portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation


I argue that Rudolph Giuliani may have been a co-conspirator in the September 11 attacks.

A T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by


How does it feel to be a massmurderer/state terrorist, Rudy?

I am asking you because it's much more likely than not that you are one. Here's why.

Luoie Cacchioli, reportedly a firefighter with Engine 47 in Harlem on 911, witnessed:

"We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up A BOMB WENT OFF. WE THINK THERE WAS BOMBS SET IN THE BUILDING." [my caps].

Interesting. An eye- and ear-witness account, published on Sept.12, 2001, therefore recorded early on the 12th or even possibly on Sept.11. A fresh, expert, first-hand account.

Definitely interesting. "A bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building."

Now, if expert firefighter Louie Cacchioli, 51, of Engine 47, in his 20th year as a fireman (and his colleagues - "we"), said a bomb went off & there was bombs set in the WTC, well - it gives one pause, at the very least, about swallowing the official story.

Wouldn't you say Rudy?

Was it you by any chance, in your capacity as New York mayor, who supervised/coordinated/facilitated the planting of bombs in the WTC on behalf of your fellow co-terrorists Bush & partners?

As I'm writing these lines (August 22, 2002) no serious, independent inquiry of 911 has been set up yet - God knows if it ever will.

But should it ever materialize, among the first witnesses summoned there ought to be Hero Louie Cacchioli.

His bomb story ought to be pursued most seriously.

And you, Rudy, ought to be arrested immediately and held indefinitely, without bond, for criminal obstruction of justice/destruction of evidence/co-conspiring in the 911 attacks.

Because, in the aftermath of 911, while you were still mayor (until January 2002), you systematically ordered all evidence sold for scrap that could have yielded clues as to Louie Cacchioli's bomb story: the metal structure of the WTC.

By June 14, 2002, your successor & cohort Bloomberg had almost finished "disappearing" all the twisted WTC steel stacked at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. And the landfill stood "nearly as empty as ground zero".

Congratulations. But there is no such thing as a perfect crime.

Not that you didn't try.

You even scrapped the 1,300 vehicles wrecked in the attacks before even one independent reporter or investigator could chance to look at them.

And by 'independent investigator' I certainly do not mean FBI bomb expert Gerry Fornino or any other govt.-appointed (that is, state-terror-appointed) compliant straw man.

The seriousness of the official investigation (that is, of the official coverup of 911) was aptly summarized by police inspector James Luongo.

Referring to pieces of the two (alleged) Boeing 767s as of no value to investigators, Luongo said: "We know what happened. We've seen it many times."

What a cop. What a parrot. What a criminal.

So is there any chance left to prove or disprove Hero Cacchioli's bomb report? A forgotten piece of steel anywhere that might bear traces of a bomb blast in the eyes of an expert beholder - and: is there one honest scientist left who would take an objective look at it?

Is there any honesty left in American public opinion to pressure this criminal administration into yielding to a serious, independent investigation?

Because, reportedly, there does exist somewhere a bit of surviving evidence that might be used to prove or disprove the official 911 story.

For instance, in a building adjacent to the WTC, at 130 Cedar Street, the discovery was reported of "racks that held the luggage from one of the hijacked planes", plus "small bone fragments" and "a jaw with the teeth still intact".

A most interesting discovery, if true.

Thereafter, it is in theory still possible for an independent, non-governmental inquiry to verify:
A - if the above report is true, and if these luggage racks & human remains really exist;
B - if said racks really belonged to either AA11 or UA175;
C - if said human remains and in general if any of the 1,207 allegedly (as of July 2, 2002) identified WTC victims were people on the AA11 & UA175 manifests.

This would, if independently and publicly verifiable, prove or disprove the official story that 2 airliners slammed into the WTC on 911, namely AA11 and UA175.

The building at 90 West Street was reportedly devastated by "an out-of-control fire".

Reportedly, at 90 West Street rescue workers "also found large sections of one of the airplanes, including passenger seats, which had landed on the roof and scaffolding that had been on 90 West Street."

Again, if the above report is true, where are those plane pieces now? Where are those passenger seats? When will an independent inquiry investigate if they really belonged to either AA11 or UA175?

Furthermore, if "large sections" of one of the airplanes really survived, then the fireballs that engulfed the planes must not have been strong enough to melt those large plane sections.

And if the fire didn't melt the plane metal, why did it instead melt or cause to buckle the steel framework of the WTC so much as to cause the collapse of the towers? For the melting or buckling of the WTC steel beams, not Cacchioli's bomb story, are the official explanation for the towers' collapse.

The official explanation of why the WTC fell has long since begun to buckle & melt away itself - and will have entirely collapsed by the end of this essay.

There's another interesting building at the WTC site: 130 Liberty Street, owned by Deutsche Bank and known as The Bankers Trust Building.

It was damaged on 911 as well. But as of June 8, 2002, Deutsche Bank had... prevented firefighters from getting in!

How weird. What had Deutsche Bank been trying to hide? What secrets had been concealed at 130 Liberty Street? And what's the situation now (August 29, 2002)?

Noone had to ask for the owners' permission to enter the WTC, or 90 West Street, or 130 Cedar. How come this obstinate Deutsche Bank stonewalling couldn't be overridden, at least as of June 8, 2002?

The official DB excuse was the presence of contaminants in the building. Just what contaminants? Was it a bank, an office building or a bio-weapons lab in disguise?

Let the reader not forget that Deutsche Bank was heavily involved in insider trading prior to 911 implying foreknowledge of the attacks, as reported by Michael Ruppert's team.

So we had a damaged building, 130 Liberty, constituting a public safety hazard, possibly containing all-important evidence for the 911 investigation, not to mention human remains - but Deutsche Bank locked the door.

And Bloomberg didn't intervene. No questions asked.

130 Liberty had "a 40-foot-wide gash [... ] in its north face from the ground to the 24th floor." What caused it?

Noone with mass media access is publicly asking the hard questions here. It seems the conscience of an entire country has slipped into a coma. It seems the conscience of the entire western world has.

What caused (or should I rather say WHO caused) the Twin Towers to fall?

Let's first sum up what DID NOT cause the WTC collapse.

The planes' impact wouldn't have done it.

According to Patrick Di Justo, the kinetic energy of the impacts was just a tiny fraction of the potential energy of the towers (710,000,000 calories against 400,000,000,000).

Moreover, the 2nd plane hit a corner.

And: noone can say for sure if the 2 alleged planes really were filled-up AA11 & UA175 or 2 drone-replicas or sth else.

Did the "intense heat of the jet fuel fires" weaken "the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above", as the official story goes?

Most probably not.

I've already reported above how "large sections" of one of the planes were found. Again: if these didn't melt in the fireballs, why would the steel beams of the WTC buckle and/or melt?
One possible counterobjection: the WTC towers burned longer, for close to 1 hour and close to 2 hours respectively.

But: the large plane sections were found at 90 West Street, which was, too, devastated by an "out-of-control fire".

So the large plane sections survived, damaged by the impact + fireball but not by the subsequent "out-of-control fire" and the steel beams of the WTC buckled and gave in? All or enough of them to cause the collapse?

When will an independent, non-governmental inquiry examine those plane parts?

It'd be nice if you hadn't sold the steel beams for scrap, rudy. Why did you do that? Why such a hurry?

John Flaherty & Jared Israel at Emperors' Clothes re-posted an article from the Albuquerque Journal where Van Romero, vice President for research at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, had spoken of explosives planted in the towers.

Now Van Romero later recanted in a very unconvincing way (see Israel's arguments for the 'unconvincing' in my source listed below).

But in the original article, this expert on the effects of explosions on buildings had said:

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the WTC there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse".

"Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that".

"'It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points', Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said."

"The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said."

"'One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device', Romero said."

"Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said."

"Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers."

Summing it up so far:

expert Van Romero's original theory that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition is backed up by a first-hand ear-witness, expert firefighter Louie Cacchioli.

The official story that the WTC steel beams gave way after buckling because of the intense fuel fire is backed up by absolutely NOTHING, especially since you, rudy, hurried and sold most of the evidence for scrap.

And then there's the strange story of WTC 7.
Building 7 reportedly collapsed at 5:25pm on Sept.11.

"A preliminary engineering study indicated that flaming debris from the Twin Towers fell on the building and ignited diesel fuel stored by the city's emergency office, causing a fire so hot it brought down the structure."


The hard evidence provided for this official explanation is, as usual for 911, zero.

But now I'd like to focus on another interesting detail in the above story.

That "diesel fuel" was stored in WTC 7 by the city's emergency office.

That is by you rudy: the mayor of New York and thus ultimately responsible for the city's emergency office before 911.

Can you just explain in any way why on earth you'd stored such a huge quantity of diesel fuel in WTC 7 that the building burned so hot from 8:46am until its collapse at 5:25pm - for almost 9 hours?

What the hell was all that diesel just doing under WTC 7? An accident waiting to happen. The city's emergency office setting the stage for maximizing the damage of an emergency instead of preventing it.

Moreover it was an OFFICE, not a firefighters' engine house. So what was that sea of diesel doing under WTC 7 on 911, rudy?

Could it be you'd planted it there, just like the bombs in the WTC, to maximize the horror of a state-terror attack (911) meant to provide mass consensus for terrorist wars & the destruction of democracy in America?

Again: why all that diesel under WTC 7? A firefighter told me that not even in their engine houses do they store so much diesel (they store just enough to get going every day) out of obvious safety concerns. Not to mention building codes.


Back to the WTC collapse & its cause(s).

I reported about Cacchioli's ear-witness. About Van Romero's original demolition theory. Here's a third account, this time an eye-witness. It's Don Dahler, from ABC's 'Good Morning America', reporting live on 911.

"I'm four blocks north of the World Trade Center. [... ] The second building [... ] has just completely collapsed [... ] as if A DEMOLITION TEAM SET OFF - WHEN YOU SEE THE OLD DEMOLITIONS OF THESE OLD BUILDINGS. IT FOLDED DOWN ON ITSELF." [my caps].

I think millions of TV viewers worldwide would agree.

Well, it seems the array of qualified witnesses to the controlled demolition of the WTC after a diversionary plane (drone?) attack is quite impressive:

- expert firefighter and ear-witness Louie Cacchioli;
- expert demolition scientist Van Romero;
- eyewitness Don Dahler reporting for ABC;
- millions of TV viewers worldwide who watched the towers fold on themselves just like a controlled demolition.

The plane (or drone) attacks woudn't have sufficed to kill enough people & cause enough televisible horror, right rudy? Enough people to (after exponential inflation of the death toll - see my Fuzzy Math essay) hype 911 as a bigger-than-Pearl-Harbor attack & thus achieve the 2 state-terror goals for 911:
- mass consensus for genocidal, profit-motivated wars;
- controlled demolition of democracy in America.

Back to the WTC 7 diesel story.
Reportedly, "the office tower, which stood across Vesey Street just north of the WTC, housed FORMER MAYOR GIULIANI'S EMERGENCY COMMAND CENTER AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, INCLUDING OFFICES FOR THE SECRET SERVICE" [my caps].

Aha. Did you store the fuel there for the 911 TV-show in complicity with the secret service, rudy?

If I am not mistaken, the secret service is the security detail for Bush, so that's an interesting link to be investigated right there.

Further: "the diesel fuel that investigators believe may have fed the fire WAS STORED IN LARGE TANKS NEAR GROUND LEVEL and in smaller tanks and emergency generators for the command center, the secret service and other tenants" [caps mine].

Just what you & these other funny WTC 7 tenants were doing there playing with fire escapes not only common practice, codes & common sense; it is the exact contrary of the purpose of an emergency command center, which is to prevent and respond to catastrophes not to cause them.

So at the very least you, rudy, & those other idiots were criminally incompetent (best-case but unlikely scenario). Or you are a bunch of state-terrorists & co-conspirators in 911 (likely).

Again, the smaller tanks may be understandable but not the "large tanks".

Those large tanks surprised & baffled even one of the building's original structural engineers, Irwin Cantor, who "said he did not think the diesel fuel tanks were included in the building's original design."

" 'It ended up with tenants who had diesels', Cantor told The Times, 'I know none of that was planned at the beginning."

To sum it all up so far:

what did you, rudy, with the secret service & those unnamed other WTC 7 tenants need all that hazardous diesel irresponsibly stored in large tanks under the building for?

It's high time you & bush came up with a clear & public answer - perhaps in the place of attending the first-anniversary memorial of a terrorist attack to which you both gave a decisive contribution.

Now, let's refocus a bit. Why did the Twin Towers fall? Can we still hope the truth will ever come out after giuliani sold the evidence for scrap?

Well, 911 was definitely not the perfect crime. The real masterminds/performers of 911 have left so many breadcrumbs on their trail that we shouldn't lose hope of tracking them down some day.

Reportedly, quite a bit of the WTC structural steel survived your anxious, frenetic leave-no-trace policy, rudy.

Over 100 beams and other samples were sent to a lab at Gaithersburg, Md, to be studied by engineers. Unfortunately, only govt.-appointed engineers so far. Let's hope the public will eventually understand the imperative need of sending independent experts to Gaithersburg, Md.

So see: although you scrapped 100,000 tons of WTC steel and shipped it "to steel mills, mostly overseas, to be recycled"; and although most of that WTC steel has now turned into refrigerators & cars, you didn't manage to sell the whole truth for scrap rudy. It's likely though that the bits and pieces you & the court engineers sent to Maryland were carefully selected among the innocuous, insignificant ones. But one can still hope you made a mistake.

Over 100 beams & samples at Gaithersburg. Not much, but much better than nothing. Let us do something about it before the bush/rudy thugs "disappear" even this last precious trove.

The Gaithersburg bits & pieces didn't save you from the outrage of "many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly [before shipping it]", rudy.

And now let's turn to the (declaredly provisory) results of the first govt-appointed investigation of why the Towers fell.

This "investigation" was "commissioned by the federal emergency management agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers", and its results were released at the end of April but had already leaked to the press by the end of March 2002.

Why did the Towers fall, according to the govt.'s appointees?

They confirmed that it wasn't the impact of the planes, thus corroborating Patrick Di Justo's early math.

They said it was the fires ignited by the burning jet fuel.

Yet "a significant portion" of the fuel burned off upon impact.

But the remaining fuel allegedly ignited the buildings & raised the temperature to 1,100 C (2,000 F).

Evidence for this temp assessment: zero.

Lack of efficient fire proofing on the structural steel allegedly accelerated its buckling/melting/giving way.

Evidence for this: scant to none.

Let us patiently sum up thus far.

The official, governmental investigative team of engineers "concluded that [the WTC] [... ] collapsed because the impact of the hijacked jetliners blew away fire-resistant foam, exposing steel girders to burning jet fuel." The girders buckled/melted & collapsed under the weight of the floors above.


One wonders if the court commission bothered to check the Gaithersburg bits & pieces as thoroughly as necessary.


I totally empathize. And so do lots of people in the U.S. and worldwide.

But it's not just Mrs Regenhard who's questioning the results of the 1st court commission.

In its own "Executive Summary", the regime's engineers admit that "the collapse of the towers astonished most observers, including knowledgeable structural engineers".

Those same court engineers say they interviewed witnesses - did they talk to Louie Cacchioli?

They say that their "Team conducted field observations at the WTC site and steel salvage yards, removed and tested samples of the collapsed structures".

Pity they can't share most of their evidence with us because rudy sold 95% of the steel for scrap and the bits & pieces at Gaithersburg, Md are off limits to independent researchers.

Fortunately though, the court engineers preserved just a tiny, but all-important bit of integrity:


In other words, Bush's team in its own executive summary clearly states that its very convenient theory of the jet-fuel fires melting the steel is NOTHING BUT PURE SPECULATIVE DRIVEL!

Again reader let's focus hard on this: it's Bush's engineers themselves who assessed their much-hyped melting-steel-gives-way explanation as baseless hogwash:


How come the team didn't pursue, among others, the bomb/controlled-demolition line of inquiry? Especially given rudy's highly suspicious haste/frenzy in destroying the evidence?

The jet-fuel-fires speculation is further diminished, again, by the very words of Bush's experts:

"A SIGNIFICANT portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. THE HEAT PRODUCED BY THIS BURNING JET FUEL DOES NOT BY ITSELF APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO INITIATE THE STRUCTURAL COLLAPSES." [my caps].

So the rapidly-burned-off jet fuel didn't buckle the steel - and burning chairs & desks did?

Especially since "many structural and fire protection features of the design and construction [of the Twin Towers] were found to be superior to the minimum code requirements."

More self-damning info from the court team:

"Prior to these events [911], no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the U.S., had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse".

Could it be that a fire-induced collapse was NOT the case at all on 911?
That bombs were set off?

Many other buildings were set on fire in the WTC area on 911: WTC 4,5,6 and 7; 90 West Street; 130 Cedar Street. The team's report (,c) mentions only 90 West Street as having had a well-performing fireproofing of concrete, brick and terra cotta around its steel frames.

But almost all WTC-site buildings remained standing, although they had "suffered severe fire damage".

Only WTC 7 collapsed entirely but I mentioned above how you rudy had turned its ground floor into a diesel depo.

Moreover, noone knows for sure why WTC 7 collapsed.

Steel-frame building vulnerabilities to fire-induced collapses were "not previously believed to exist."

According to the federal team's report (chapter "Preliminary studies of the growth and heat flux produced by the fires were conducted. Although these studies provided useful insight into the buildings' behavior, THEY WERE NOT OF SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO PERMIT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROBABLE DISTRIBUTION OF TEMPERATURES IN THE BUILDINGS AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE EVENT AND THE RESULTING STRESS STATE OF THE STRUCTURES AS THE FIRES PROGRESSED." [my caps].

In other words: in a rare fit of intellectual honesty, Bush's engineers owned up to the fact that their foregone, regime-absolving conclusion that the towers fell because of the buckling/melting steel IS SCIENTIFICALLY BASELESS UNPROVEN UNWARRANTED.

As for WTC 7, the only other WTC-site building that allegedly collapsed after fires caused the steel trusses to buckle, the team's report's conclusions are very skeptical indeed: chapter


So, rudy's massive diesel tanks notwithstanding, not even the WTC 7 collapse lends credibility to the official fire-melts-steel dogma.

And yet our court jesters did not open any other line of inquiry as to why the Twin Towers fell.

Did anyone seriously expect them to cast doubt on the official 911 story - or for that matter, to conduct a serious, objective investigation?

If anyone has any hope that the 2nd court-appointed investigation into why the Twin Towers fell will be more open than the 1st - forget about it.

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] is poised to take over the trade center collapse investigation, which it expects to take two years and cost $16 million".

What a waste of time & taxpayers' money.
Not even one of the "key questions" the NIST is poised to answer concerns the bomb/controlled-demolition theory.

Interestingly, the 1st Bush-appointed team reported (8.2.8.) about 2 structural steel samples which escaped your claws, rudy.

One "believed to be from WTC 7 and the other from either WTC 1 or WTC 2 [the Twin Towers]."

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 constitute an unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur [found in/on the samples] has been identified."

Hem... ... ... sulfur?

The ongoing coverup of what really happened at the WTC on 911 is a vast but, alas, imperfect endeavor.

The magazine Firehouse.com for instance pays constant lip service to the fallen heroes of 911 . But when the firehouse.com publisher realizes an article questions the official hype, he takes it down from the site rather mercilessly.
The heroes' families lose the authorities' respect as soon as they step off the party line.

For instance, when I tried to access a Tue, Dec.18, 2001 article 'Mother Wants WTC Collapse Probed', all I found was 'This article has been removed from this service by request of the publisher'...

You'd sure agree with that Firehouse.com publisher, right rudy?

At Fresh Kills, the U.S. Department of Agriculture used "fireworks to keep thousands of seagulls and about 50 turkey vultures from scavenging the site."

They should have used fireworks to keep you too, rudy, from scavenging the site to remove evidence.

In the name of all fallen heroes of 911 - may God have no mercy on you, rudy the zero.


1st version, written between August 22 and August 30, 2002


- For Louie Cacchioli's bomb story:
People.com, Sept.12, 2001: 'United in Courage/New York City'  http://people.aol.com/people/special/0,11859,174592-3,00.html

- For Giuliani selling the WTC steel for scrap & his cop cohorts helping with the coverup:
1. The Associated Press, June 14, 2002, 02:21 ET: 'WTC Debris Search Nears End', by Richard Pyle;
2. The Associated Press, April 16, 2002, 10:08ET: 'Engineers Find Clues in WTC Scrap', by Amy Westfeldt.

- For 90 West Street, 130 Cedar Street, 130 Liberty Street:
The New York Times, June 8, 2002: 'Victims' Remains Found Near Ground Zero', by Eric Lipton and James Glanz:  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/08/nyregion/08BODI.html

- For the de-linking of plane impact & Towers' collapse:
Patrick Di Justo, 'Wired' contributor, email to Paul Boutin, in 'Napkin math on the attack', Mo, Sept.17, 2001  http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2001/09/17

- For Van Romero's 'controlled-demolition' theory and its unconvincing recantation:
1. 'In Curious Battle: An Expert Recants on Why WTC Collapsed', by John Flaherty and Jared Israel, Dec.26, 2001  http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
2. original article from the 'Albuquerque Journal':  http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm
3. original rebuttal to this article: same link.

- For WTC 7:
The Associated Press, May 14. 2002, 10:04 ET: 'Architect Touts Plan for New 7 WTC'.

- For Giuliani's diesel under WTC 7:
The Associated Press, March 2, 2002, 09:07 ET: 'Diesel Fire Led To WTC Collapse'

- For Don Dahler's live description of the WTC's apparent controlled demolition on ABC:
ABC, 'Good Morning America', Sept.11, 2001, transcript at Emperor's:  http://emperor.vwh.net/9-11backups/abc911.htm

- For the official 'fire-melts-steel' WTC collapse myth:
1. 'World Trade Center Building Performance Study'  http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
2. Executive Summary  http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
3. Chapter 8  http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf

- For Sally Regenhard's comments :
The Washington Post, May 1, 2002, p.A03: 'Report Assesses Trade Center's Collapse', by Bill Miller:

- For firehouse.com & its bushiite publisher:
look up the article I mentioned in the text and it'll lead you to:

- For fireworks against vultures:
The Associated Press, June 14, 2002, 2:21am ET: 'WTC Debris Search Nears End', by Richard Pyle.

No rights reserved. This material MAY and OUGHT TO be published, broadcast, rewritten and redistributed, as long as Adrian More is credited as author.

Other 911 T.I.P.s by Adrian More:

- Fuzzy Math
- The Pearl Harbor Lie And September 11
- Zac In The Bush
- Immoral Tenet & His Blind-Eye Surveillance
- The Twin Cowards
- Catch 9
- Shredding The Constitution!
- Air Farce One
- Mr Push, Where Is Your Wife?
- Have A Last Stroke & Die
- Willie Brown, You Talk Too Much