portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

9-11:police channel:"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"

Something very interesting was going on--on top of the Woolworth Building. An assemblage of available information. If you know more statements, please post to this thread.
Eight of Spades Woolworth Building
Eight of Spades Woolworth Building

where's the tinfoil? 14.Sep.2004 10:31


looks like too many "possiblies, before/durring/after's"... . You know i remeber watching it live, not to mention all of the footage there is, never saw a single missle hit those buildings. this theory is way too weak with out any links/photo's/video/real evidence.

Hi mr."Josh" 14.Sep.2004 13:09

Tony Blair's dog

How did you watch the first building being hit?

(required) 14.Sep.2004 14:36

Mr. Josh

Tony blair's dog,
You're aboslutely correct I wasn't there, nor did I see the first building being hit live... I did see the news recap ( a little hard to miss at the time ) and I did watch as the second hit, live through the telescreen of course. But still, it would take quite the orchestration on the media's behalf to have the rockets edited out of the footage. I'm just saying that it sounds this sounds to fishy to take seriously. Take the whole pentagon no 747 theory, there is at least some tangible evidence, like the size of the hole or the misleading damage done to the building. This theory has not much more than "eye witness testimony" as its evidence. Could it be that panic skewed the perception of those who witnessed the even. I can't say for sure it's completely false but you'd think out of all of the footage of the event there would be some showing a rocket or two rather than aeroplanes. I guess I just need some visuals. Pardon me for questioning.

for those interested in truth check out this footage & the 15.Sep.2004 07:02

well oiled media article, below

Josh, I'm sorry you are so easily and willingly misled. Really I am.

Only Bush has ever claimed that he saw the first hit live. He does so repeatedly.

No one else saw it until days later when the Naudet film surfaces. And it's hardly difficult to manipulate the American public with film footage and empty rhetoric. After all, people like Josh assured that the U.S. public believed there were connections between Iraq and Al-Queda after all. Actually mass manipulation is very easy.

"But still, it would take quite the orchestration on the media's behalf to have the rockets edited out of the footage.

You bet it does. Of course when U.S. media are owned by oil companies and military contractors themselves, as they are, it's really easy.

for those interested in truth check out this footage:


particularly see: January 31th - 2003: Breaking News!

Anyone who has seen 9-11: In Plane Site (which you can see for FREE on the web), knows how easy the corporate media are totally empty of content anymore. They are political propaganda tools of corporate elites. Movie review and description of day-of 9-11 footage in this documetary, here:

repost 15.08.2004 11:10
NEW 9-11 video '911 in Plane Site' screened in Sacramento, CA; left audience stunned

'911 in Plane Site' presents actual film from that fateful day and careful analysis focusing on the Pentagon and the two World Trade Center buildings.

By slowing down the actual news feeds that day from networks like CNN, FOX, the BBC and others, what you see is quite different from what most people saw in "real time" that day. Live footage from the Pentagon and what was missed by most because of the smoke and confusion was captured up close by the media. Following the showing, a retired vet remarked, "How did we miss this all this time? I've seen media clips of the front of that building [the Pentagon] many times, but I wasn't really seeing what was there. I feel sick." '911 in Plane Site,' distributed by Power Hour Productions (866-773-9469), leaves one with many questions as demonstrated by a very upset senior citizen who requested her last name be withheld. Mary asked, "If these weren't commercial airliners, where are those flights? Where are the passengers? My, God what really happened that day?" Indeed, this seemed to be the biggest question expressed by viewers after the lights came back on, but for which there were no answers. Some viewers were visibly upset, angry and "want damn answers" from the Bush Administration. Others just walked out the door in silence.


and know about how much of what is televised in the U.S. goes through oil corporations and governmental connections:


September 16, 2001


Where are the moderating voices, the views of those who stand against the momentum of war, who challenge the self-serving rationalizations of empire? You are unlikely to find them in the major media.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is headed by Bob Coonrad, formerly deputy managing director of the U.S. propaganda station Voice of America. [Actually it is CIA.] At the helm of National Public Radio is Kevin Klose, formerly director of the International Broadcasting Bureau, which oversees ][CIA fronts] Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio and Television Marti. [Klose in September 2002 was in Rhinebeck, New York, arguing the necessity of attacking Iraq.]

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is Michael Powell, son of the secretary of state.

[March 2003: Clear Channel, the Texas-based owner of more than 1200 radio and 36 television stations in the USA, with its own syndication and tour management divisions, has been organizing rallies in support of invading Iraq. They also maintain and enforce a list of banned songs and musicians for their stations. Vice chairman Tom Hicks made George W. Bush a multimillionaire by buying the Texas Rangers baseball team from him. As one of the creators and the first chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company (with Clear Channel founder Lowry Mays on the board) when Bush was governor, he turned over the control of its funds to companies close to the Bushes, including The Carlyle Group mentioned below. Clear Channel's growth has depended on continued deregulation and lax oversight by the FCC and has its own lobbying office in Washington.]

Secretary of State Colin Powell was on the corporate board of America Online, now merged with Time-Warner, which owns CNN. A member of AOL/Time-Warner's board of directors, Carla Hills, also sits on the board of directors of [Condi Rice's] Chevron. She was the first President Bush's trade representative. On the board of directors of Exxon-Mobil sits J. Richard Munro, former chairman and CEO of Time-Warner. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of the Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and many other newspapers as well as TV stations.

[November 2003: Hollinger International board members are charged with pocketing tens of millions of dollars received from other companies. Hollinger is a media company, owned by Conrad Black, that owns the Daily Telegraph in London, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Jerusalem Post. Hollinger Digital is their investment division and is headed by Richard Perle, who is on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, which is essentially an industry liaison office (Perle was chairman until questions of propriety forced him to another seat). He also heads Trireme Partners, which is aggressively investing in "homeland security" projects, and steered $2.5 million from Hollinger to Trireme. Gerald Hillman, also on the Defense Policy Board, invested $14 million in Trireme and became a partner. Henry Kissinger is a director at Hollinger and a Trireme advisor. Another Hollinger director is Richard Burt, a former arms negotiator. The Carlyle Group (see below) is considering bailing out Black.]

Oil companies often share board members with the media. The director of Texaco (recently merged with Chevron), former senator Sam Nunn, is also on the board of directors of GE/NBC (GE is the nation's sixth largest defense contractor). Texaco board of directors member Charles Price sits on the New York Times/Boston Globe board of directors. Corporate board member William Steere is on the board of directors of Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal. A member of the Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal corporate board, Rand Araskog, also sits on the board of directors of Shell Oil.

The connections of the current White House administration with big oil hardly need mentioning. Most notably, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice comes from the board of directors of Chevron -- which has a tanker named for her -- and Vice President Dick Cheney (secretary of defense during the first Bush presidency) was chairman and CEO of Halliburton, which provides construction and maintenance services to the oil and other energy industries as well as field support to the military. Although he sold most of his stock when he made himself Bush's running mate, he retains about $8 million in stock options and continues to get up $1 million a year in separation pay. Over 200 former employees of Enron, the fabulously cynical and corrupt energy broker based in Texas, have found jobs in the current Bush administration. A significant investor in President Bush's early oil ventures was the bin Laden Group, a multinational construction conglomerate based in Saudi Arabia. The bin Laden Group has also invested in The Carlyle Group, a global investment firm headed by James Baker (the elder Bush's secretary of state) and Frank Carlucci (secretary of defense under Reagan and a close friend of the current secretary of defense). Former President Bush himself is a senior advisor. John Major (former prime minister of the U.K.) is the group's European chairman. Fidel Ramos (former president of the Philippines) is an advisor. One of their operations in Saudi Arabia is an official part of the government. Much of their focus is defense and energy, and they also own a stake in multinational conglomerate Vivendi's publishing operations.

All of these oil companies, with important ties to the U.S. media, have interests in the Middle East crucial to their profits. Another company, Unocal, was the major player in a January 1998 agreement with the Taliban to build a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan. (The U.S. had covertly funded the Taliban to bring stability for the pipeline deal.) In December 1998, they put the project on hold "until an internationally recognized government was in place." Unocal runs its own political action committee and is a major donor to the Republican Party. They spend about $1.5 million every year for lobbying.

Robert Oakley, U.S. ambassador to Pakistan in the 1980's and instrumental to the CIA support of the Afghan Mujahedin (in which Osama bin Laden became a commander), now works for Unocal. One of the Mujahedin's leaders, Hamid Karzai, was the main intermediary between the Mujahedin and the CIA. He later became a top advisor to Unocal and after the ending of Taliban rule in Afghanistan was installed as prime minister. Henry Kissinger also works for Unocal. Secretary of the Air Force under the elder George Bush, Donald Rice, is on Unocal's board of directors. (Rice is also a former president of the military think tank RAND.) Another board member is Charles Larson, former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Navy's pacific command. Former RAND employee and Unocal advisor Zalman Khalilzad is now the National Security Council's advisor for southwest Asia. Afghanistan-born Khalilzad was also an advisor to the state department in the 1980's and is a close associate of Vice President Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. [On December 31, 2001, Khalilzad became special envoy to Afghanistan.]

The Soviet Union estimated that Afghanistan sits on 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 95 million barrels of oil, and 400 million tons of coal. Unocal has stated that "Afghanistan's ... potential includes proposed multi-billion-dollar oil and gas export pipelines." The vice president of Unocal testified in 1998 to a U.S. House committee about the importance of stabilizing the potential oil fields of central Asia and that the best pipeline route for transporting their oil is across Afghanistan to the Pakistani coast. A cheap supply of natural gas is needed by a huge Enron-built power plant in Dabhol, on the west coast of India.

As with our response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and to the overthrow of Siad Barre in Somalia, a war in Afghanistan (or new ones in Somalia and Iraq) will not be to relieve the suffering of its population or to defend against a serious threat to democratic and civil rights. In the name of terror's victims, war will be pursued to protect future profits for those making, as well as those reporting, the decisions.


"Every nation has its war party. It is not the party of democracy. It is the party of autocracy. It seeks to dominate absolutely. It is commercial, imperialistic, ruthless. It tolerates no opposition. ... In times of peace, the war party insists on making preparation for war. As soon as prepared for war, it insists on making war." --Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr., June 1917

The pirate class are creating the conditions in which they can convert U.S. power directly into capital. --The Black Commentator (Glen Ford & Peter Gamble)


. 15.Sep.2004 07:12


"But still, it would take quite the orchestration on the media's behalf to have the rockets edited out of the footage."

Read the multiple separate witnesses from the police channel statements. If you don't like your troll job, get another, though please get better at it.

wait wait wait... slow down cap'n. take a deep breath. Now think critically. 15.Sep.2004 14:08

Mr. Josh

How is it that questioning the claims of some picture taken from someone's cafepress store makes me a troll? If you honestly believe it to be the truth why are you so quick to label nonbelievers as heretics????You should welcome criticism, it helps prove ideas true. If I were to just blindly believe every claim made by people trying to make a dollar,whether through dvd sales or t shirt sales on the internet, wouldn't that make me "so easily and willingly misled".

I wasn't denouncing it because of my own conflicting finacial, political, moral or theoretical ideas about what really happened. I was simply saying that the claims made were not entirely established based on the evidence provided. One website you have linked mentions only bombs in the building. This coincides with Port Authority transcripts of what many people believed they heard. There are hundreds of pages worth of transcripts so I haven't been able to scour them in search of any mentioning of missles. If missles had hit i would think more people would be bringing it into light. It would not be an idea of the fringe. No matter how strong the media's grasp on the public mind is, there's no need to preach about biase here either I too understand it, some group of witnesses with souls would have been furious about the cover up and forced it's surfacing. The text given was not enough to get me to blindly follow the idea like a lost puppy. I just cannot believe at this point that only a small number of people in New York would have noticed rockets being shot at the wtcs'. I'm sorry for being so blunt but I believe you have over reacted by slinging insults.

You see I haven't been convinced that I know what really happened. Pardon me for thinking about available evidence, including new findings, before accepting something as truth. That makes me the complete opposite of your accusations. I have started to download the video and I will watch it and consider what it has to say.

I might suggest that if you want to further spread your message that you try a more reasonable approach. Instead of treating any criticism as foolish or an attempt of sabotage, think about it like a science experiment, if you can, instead of a religious mission to save souls. Don't condemn others for having different ideas or pointing out holes in the theory. Instead consider every idea that might disprove it a test. If the truth is what you believe it will pass any test. Like wise, if there aren't any holes in the theory they will be apparent.

Thank you for taking the time for taking the time to read what I had to say.
Your pal, Mr. Josh

to Josh 19.Sep.2004 19:44


That's why the question marks are there. Thanks for your comments though they ignore both the ownership issue and the multiple police channel reports of missiles from the top of the Woolworth building.

Additionally, for those in the know, in the 1960s Project Northwoods document which was a pre-emptive recommendation of a private oversight of a state terror plan. Project Northwoods was just like 9-11 where the U.S. military aimed to stage attacks on U.S. citizens for politican gains [see Body of Secrets book]. In it, it was noted that due to the high degree of danger of exposure from loyal military officers, for security, the regular miltiary was to be avoided in operations like these.

In short, Project Northwoods recommends just such a privatized state terror operation for security reasons.

fun with photoshop 13.Oct.2004 23:45


hey, i can post a "video" that shows that martians were behind 9/11

how about aliens from other galaxies -- what, you don't believe me? you must be working for the bush team ...

it's an old tactic to "muddy the waters" with disinformation pretending to expose the conspiracy -- classic Karl Rove approach

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." (Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184)

New 9/11 video evidence analysis at questionsquestions.net:

Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims

Webfairy's Reign of Error

The WTC "Mystery Explosion" Video Hoax

peace to the troll 14.Oct.2004 09:46


"it's an old tactic to "muddy the waters" with disinformation pretending to expose the conspiracy "

You're right there! you have come here and posted three separate posts recently on three separate articles--each saying the same thing though using three different aliases--and the same post content was relating to really important information that ties everything back to hard technology issues that the Bush administration and the Pentagon were the ones generating 9-11!

peace to you on your strange viscious job here at the Portland IMC

Missiles 16.Nov.2004 16:11


There were other explosions around the WTC on 9-11. One was covered by live local news radio here. After news blurbs about POLICE officers screaming into their radios about bombs on Vesey Street and reports of missiles fired from the Woolworth Building, I decided to get involved. What I found is that it probably "did" occur. Photo evidence backs it up as well as the security company for the W.B. being suspicious. Problem is, the feds got to the EuroNews video online before anyone had the chance to save it (I guess). Yet, the suspect explosion is authenticated by three different angles. So stick your Photoshop.


Pictures seen early on of the WTC now make more sense... 13.Nov.2005 07:17

Well Traveled

A few years ago I was intensely interest in 911. I now have to admit that my interest has wained somewhat, as each year goes by without any government agency agent or worker being so much as fined let alone fired or G_d forbid held to a trial! However a few years ago someone, I think a tourist visiting NYC took some photos of the WTC and the jets ( first jet was coincidental timing ) the second jet by design, I think. In these photos the second jet is about say 100 or 200 feet from impacting the WTC, and in that photo was a clearly definded white spot on the side of the WTC. At first I thought it was a photographic defect, but upon reading this latest news, it got me to thinking back, it occurred to me that the white dot could be a reflection of and infrared targeting laser (I use to be in security) and I'm very much aware that many modern CCD cameras built in the last several years can and do detect high spectrum infrared sources ( those infrared souces that are just below 550 um, deep red).
It is common knowledge that smart RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenades and stinger missiles)can and are aimed using infrared laser guidence systems, that "paint the target" so that a smart munitions will "find" it's target. Could it be that someone tryed shooting down that plane before it hit WTC?

Understanding the public's point of logic 15.Apr.2006 18:15

Joey F.

If Bush is dumb like everyone says he is, then how was he able to orchestrate everything precisely? The underground explosions, the "missiles" fired from Woolworth Building, the so-called space ship that hit the Pentagon, the missing pieces from flight 93, and so on and so on and so on...

Yep Bush must be a really dumb dude alright

Anyway, all you got is eyewitnesses. Haven't you thought that these eyewitnesses are making this "missile" story up just to get attention? Eyewtinesses make alot of things up just to be seen and heard in the media. And please explain to me how the hell missiles were fired from a skyscraper that's open to the public.

The public also expects us to take their word over terrorists. I don't know if you were watching the news over the past couple years, but OSAMA BIN LADEN HIMSELF SAID THAT HE PLANNED THE WHOLE ATTACK.