September 11th: the sceptics perspective

Some introductory food for thought...

"There is a procedure that you follow when you are presenting evidence. There is a way that you structure evidence to avoid speculation. … Let’s take an approach to September the 11th along the lines of an investigator presenting a case to a grand jury. Or along the lines of a detective presenting a case to a district attorney.”

  - Michael Ruppert 

"I fear that if the underlying issues of 9-11 truth are not demanded, that Iraq may be but a flame on an ocean of gasoline that may be used to ignite war after war after war. We cannot, as a peace & justice movement only address the flames. We must look at the fuel being used to justify the flames of war and repression at home and abroad. We must look deeply at the events leading up to, on and since 9-11. We must demand full 9-11 truth.”

  - Ed Asner

"It seems that the so-called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: “To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.”

  - Micheal Meacher 

The narrative provided by the Official Commission...

Having read through the narrative provided by the Official report, I found that it was simply that; a narrative. I found it lacking in anything other than the events of the day itself and besides quite thoroughly covering the chronology, having constructed the narrative from various documents and sources such as Airport footage (which is quite harrowing to have watched) and flight cockpit recordings. It seemed to be lacking context or facts concerning the precise relationship between Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and the attacks on the World Trade centre, rather it provides a political history of Afghanistan (fragmentary at that) and the ideology of radical Islam inferred from Bin Laden, making their assertions based more on ad hominems and deduction over tangible hard evidence. That being said, the sceptical analysis and the assertions it makes is also based on deduction, however, is largely deduced from facts of strange coincidence and plausible incentives compared to the events that followed. Therefor, neither explanations are totally veritable and it would be unreasonable to place full conviction in one over the other. 

An introduction to the sceptics view... 

The culture of rejection towards those who would postulate a narrative that attempts to explain events or circumstances, perhaps controversially and certainly different to the general consensus, of which is generally accepted by the public in most cases not on the premise of facts or of their own attempts to make a logical analysis of events, but by a particular repetition in media prescribed to them, on faith in official commissions they themselves have likely never read but would agree with second hand synopses by virtue that everyone else believes the same thing for the same reason at the same time.

It is a sound assertion to make that history, even as conventionally understood, is littered with conspiracy, coups and other acts by groups or individuals done in a clandestine manner to attain financial or political gain. There is even a plurality within ourselves as individuals to maintain often simultaneously both a public and private facing aspect to our lives, and to deny the course of history as a tail plumply comprising of secrecy and conspiracy is plain ignorance or a particular degree of cognitive dissonance on one's behalf. It was not too long ago that the United States performed what is now agreed upon in almost all accounts to have been a false flag operation in the Gulf of Tonkin involving US ship USS Maddox, that preceded the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, allowing the United States to escalate military involvement in Vietnam. Simply by analysing the facts one can deduce for themselves a certain suspicion, for the USS Maddox was allegedly attacked by three Vietnamese submarines yet sustained no casualties and the only damages done to the vessel were some bullet indentations. This was just 53 years ago, half a lifetime. The sceptic would ask, has much truly changed?

It is simply my introductory point that even just the words 'conspiracy theory' have somehow today become words to scoff at or simply close off to any reasoning someone may have. Rather, I think people should become alert at the words, but they do not, which is perhaps an avenue of exploration in and of itself as to why culture has manifested in such a way. When people hear those words they have become accustomed to immediately connote to the same crowd as those who wear tin hats, believe in aliens and spend their time trying to spot UFO's. Perhaps now I shall attempt to explain the perspective conducive to the strong possibility that governmental institutions, backed and infiltrated by forces who would gain from the implications of such an event would bring down the World Trade Centre and simultaneously construct a narrative to encourage an imperialistic regime to last the next two decades.

Scientific factors: Architecture and Demolition...

Firstly, it is probably best to begin by relaying the outcry from various sectors of the scientific, architectural and demolition community who have spoken out on the truly bizarre way in which those buildings fell. What is also quite surprising is that when asked, how many buildings fell on September 11th? Even many of those who were alive to see it say two, which is incorrect. Three actually fell, which I will return to later as 'Building 7' as it is known is of some importance.

Numerous independent scientific reports have calculate the speed at which the towers fell at near free fall speeds (approx. 200km/h). This is important as in order for an object to get near free fall it must, according to the laws of physics, have only the force of gravity acting upon it, which therefor means that as the roof of the building collapsed in on itself there needed to be little acting against it, i.e. the buildings structure, and therefor raises alarms as to it being a controlled demolition (resembles implosion demolition). The idea that the entry of a jet into the face of the building would take the entire structure down, let alone in such a perfect manner, is seen by some as ludicrous. In fact, the Head Structural Engineer of the World Trade Centre, John Skilling, said himself in 1993 that "the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire", not explicitly saying that it would destroy the building, but that "a lot of people would be killed", and as I will discuss later, never before has any steel frame structure experienced a total collapse due to fires in history. Though Skilling did add, "I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work (demolition) and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it". I might also add that in 1945 a B-25 bomber crashed into the side of the Empire State building due to low fog, yet, the entire structure of the building did not collapse, despite it being a far older construction than the twin towers and remained ablaze for nearly an hour before being put out.

There's the idea that the burning fuel that leaked from the crashed jets would have spilled into the structure alight and weakened the building's frame. Considering that they were the first steel and concrete structure buildings in recorded history to have experienced a total collapse due to fire related damages, it is truly, then, quite a remarkable phenomena to some. According to a report by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) only 22 steel structure buildings have experienced some form of collapse due to fire related damages, all of which, excluding the WTC, were only partial collapses and some of which where experienced whilst under construction or renovation whilst regular fire safety standards were disrupted. The assertion is that jet fuel burns at 800°C - 1500°C, steel beams however require a temperature of 2500°C to melt, this is without all of the fire-retardant lacquers that coated the integral structure of the building, however, it would've allegedly weakened the structure (though it would not have weakened it to the point of collapse), lest it be ignore that traces of nano-thermites were found in the remains which are primary components of modern controlled demolitions, able to be formed into precise cutter charges that produce orange sparks and molten steel, similar to what was captured in numerous images from the World Trade Centre. If, however, it were due to fire damages that the buildings collapsed, then it would certainly have sporadically affected the building's structure (though the building was designed to withstand and compensate for sporadic damages) resulting in an equally sporadic collapse, yet, as before mentioned, they fell in a fashion resembling that of a controlled demolition. They did not topple over or just a part of the building break away. Studies by researchers Bažant and Zhou claimed that the falling of the upper half of the building down onto the lower would've amplified the impact causing the bottom half to cave in, however, this thesis has been disproved for the upper half experienced no speed fluctuations implying no jolt/amplification.

In some footage, like that of Building 7 there can be seen chunks of debris that seems to shoot rapidly from the windows before the building fully begins to fall, shattering the glass, almost as if some sort of explosion had occurred from within. The 47 storey building fell completely in around 6 seconds (2.25 seconds of total free fall) in again what looks very similar to that of a controlled decent especially as it fell with such sheer speed. The cause of it's total collapse was blamed on the falling debris from the Twin Towers, however, it has been asked as to why this building was completely demolished and not others also in close proximity to the towers? This building was a base for various CIA, Defence and financial sectors, however, what is most interesting is that on News broadcasts such as the BBC, the tower was reported to have fallen nearly an hour before it actually did and can actually be seen in the background of the reporter. This has lead some from the sceptical perspective to the suspicion that Media institutions where on some sort of schedule (just speculation) and had the stories prepared to push the terrorist narrative early whilst emotions were high and decisions to invade countries and strip civil liberties from the individual will be accepted in the course of safety over liberty. However, what is more accurate is that many if not all mainstream news outlets have had agents working among them under Operation Mockingbird for a long time, and have been known in the past to fabricate and/or spread lies about other nations and their leadership (WMD's in Iraq, gas attacks in Syria).

The point is also made of simple logical analysis. People have been led to believe that the single largest attack on US soil was committed by cave dwelling extremists and farmers who live on the other side of the world, yet were able to, without any detection from the most modern and interconnected security network on earth, to hijack and fly not one, but two jets into the World Trade Centre... let that sink in for a moment. With masterminds of that calibre you would have thought the Taliban would've won the war (even though the attackers were allegedly from Saudi Arabia). It is also worth mentioning, that Marvin P. Bush (brother to President. Bush) was the owner of the security organisation (Securacom) that operated for United Airlines, Dulles International Airport (the airport from which a jet took off) and that of the WTC itself, bearing in mind that the 9/11 Official Commission sites the security network in operation (CAPPS) as resulting in the perpetrates gaining access to the Airliners, whilst the security staff on duty at the time allowed them to pass despite repeatedly setting off the metal detecting doors and being wanded, which would normally result in further search under standard procedures. Perhaps just a very unusual coincidence. In addition, maybe you were not aware of this but the WTC was closed down for a sum of days in the weeks prior to the attacks and the small number of staff still on duty at the time report a number of what seemed to be construction crew working on the building throughout the week and when opening again a number of floors were off limits to staff, which is another odd event in the chronology for sceptics.

The influence of the Military Industrial Complex...

One way in which some attempt to refute the idea that governmental institutions, backed and infiltrated by outspoken globalists and corporatists orchestrated the attacks and were not committed by acts of terrorism (as the news media owned and controlled by the same globalists and corporations) reported and continue to convey, is by making the argument that why would the Government do it, because wars are expensive and it would cost them more money? This is no straw man. It is a question consistently asked by the 'debunkers'  of the suspicious perspective.

There are some things that must be understood before examining as to why this question, to sceptics, in fact only goes to bolster the argument that it was a financial and power driven orchestration:

1) Well, yes, it is completely true to assert that it would cost the government an extreme volume of money to fund such a hefty investment as a full scale invasion of a country, but where does a government get it's money from? Taxation of the public, which can add up to about 50% on average of each person's earnings when including all the hidden taxation which is all funnelled straight into the pockets of bankers or subsidising various already wealthy and powerful groups.

2) Private fractional reserve banking is the primary component of almost all countries' national budget and really, one cannot begin to understand understand international, or even national politics without understanding the fundamental basis and origin of money, after all, money makes the world go round. Let me take the Federal Reserve for instance, created in 1913 under the Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, whose campaign manager, Edward Mandell House was a key member of the Round Table movement and Milner Group, later to become the Council on Foreign Relations, all of which are Globalist organisations. The Federal Reserve to which the United States issues it's bonds is neither a federal institution nor does it have any reserve of some kind. Instead it operates in the District of Columbia in Washington which in fact is it's own sovereign state not governed by US jurisdiction, similar to the Crown of London where the Bank of England (controlled by the same people) and other financial institutions reside. It also has no reserve, as of the Federal Reserve Act 1913 when the gold standard was reduced in value to 25% of the currency and later under Nixon in 1971 when the gold standard was completely removed and the Glass-steagall Act dissolved, which therefor meant the dollar was backed by no tangible value (now only held up by petroleum trade), meaning it can be subject to any extremes of inflation or deflation (it is the same virtually all over the world now and is in the process of consolidated banking through economic and political unions such as the EU and UN). This is important right up to today as this system of private banking exists in every country on Earth (bar three: North Korea, Cuba and Iran) and when the United States created the Federal Reserve it essentially handed over it's right to control monetary policy and is today in virtually unplayable debts exceeding the tens of trillions, which is why the Euro zone is a dangerous thing to have when a cluster of economies all run on the same unsteady currency controlled by a centralised power under the EU and United Nations institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank who are arguably the worlds biggest loan sharks. The importance of this in relation to the September 11th attacks is that it does cost the Government a lot of money, however, it is borrowed from banks who add interest which is payed for and burdened onto the people through taxation, meaning it costs us a lot of money, whilst keeping bankers very, very wealthy. Many of these prominent bankers are in Government positions, like today under Trump, bankers like Steve Mnuchin and Rex Tillerson, or they are members of non-governmental counsels and think-tanks that have equal if not more influence on international policy (consolidated through 1998 UN 'Agenda21' programme), which means these people would have an incentive not only to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending in war, but also that Afghanistan at the time did not run on this private banking system and held no IMF debt, however, it now does. In fact, I believe at the start of the Century about eleven countries where still free from this system of racketeering (all of which where on the list created by the PNAC group in 1997), mostly in Africa and the Middle East, however, since the September 11th attacks that has stuck firmly in the minds of the public when bombing and invading various countries allegedly in the pursuit of 'freedom and democracy', that number has come down to just three.

3) The sceptical perspective looks at the institutions already in existence and analyses  their benefit from war. The way in which very lucrative profits are to be made off the back of the single largest attack on US soil in history is from those corporations in the Military Industrial Complex, essentially a symbiotic and direct relationship between Government Foreign and War policy and the corporations that provide military equipment and the necessary means of war. It's said that this concept has it's origins in the second World War, as it did, you could likely lift the hood of a Nazi military vehicle and find a Ford motor engine. However, I believe it's origins go further back to the beginning of the 20th century and perhaps further back when in the first world war, industries such as coal, shipbuilding, agriculture, munitions and arms companies all experienced huge booms during war time due to the enormous volume of demand (Private Banks also profited by funding both sides: £5 Billion loan to Britain in 1915 from J.P. Morgan, loans valuing $26 Billion during Dawes Plan to Germany). Then, when war is over, and you find yourself in economic stagnancy, what as a now extraordinarily wealthy businessman do you learn? That war is good for business. The Afghanistan War, under the title of Operation 'Enduring Freedom' was and still remains the longest war in US history, lasting a period of thirteen years (still thousands of NATO troops on the ground), and began it's invasion just 26 days after the attacks, which in itself is suspicious as full scale wars are not impulse actions, but take many months even years to plan, which is why allied forces did not enter Europe a few weeks after Hitler invaded Poland, but in 1944 as the logistical and strategic planning of such a movement takes great time, which leads some to believe that the plans had already been made for Afghanistan. The thirteen years of war have had varying estimates of costs running from $1,000,000,000,000 to $6,000,000,000,000, whilst the US national debt has more than tripled since the start of the century, having began it's self-appointed policing of the middle east since that time. I counted over twenty types of missiles and bombs listed as being in use by the US Air Force manufactured by 'Defence' contractors such as Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing with each weapon ranging in costs of the tens to hundreds of thousands to the millions each, forgoing the costs of fuelling aircraft and transporting. Taking the first on the list, the AGM-65 Maverick is said to cost between $17,000 and $110,000 each. Imagine the costs and logistics of supplying an average of 140,000 soldiers with weapons, ammunition, food and water daily for thirteen years of warfare, paying for the vast logistical scheme of running the operation with around 1.5 million people in US military employment and orchestrating various other geopolitical commitments with organisations such as the UN, NATO and the reportedly unprofessional ANA (Afghan National Army) of which tens of billions have been spend providing weapons, military vehicles, training and even a new national military command centre.

Another factor of the Afgan war that sceptics draw attention to is the poppy production that is very particular to Afghanistan and it's geography. Poppies (poppy resin being the primary component of heroin) require a certain salt concentration in the water and of course the heat to have the most efficient growth, both of which the Afghan climate caters to. According to UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) poppy cultivation in Afghanistan increased by 18% between 2011-12 to 154,000 hectares and reached record high production in 2014, which seems surprising as one might think that US occupation in the region would act as a deterrent against the source of the mass heroin epidemic that has since worsened in the US. I do not believe that sceptics would suggest American soldiers would operate a global drug trade under direction of the US military, however, it is quite conceivable that private contractors, like that of the infamous Blackwater (now Academi, previously XE Services: name change to avoid controversy after war crimes) would be employed by the US government and governmental bodies such as the CIA ($250 million dollar contract with Academi in 2003) who've been known to conduct drugs operations in the past (Contra cocaine drug trafficking, etc) and plausibly would operate similarly in Afghanistan as it produces 90% of world poppy production. The lowest quality heroin in the United States retails at $172 per gram, also according to UNODC, whilst thousands of tonnes are produced annually making it a highly lucrative trade, especially if centralised. The fact that poppy cultivation actually increased to record levels whilst under US occupation gives some the impression that someone in alliance with Western/American authorities where establishing control of the industry rather than eradicating it.

The terrible irony of all this however, is that all of the now ever present instability in the region of the middle east can be traced right back to Western roots anyway. Weapons of war do not just simply appear by magic in abundance; farmers do not procure machine guns and hand-held rocket launchers, along with plentiful ammunition all growing on trees, yet in places like Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries this would seem to be the case. However, it was in the 1970's and 80's when Russia had been at war with the same Al-Quada (Mujahideen) that the US and other western bodies funded and supplied their terrorist, then 'freedom fighting' organisations against the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan War, and three decades later, they have the audacity to send American, British and other NATO forces to die fighting what they had created. It is no wild assertion, one that even I would give credence to, that these people in positions of authority in Government bodies and the United Nations make up a nest of lies. I've read these people's publications and you'll find first hand for yourselves they are no short of psychopaths who break with excess the rules they make. They are war criminals, payed off by those who would have their ways, like Tony Blair, British Labour Prime Minister who dragged our country into the Iraq war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, rising to this day from starvation and instability into the millions, whilst many suffer mutated births due to the use of depleted uranium weaponry. It also resulted in hundreds of British casualties. He's now being payed off quite abundantly by doing little talks around the country and releasing his books. He's just one example of the great corruption that has manifested like a cancer in global governance, it's likely that every ambassador who voted in favour of UN resolution 661 was to corrupt in a way, or ignorant that it would clearly result in starvation and suffering.

Centralisation and hegemonic governance: The United Nations

As the body of society, we have but one vote to cast every half decade or so, with the range of political debate handily narrowed down for us in media to a bilateral choice: leave/stay, more/less, etc. It would seem these elections are placed neatly apart with length enough for us to forget how the promises they make are not fulfilled, whilst gradualist policy coupled with media creates an atmosphere of social cryptomnesia. This concept of narrowing and prescribing public opinion and drawing the lines of debate was established long ago by founders of modern propaganda such as Edward Bernays, whilst political elitists such as Brzezinski even noted in the 1970's that before long people will not have to reason for themselves for with technology they will have their opinions made for them. In the UK it would seem, from what I hear, a particular sense of apathy and idleness surrounds this year's election and politics in general, people simply do not care all that much. The idea of 'learned helplessness' as Martin Seligman found, cruelly studying dogs, (which was done to be applied to human nature) that helplessness can be learned and accepted, though our constant repetition and participation show signs more of mass insanity. In reality, through a complex of various and numerous trade agreements, treaties, mass financial debts and other commitments, the Governments of nations have been corralled into the growing centralisation of a global power structure, called the United Nations, as if global amalgamation is politically wise and sounds nothing at all like the dystopian worlds portrayed by Orwell and Huxley. This centralisation is currently in the process of consolidating continents through institutions such as the EU, NAFTA/North American Union, Eurasian Economic Union, Central Asian Union, African Union and Arab League/(proposed Arab Union), with non-governmental think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission, of which many political and corporate figures are member to (David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, various other political leaders/ministers, transnational business and banking leaders, etc) encourage a trilateral continental world. Which requires all systems of Government around the world be given the western style 'democracy', over whatever system they had before that may have been outside the closely regulated system.

How does this relate to the September 11th attacks according to sceptics? Well, because the streak of countries bombed into submission by the United States, who took over from Britain after WW2 as the world military power and became the primary war tool of the UN, where not in the system and still retained a degree of national sovereignty. They were all free from IMF debt, which is a wing of the United Nations, and as debt is a method of control it uses this to give nations worthless fiat currency, indebting them to control their economy under the guise of stability. Some, such as Iraq and Libya denied OPEC standards and refused to trade oil on the global market by the dollar or implemented genuine money such as the Gold Dinar. Assad and Syria had been going down a similar road by refusing the construction of the Qutar-Turkey pipeline through their country (which under NATO's “Strategic Concept For the Defence and Security of The Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation”, published 2010, makes that an act against NATO members) and also have no IMF debt until their country just some how happened to become flooded with weapons handed out to Islamic extremists who would ardently fight the secular Assad government. And now western involvement is being escalated by alleged Gas attacks by the Assad 'regime', though there is yet to be any proof of this, and logic would dictate that Assad is no idiot and would not commit the single act that was sure to escalate international involvement by breaking the Geneva Convention, especially as the alleged location targeted was of no strategic importance and if did occur was more likely a chemical weapons storage facility (not against Geneva convention) that was hit by explosives. It can be seen as the same story repeated again to coax us all into accepting an escalated war against another middle eastern nation, for if you flash some images, real or not, of children suffering, people will allow action.

Sceptics also point out the less cared for or noticed attack on the liberty and privacy of the individual. Order out of chaos is the most effective method to create massive change within an overall structure of gradualism, as whilst scared, uncertain and angry people quite easily will let freedom slip through their fingers in return for security. The Patriot Act passed 2001 can be seen as another step in the wrong direction towards the increasing surveillance state, condoning by law, wire tapping, individual data collection and profiling, property searches, cyber-centralisation under NATO and infringement on other civil liberties, all in defence against international terrorism, a much more effective guise than that of the cold war as, under the terrorist narrative, anyone could be a terrorist and therefor everyone can be surveilled.

My point is that who does not recollect the tragedy of September 11th when governments speak of the so called national threat of terrorism, which has served diligently as the excuse for western imperialism in the middle east ever since? One might ask how could some one or a group do such a thing to their own people, but they must simply look to the history books to find these 'leaders' seem, by their actions, to have little care for human life. In the Vietnam war when picture after picture of the atrocities of war where being sent back home, images of the My Lai massacre, Agent Orange and children being hit with napalm, where were they to stop it all? They had the authority to do so, and the American people wanted an end (a 1968 Gallup poll showed 50% disproved of the war, whilst only 35% approved), yet it continued. So I am not going to be fooled, because we are dealing with people who want war.

True power requires that everyone be in their system in order that they can be manipulated. That means every institution of every nation can be controlled, from education to media like the Bologna Process and increasingly tighter ownership of News outlets. Who remains outside the system of centralisation? Cuba, Iran and North Korea, two of which seem to get particularly bad press, perhaps with good reason, however, there is another agenda behind all that. In conclusion I'll simply say this, something that the sceptical view would boldly state: the same man who was the primary funding body and spearhead of the construction of the World Trade Centre, also founded the Trilateral Commission, the Counsil on Foreign Relations, was a major Oil mogul, was a close associate of the CIA, was executive employee of J.P. Morgan, member of Bilderburg Group and major UN adviser. His name was David Rockefeller.

 - an essay by FabiusSideman

Publications of interest related or otherwise:

The 9/11 Commission - 9/11 Commission

15 years later: the physics of high rise buildings 

Memorandum 200 - by Henry Kissinger

Education for International understanding - by UNESCO

1998 Rio Declaration/Agenda 21 - UN Commission

The Anglo-American establishment - Carroll Quigley