinated
precision? None but government - our government primarily, but quite
possibly with the help of other
Getting the government to admit to their obvious crimes - that's
going to be tough. But by the Grace of God it will happen. What is
needed is for enough honest folk to stand up, and demand justice. The
truth will out in the end!
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing,
that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 15:13 (NAS 1975)
How Can This Happen, in "the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave"?
Yes, indeed. This scribe's view of America was a rosy one - focusing on
all the good that our country has done. To discover that 9/11 was not
only a day of terror, but was home-grown terror - that came as a shock
to him. So it might be important, to those of us not used to seeing the
US in a bad light, to review a little history.
False-flag Operations. David
Ray Griffin (DRG) has well demonstrated (in his book, Christian Faith and the Truth behind
) that truth tends to fly out of the window when nations turn to warring:
1. Foreign Nations.
Japan - Mukden Incident, 1931 - blame for sabotage falsely put on China
by Japan, which then takes over Manchuria.
Germany - Reichstag Fire, 1933 - falsely blamed on Communists by Nazis
"Fire Decrees" are then brought in, supplying a "legal" basis for
Germany - "Operation Himmler," 1939 - the night before Sept. 1, 21
false flag operations are mounted by Germany, and blamed on Polish
troops - in the
morning Hitler invades Poland and WWII begins(48)
2. The United States of America.
Sadly, as DRG shows, the US has been guilty of the same kind of thing -
for the last 100 years at least. Citing the Spanish-Cuban-American War
1898, US-Philippines War 1898, Vietnam War: Gulf of Tonkin 1964 - all
of these wars
were either begun or escalated on the basis of falsely blaming the
other side, as an excuse for US aggressive action(49)
US Covert Manipulation of Foreign Nations.
Some examples are given here of US covert undermining of sovereign
nations' governance for the benefit of American interests. Again, this
writer is indebted to DRG for these:
1. Iran - 1953. The CIA installs the Shah (having used a coup to wreck
a soundly-based parliamentary system). The Shah's rule proves to be
cruel and despicable.
2. Guatemala - 1954. The US ensures that democratic rule is replaced by
military dictatorship. The result - decades of state terror.
3. Greece - 1964 and 1967. In 1964 the CIA ensured that the leading
party in this democracy was toppled. Then in 1967 the US were behind a
coup that brought in a military junta. Its leader, Papadopoulos, was
said to be "the first CIA agent to become premier of a European
country." The result was seven years of torture.
4. Indonesia - 1957-65. It took a while, but with persistence, the US
covert agencies got there. A CIA and Pentagon-organized coup took place
there in 1965. In (yet another) false-flag operation, the coup was
blamed on the Communists. The ensuing chaos resulted in somewhere
between 1 and 2 million mortalities(50)
So it would seem that the US is not above furthering her own interests
by subterfuge, and lies. But to plan for the loss of her own citizens -
that's in a different league surely? The US wouldn't descend to that
level. Well, read on, as it seems that if the goal is sufficiently
attractive, Yes, the US government, at least, would.
It now appears that the US losses at Pearl Harbor are a close parallel
to the sacrifices made on 9/11. Of course, the truth of this is very
strongly opposed. Those who deny that Pearl Harbor was an event
expected by FDR are creating quite a bit of confusion. So what are the
On December 7, 1941 the Japanese attacked the US
Pacific fleet at Pearl
Harbor. On December 8, the US entered WWII. And the background to this?
Many of the top US officials in government and the military, had sought
an entry to WWII; FDR became persuaded that Japan could be provoked
into an attack on the US. This would then be the key to bringing a
American people into WWII. FDR set about ensuring that Japan took
the bait. The price was 2,403 Americans killed by the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor. But the reward was the defeat in unconditional
surrender of the Axis Powers led by Germany, Japan and Italy in 1945.
This paved the way for American pre-eminence in the world.
Is there any backup for the above sweeping statements? Yes. Firstly,
DRG reveals that as early as 1939 - after WWII began in Europe, the
project to build a global American empire began. The Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) and the Department of State worked together in a
committee - to come up with strategy, both for the war and for the
ensuing peace. This committee has been described as the "imperial brain
trust." Their ultimate goal was nothing less than a global capitalist
economy led by the US(51)
This committee would have been wasting its time if its far-reaching
strategic goal was never communicated to the president, FDR.
Fast-forwarding to December 7, 1941. The strike on
Pearl Harbor caught
the local military commanders - Kimmel and Short - napping. Hence the
severity of the losses. Kimmel and Short were given the blame for the
disaster, and were swiftly relieved of their command. However, as early
as 1944, both the navy and the army reinvestigated the matter, and
cleared both commanders as a result.
They pointed out that Hawaii had been kept out of the loop of
intelligence available in Washington. Saying, "essential intelligence
concerning Japanese intentions and war plans was available in
Washington but was not shared [with Hawaii command]."(52)
This was confirmed by Congress in October 2000 in passing a bill:
H.R.3050I.H. - "To provide for the posthumous advancement of Rear
Admiral (retired) Husband E. Kimmel and Major General (retired) Walter
C. Short on the retired lists of their respective services." This
request to the C. in C. was attached to the National Defense
Authorization Act. Which act was signed into law by Bill Clinton on
October 30, 2000(52)
. Clinton didn't
do what Congress had asked for,
however. And of course, after 9/11 GWB (and Barack Obama) could hardly
comply with that request by Congress - to do so would be an admission
that Pearl Harbor was the precedent for the 9/11 devastation.
We'd better back up though, for has it yet been
shown that FDR was in
the intelligence loop that the local commanders were out of? (Because
if he was not, then the failure to share intelligence with Hawaii might
just have been plain inefficiency.) Let us complete the picture then,
by showing that there are a number of witnesses to FDR's involvement in
the Pearl Harbor tactic:
1. Don C Smith said FDR knew. Don Smith directed the War Service of the
US Red Cross, pre-WWII. Shortly before the attack in 1941, he was asked
by FDR to furnish extra personnel and medical supplies to the West
Coast [and then to Hawaii]. Don Smith was warned that the preparations
were to be kept secret from both the military in Hawaii and the local
Red Cross people(53)
2. Churchill indicated in his memoirs that FDR
knew. The webpage in the
chapter note below states the following:
Churchill wrote in his Nobel Prize winning series on WWII
knew about the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor ...
The webpage quotes an extract from Churchill's work: The
. And the following points are made:
1. Hawaii's commanders did not get proper warning.
2. Churchill was not going to judge what FDR did at Pearl Harbor.
3. FDR and he were very afraid that the US could not come into the war
unless Japan attacked the U.S.
4. Pearl Harbor was worth the price.
5. FDR "knew the full and immediate purpose" of the Japanese at Pearl
3. James O Richardson, commander of the Pacific
Fleet, complained to
FDR in 1940 of the danger of moving his fleet to Pearl Harbor. He was
quickly fired by FDR(55)
4. Robert Stinnett showed that FDR knew. Robert
Stinnett, a veteran of
the war in the Pacific, spent 17 years unearthing the truth. In his
book Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and
, Stinnett's research shines a light on secret
documents. These were made public as a result of numerous requests made
under FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). His book helped make possible
the above action by Congress in 2000 on behalf of Kimmel and Short(56)
The Relevance of Pearl Harbor to 9/11.
While it should be clear by now that the Pearl Harbor tragedy parallels
9/11 closely, the two events differ in a couple of ways (in the
writer's opinion). Firstly, Americans were killed by Japanese at Pearl
Harbor - by which action Japan made herself the enemy of the US.
Whereas at 9/11, this witness maintains that Americans, and others,
were killed by Americans (perhaps with the help of allies?) So whatever
blame is assigned to FDR for hauling the US into WWII by a bloody
attack on her Pacific Fleet, should not more blame fall on GWB,
as this was America killing her own?
it would seem not. Unlike FDR and Pearl Harbor, it appears
that George W Bush was quite innocent of the plan for 9/11. The
president and C in C had no idea on the day, that these multiple blows
would strike New York and Washington. At least, that's what GWB's
reactions on the day are telling us.
Bush was at the Emma E Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida,
when Andrew Card brings him the news: "A second plane hit the second
tower. America is under attack." Bob Woodward writes (in Bush at
): "A photo of that moment is
etched for history ... His face has a distant sober look, almost
frozen, edging on bewilderment(57)
sat and listened to pupils reading The Pet
for about seven minutes after hearing the news.
Now-senior Chantal Guerrero was in that class, and says the president
"just looked like he got the worst news in the world."(58)
You can't fake something like that, as Ken Loach, film director, knows.
"Surprise is the hardest thing to act," says Loach. And so he makes
sure his cast don't get to see the full script in advance. One actress,
for instance, only found out during the filming of a battle scene that
her character was to be shot and killed(59)
Back to GWB - he could be forgiven for being in shock, having such a
cataclysm as 9/11 thrust at him as president. And his behavior on the
day of 9/11 revealed that it was all new to him. We would be completely
wrong to blame him for 9/11 itself. He was given a genuine surprise by
the Ken Loach equivalent for the 9/11 plot, whoever that person was.
Mind you, George Bush would at some point have been let in on the plot.
From that day on, and not before, he became culpable for all the
military retaliation that wasn't really retaliation. And for all the other wrong
things that have been visited upon Muslims and others - justified on
the basis of a phony 9/11.
^ 7. Conclusion.
The writer is wondering, what is your verdict on all
this? There is surely more than enough evidence. Looking at the facts,
we can be certain that something very, very, fishy took place on 9/11.
And that "something" lies at the door of hidden agencies acting within
the American nation. As we know, Bush's government said 9/11 was a
conspiracy. This witness simply holds that the conspiracy wasn't 19 men
with boxcutters, but comprised a much larger and more sinister plot.
There is enormous pressure to just "go along with the program." How
could anyone accuse the US of such monstrous acts as occurred on 9/11?
How much more comfortable to accuse a bunch of Muslims. How much more
convenient to promote a new "antisemitism." One directed this time
against our Arab and other brothers and sisters: those who follow the
religion of the prophet? We forget, or we are unaware that there is no
organization called "Al-Qaeda." There was no such thing until the CIA
invented the term(60).
There is an alternative to going along with the program, this
writer believes. Those of us who are of faith must insist on all
the facts behind 9/11 being revealed. We should know that anything
other than the truth is temporary,
for this is what our Lord said:
"Whatever they have said in the dark shall be heard in the
and what you have whispered in the inner rooms shall be broadcast from
the housetops for all to hear!" Luke 12:3 (TLB)
The first thing to do then, is to accept the truth. What we do about it
will follow, and is worthy of much careful thought. Such a process must
surely be grounded in prayer. Then the Holy Spirit can bring order to
any chaotic thoughts, and ensure that there is no straying outside the
Love of God. This has to be the way - the scale of the skullduggery is
surely too much for us
without God. Only with the Help of our Lord can anything good come out
of the terrible 9/11 events. Only with Jesus can we find the courage
needed to stand up to the pressure that we will for sure, be up against.
One great step would be for the 9/11 truth to be accepted in the
as a whole - and that could take a long time! But once that is
achieved, then perhaps the way forward would be through some kind of
"Truth and Reconciliation Commission"? We have
seen the success in South Africa of this idea - pioneered by Desmond
Tutu. In America too, such a body could be expected to do much to
promote national healing. Many died on 9/11. Many more have died in
wars since; wars whose legitimacy was built on the 9/11 lies. Those who
are guilty of taking life recklessly will need a place to make amends.
Do we have an American equivalent of Desmond Tutu? In a country where
there is much faith, and love of the truth, the writer is sure that
such a man or woman will be found.
Let us end this chapter by sounding the note of triumph given to us by George Fox:
The days of virtue, love, and peace
are come and coming,
and the Lamb had and has the kings of the earth
to war with, and to fight with,
who will overcome with the sword of the spirit,
the word of his mouth;
for the Lamb shall have the victory.
From the 9th epistle of George Fox
Chapter 5 Notes
- ^ 1.
Pre-9/11 Planning of an Iraq Invasion:
- Events Leading up to the Invasion -
- The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - The New York Times -
- ^ 2. Bush -
There's No Tomorrow - https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/
- ^ 3. The
October 2001 Anthrax Mailings and Deaths:
- A (Recently Updated - 2009) Summary of the Events -
- A More Detailed (Earlier) Account -
- ^ 4.
Susan Lindauer - "The Most Unpatriotic Act" -
- ^ 5.
of 9/11 in the US Administration - https://www.trinicenter.com/forum/?num=1059790670
- ^ 6.
The 9/11 Commission Report - https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
- ^ 7.
"Hunt the Boeing II" - https://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html
- ^ 8.
Crash Photos of USAir 427 (and Pan Am 103, and UA 585) -
- ^ 9.
David Ray Griffin, Christian Faith and the Truth Behind
9/11 (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006)
- ^ 10.
"Was United Airlines Flight 93 Shot Down on 9/11?" -
- ^ 11. The
Commission Report - https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
- ^ 12. Two
- The 9/11
Commission Report - https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
- The Pentagon Building Performance Report (PBPR)
- https://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/official/asce_pentagon.pdf - rpt.pg.16
- - the PBPR was supervised by FEMA and produced by volunteers from the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
- ^ 13. Entry Hole
Boeing 757? - https://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer/precollapse2.jpg
- ^ 14. Points Raised
by The Pentagon Building Performance Report (PBPR):
- Background to the FEMA-ASCE PBPR -
- Missile Damage to Pentagon -
- A Comprehensive Analysis of the PBPR - https://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm
- ^ 15.
Hani Hanjour - "AA77's Hijacker Pilot" - Are You Sure? -
- ^ 16. Excellent
Summaries of the Known Facts about the Pentagon Strike:
- The Attack on The Pentagon - https://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm
- A Local Rejects the Official Story on the Pentagon -
- ^ 17.
The 9/11 Commission Report - https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
- ^ 18.
The 9/11 Commission Report - https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
- ^ 19.
"The fires were not hot enough to produce significant window breakage
in either tower.
- "Window breakage is a common occurrence in large office fires,
particularly when temperatures exceed 600deg.Celsius [1100deg.F]." -
- ^ 20.
"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the
more than 170 areas
- examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three
columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250deg.C:
east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and
north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column
specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and
their temperatures did not reach 250deg.C."
- "- Page 142 NIST Draft Report"
- [Note. The above page has moved - please see Final Report -
- - https://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Probability_Of_Collapse.htm
- ^ 21.
The World Trade Center Fires - "That the 1975 fire was more intense
than the 9/11 fires
- is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east
windows to break and flames
could be seen pouring from these broken windows.
This indicates a temperature greater than 700deg.C [1300deg.F]. In the
9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat
(only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700deg.C."
- - https://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/not-so-hot.htm
- [Note - this website is not the Guardian (UK) newspaper's
- ^ 22.
Structural Steel Melting Point - about 1510deg.C -
- ^ 23.
NIST Denial - '... in ... a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST
- ' “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires." '
- - https://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/
- ^ 24.
Frank Demartini in a January 25, 2001 interview - "The building was
designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it.
- "That was the largest plane at the time.
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners
because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door
-- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.
It really does nothing to the screen netting."
- - https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
- ^ 25.
Molten Metal - 'The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported
- by several observers ... including Greg Fuchek:
- For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees
Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few
weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the
wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek
said. (Walsh, 2002)' - https://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/
- ^ 26.
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives -
- ^ 27.
WTC Steel Removal - https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
- ^ 28/28a.
The Two Planes' Impacts Compared:
- 1 World Trade Center - https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc1.html
- 2 World Trade Center -
- ^ 29.
The 9/11 Commission Report - https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf - rpt.pg.308
- ^ 30.
Free-Fall Physics - https://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
- ^ 31.
No Pancakes at WTC - https://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/the-dustification-of-the-twin-towers
- ^ 32/32a.
WTC Collapses Unique - "... prior to September 11th, no steel framed building had ever
- undergone total collapse due to any cause or combination of causes other
- than controlled demolition and severe
- ^ 33. The 9/11
Commission Report - https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
- ^ 34. The Extra
Hardware on the Plane that Hit WTC2 - https://patriotsquestion911.com
- [search on "Glenn MacDonald"]
- ^ 35. More on the Extra
Hardware - WTC2 Plane:
- The "Huge Bullet Hole" in the South Tower -
- Debunking the Debunkers – that Appendage -
- ^ 36. Building 7's
Implosion - https://911review.com/attack/wtc/implosion.html
- ^ 37. Continuous
Explosions at the Twin Towers - https://911review.com/attack/wtc/explosions.html
- ^ 38. The 9/11
Commission Report - https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
- ^ 39. FAQ About the
9-11 Commission - https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/faq.htm#q1
- ^ 40. WTC7 -
"Mysterious Leveling" - https://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html
- ^ 41. Payout on WTC7 -
- ^ 42. The Silence
Surrounding Building 7 - https://ww
- ^ 43. US Security
Agencies in WTC7:
- 9-11 Review - Building Seven - https://911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html
- Building Seven -
- ^ 44. NIST NCSTAR 1A
Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
- (plus detailed reports NCSTAR 1-9, NCSTAR 1-9A, and January 2009
- - https://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm
- ^ 45. The Two Seconds of Free-Fall on page 2,
see 'seconds' -
- ^ 46. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth -
- The above link is to an "archive site" - the up-to-date document on the subject
- (same as in Note 45 above) is found here -
- ^ 47. WTC 7 - A Close
Look at the NIST Analyses
- ^ 48. David Ray
Griffin, Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11
- (Louisville & London, Westminster John Knox Press, 2006)
- ^ 49. Ibid., pgs.6-9
- ^ 50. Ibid., pgs.159-164
- ^ 51. Ibid., pgs.158-9
- ^ 52. Text of
Posthumous Advancement Bill - https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.3050.IH:
- ^ 53. More Evidence FDR
Knew - https://www.rense.com/general60/moreevidenceFDRknew.htm
- ^ 54. Winston
Churchill, The Grand Alliance (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1950) pgs.602-603
- Pearl Harbor: FDR Knew -
- ^ 55. Gross Deception
Predecessors To 9/11 -
- ^ 56. Robert Stinnett, Day
Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor
(New York: Simon
and Schuster, Touchstone, 2000)
- Do FOIA Files Prove FDR Had Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? -
- The Pearl Harbor Deception - https://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
- ^ 57. Bob Woodward, Bush
at War (Simon & Schuster, New York, etc, 2002) pg.15
- ^ 58.
Kids with Bush in classroom on 9/11 saw change sweep over him -
(09/11/2011, accessed 10/07/2015)
- ^ 59. Ken Loach
- ^ 60.
Al-Qaeda Name - a Fiction:
- "... al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the
American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden
- in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the
existence of a named criminal organisation." - Adam Curtis, maker of
BBC documentary: "The Power of Nightmares" -
- "The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called
Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this." -
Pierre-Henri Bunel - https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fakealqaeda.php
- "We like to create a mythical entity called [al-Qaeda] in our
minds, but that is not the reality we are dealing with." - Marc
Sageman, a psychiatrist and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer -
- ^ 61. The Epistles of George Fox 1-25
This e-book is at: https://www.timelywords.org/tagj/tagj-start
This page last updated: December 11, 2017.
writer is at: