Table of Contents
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

5:  9/11 - Conspiracy of Conspiracies?

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 written off 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 one exception.

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 conspiracy, 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 the White House at the time. Is it altogether surprising then, that even such a 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 what we 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" - John 1:14.

(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 view, the "right" man was in the right place at the right time.)

But before going any further, this writer owes some people an apology. This 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 next administration(2).]

The second event that had an odd ring to it was the bill that 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 with deadly anthrax with such precise timing? Recalling that the effect of those attacks was to stifle debate on the Patriot bill, and to grease the skids under its passage(3). 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 antiChrist figure. And then there were those "Bush Knew" revelations. Folk might argue that a president 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 the 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 gullible!

Still, at the time the picture was incomplete as far as this scribe is concerned. It 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 described here. 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)

(writer's italics)

^  1. 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 strike.

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:

The official 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 scene(7). 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 this flight 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 judgment.

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)

^  2. 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. The 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 Performance Report 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 up(12).

Why would these official documents play down important evidence like this? 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 impact could not possibly have come from a Boeing 757?(13)

There is a lot more that you might want to consider about the declared strike of AA77 on the Pentagon. Firstly, there are questions about the Building Performance Report(14). 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 the alleged hijackers(15). Finally, there are two good summaries of the outstanding questions about the hit on the Pentagon - here(16). 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 to state 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 with serving "patriotism," and sadly in this case often seems to translate into: When it 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 witnesses, 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 shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
Revelation 10:7 (KJV)

^  3. 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 about why this enormously strong tower should suffer a total, lethal collapse - 110 stories falling to the ground in seconds. Indeed, there is this statement, among others:
No one anticipated the possibility of a total collapse.(18)
A great 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 intensely hot:

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 reach 250deg.C(20).

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 fires)?

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 WTC2(24). 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 metal 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 the buildings(26). 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?

This writer 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 that 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 fireballs 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) They do not elaborate on this, understandably, as it makes no sense in terms of physics(30). And there were no observed "pancakes."(31)

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 next 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 the 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 we are:
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)

^  4. 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 firefighters were expecting this to happen. The fact that the collapse came as a total shock must 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, the 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 went down(28a).

The fact that the 9/11 collapses were unique among steel-framed high-rises has also been covered in the WTC1 section above(32a). 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 Effect(34):
"One of the things that jumped out at me when I looked at the footage 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 airliner.
"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 take, he supposes, the testimony of the perpetrators to prove it at that level. But 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 waste places;
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)


^  5. 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 The 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 (yet another strange aspect of 9/11)? Please bear in mind the 9/11 Commission's own words:

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 secrets, then(43).

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 happy with.

So the 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 free-fall(45).

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 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 came about? 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 allies.

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)

^  6. 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 9/11) 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 - two "Fire Decrees" are then brought in, supplying a "legal" basis for Hitler's dictatorship.
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.

Pearl Harbor.
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 facts?

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 reluctant 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 that FDR knew about the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor ...
The webpage quotes an extract from Churchill's work: The Grand Alliance. 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 Harbor(54).
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 Pearl Harbor, 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?

Actually, 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 War): "A photo of that moment is etched for history ... His face has a distant sober look, almost frozen, edging on bewilderment(57)." Bush sat and listened to pupils reading The Pet Goat 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 light, 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 nation 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 (61)

Chapter 5 Notes

^  1. Pre-9/11 Planning of an Iraq Invasion:
Events Leading up to the Invasion - topic_areas=pre911Plans&timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq
The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - The New York Times - warnings.html?_r=3

^  2. Bush - There's No Tomorrow - AR2008100301977.html

^  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. Foreknowledge of 9/11 in the US Administration -

^  6. The 9/11 Commission Report - -

^  7. "Hunt the Boeing II" -

^  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) pgs.69-74

^ 10. "Was United Airlines Flight 93 Shot Down on 9/11?" -

^ 11. The 9/11 Commission Report - -

^ 12. Two Companion Reports:
The 9/11 Commission Report - -
The Pentagon Building Performance Report (PBPR) - -
- the PBPR was supervised by FEMA and produced by volunteers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

^ 13. Entry Hole for a Boeing 757? -

^ 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 -

^ 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 -
A Local Rejects the Official Story on the Pentagon - pentagon-transcripts-official-records-belie-the-911-commission-report

^  17. The 9/11 Commission Report - - rpt.pgs.285,311

^  18. The 9/11 Commission Report - -

^  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 - -]

^  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 side 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."
[Note - this website is not the Guardian (UK) newspaper's site.]

^  22. Structural Steel Melting Point - about 1510deg.C - Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

^  23. NIST Denial - '... in ... a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states:'
' “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires." '
- Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

^  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."

^  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)' - Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

^  26. Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives -

^  27. WTC Steel Removal -

^  28/28a.  ^    The Two Planes' Impacts Compared:
1 World Trade Center -
2 World Trade Center -

^  29. The 9/11 Commission Report - -

^  30. Free-Fall Physics -

^  31. No Pancakes at WTC -

^  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 earthquakes." -

^ 33. The 9/11 Commission Report - -

^ 34. The Extra Hardware on the Plane that Hit WTC2 -
[search on "Glenn MacDonald"]

^ 35. More on the Extra Hardware - WTC2 Plane:
The "Huge Bullet Hole" in the South Tower - the-huge-bullet-hole-in-the-south-tower-and-analysis-of-missile-evidence
Debunking the Debunkers – that Appendage -

^ 36. Building 7's Implosion -

^ 37. Continuous Explosions at the Twin Towers -

^ 38. The 9/11 Commission Report - - rpt.pgs.284,293,302,305

^ 39. FAQ About the 9-11 Commission -

^ 40. WTC7 - "Mysterious Leveling" -

^ 41. Payout on WTC7 -

^ 42. The Silence Surrounding Building 7 - https://ww

^ 43. US Security Agencies in WTC7:
9-11 Review - Building Seven -
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 updates)

^ 45. The Two Seconds of Free-Fall on page 2, see 'seconds' - Evidence_for_the_Explosive_Demolition_of_World_Trade_Center_Building_7_on_9-11.pdf

^ 46. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - The Evidence -
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 - Evidence_for_the_Explosive_Demolition_of_World_Trade_Center_Building_7_on_9-11.pdf

^ 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) pgs.4-5

^ 49. Ibid., pgs.6-9

^ 50. Ibid., pgs.159-164

^ 51. Ibid., pgs.158-9

^ 52. Text of Posthumous Advancement Bill -

^ 53. More Evidence FDR Knew -

^ 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 -

^ 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 - ken-loach-class-riots-interview?INTCMP=SRCH

^  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 -
"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

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Table of Contents

This e-book is at:
The writer is at:
The writer's e-mail address - as an image
This page last updated: December 11, 2017.