portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation

Top 20 Anomalies / Smoking Guns of 9/11

I've been following this closely since September 12, 2001 from a wide variety of independent media and internet sources -

in my opinion these are most well-documented, credible and reliable stories and evidence to emerge.

this list is just my off-the-cuff, as-I-recall-them from memory of the top 20 or so Smoking Guns (I have hundreds of related web sites bookmarked but am too lazy to include them here, although they can be easily searched on Portland IMC or elsewhere, plus just look down the existing NewsWire today or use the "9/11 investigation" selector button) - in no particular order.

there is no 'conclusion' here (nor may there ever be) about whether it was gross negligence, LIHOP, or direct premeditation, or what exactly these anomalies may 'add up' to . . .

. . . please add your own Smoking Guns to this list below.

(I'm sure I forgot some good ones)

[the "Pentagon plane/missile" is purposely left OFF of here, as I watched that theory emerge (first from a French web site) several months after the event and it has been extensively debunked elsewhere, e.g.  http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html - plus, the Pentagon could quell any doubts by simply releasing its SecurityCam footage from that day . . . ]
>> demolition collapse of WTC Building 7

>> collapses of WTC towers / explosions in towers

>> WTC electrical power outage 24 hrs. previous

>> Marvin Bush: head of WTC and Logan Airport security company

>> identities and countries of origin of the 19 "hijackers", especially as 'positively identified' 24 hrs after the event by the FBI

>> Pakistani ISI chief in Washington DC the day before

>> Condi Rice phone call to Willie Brown day before: "beware of flying"

>> 'cell phone' (not possible) calls from hijacked planes

>> delayed or contradicted FAA alerts / emergency procedures and NORAD-USAF response

>> Warren Buffett multibillionaire meeting at Offutt AFB (Air Force One flew Bush here later that day) the morning of 9/11

>> Bush's bizarre actions, facial expressions and whereabouts during/immediately after 9/11

>> John Ashcroft told by FBI to fly in personal gov't executive jet in July 2001, not on airlines

>> PNAC activities and official statements since the early 1990s: " . . . a new Pearl Harbor."

>> Osama bin Laden's supposed whereabouts the months leading up to 9/11

>> translator Sybil Edmonds' testimony of suppression of communications

>> airline put options the days before

>> FBI agents' testimony of suppression of 'al-Qaeda' official investigations

>> pre-9/11 Pentagon in-house simulation exercise with 'airliner impact'

>> Anthrax (viral strain specifically sourced from Ft. Detrick, MD) attacks a few weeks post-9/11, and the still-festering-3-years-later FBI "investigation" which lacks a credible prime suspect

>> Afghanistan/Iraq invasion plan mobilization premeditated months/years in advance of 9/11 [SEE ALSO: Cheney Energy documents]

>> Extremely rapid passage of pre-drafted, unread-by-legislators USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security
The trickle of new info 07.May.2005 17:22

JR

In early 2004 it was revealed that one or more of the hijackers on one or more of the planes was carrying a leatherman-like tool with a six inch blade. How this was determined I can't remember. But the delay in releasing that info is instructive. Before that, the story was that the guys were equipped with boxcutters and in one case, I believe, a plastic eating knife. But if one or some of them had actual knives, that changes things a little--a knife is more dangerous than a boxcutter or plastic knife, especially in the hands of someone with training. Why did they wait over two years to reveal that?

the official story is the official fairy tale that is why 07.May.2005 17:58

me

...because there is no real story. The whole official story is made up as they go along. That is why there were three separate and mutually contradictory stories about the Pentagon within three days. And the whole boxcutter thing was how it was written up in 1976....

US DoD McNiven RICO SUIT! BUSH SENIOR, CIA head, & his 1976 state terror plan to hit WTCs! 06:18 Mar-20 (16 comments)
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/313859.shtml

why didnt the pentagon missles fire on the attack plane 07.May.2005 18:01

brian

according to David Griffin in his analysis of the 9/11 Commission, the only vehicle that can approach the pentagon is one sending a 'friendly' signal from its transponder.(page 36)

David Ray Griffin at U.W.-Madison Monday 4/18/05 on 9/11 07.May.2005 23:22

pass it on

David Ray Griffin at U.W.-Madison Monday 4/18/05 on 9/11

This is an incredible look at 9/11. I strongly suggest downloading it if you can, burning it on a CD and sharing it with as many friends and collegues as possible before it is yank off line from public view.

 http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html

=>  http://911blogger.fileburst.com/videos/griffin_madison_full_155.wmv

=>  http://911blogger.fileburst.com/videos/griffin_madison_full_25.wmv

"as you spread this please give credit back to 911blogger.com, enjoy! :) please do NOT link direclty to the file, but rather to this topic" (  http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html ).

gee... 08.May.2005 16:53

this thing here

>If indeed the "757" at the Pentagon was a hoax, then the extent and depth of corruption which must have been necessary to pull off this deceit are absolutely breathtaking. As Rick Stanley and I wrote in our introduction to our "Five Sided Fantasy Island" series -- IF our theory is correct, [ed - it's wrong] it follows that "US intelligence agencies have developed an extraordinary capability to create elaborate magic shows on the world stage, generate false testimony [WHY WOULD FALSE 757 TESTIMONY INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF REMOTE-CONTROL?] and false evidence, and control and manipulate not only the 'official story' but also its dialectical opposition among the critics."<

yes, exactly. u.s. intelligence agencies CAN create a massive, elaborate hoax, complete with false testimony and fake witnesses, so as to generate the neccessary political capital to justify achieving predetermined policy goals. and yes, the extent and depth of corruption IS absolutely breathtaking, isn't it. right up to the man in that white house.

do NOT underestimate the extremes to which the u.s. government will go so as achieve what they want.

Nonsensical argument 08.May.2005 23:06

reader

>>yes, exactly. u.s. intelligence agencies CAN create a massive, elaborate hoax

But the beauty of the US military and intelligence arms is that they don't have to. They have you to do it for them.

And likely, that's why they're working the pods, missiles, and hologram hoaxes so hard in the 9/11 movement - its a lot easier to pay 5 guys to work the internet than rounding up hundreds of people to give in person testimony on the sidewalks of DC . . .

AND

To quickly KNOCK OFF anyone who accidently got in there who wasn't controlled by them . . .on how many blocks in DC . . .?

AND

To do away with any accidental recording of their elaborate plan

AND

etc.

77 and 93 on 911 09.May.2005 02:53

Steve O'Brien's C-130 Good Time

quote:
========
it has been extensively debunked elsewhere, e.g.  http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html -
===========


click on the link. Note that contrary to what the person who posted this diversionary excersise asserts, ther is NO MENTION OF THE PLANEBOMB THEORY AT OILEMPIRE.

SO WHY ARE YOU LYING TO US?

i smell the cointel trolls. they have a very special smell... 09.May.2005 15:33

this thing here

>But the beauty of the US military and intelligence arms is that they don't have to. They have you to do it for them.<

yes, i get it now "reader", you cointel fuckface working at the hoover building. i see exactly what you're saying:

the u.s. military and intelligence agencies DIDN'T create an elaborate hoax on september 11, 2001. everything the bush administration has ever said about 9-11 is factually correct. and furthermore, ANYONE who offers any other version for the tragic events of that day is wrong, and as you imply, is actually part of the "bush team". that's classic...

oh yeah, i got you loud and clear. i know EXACTLY where you sit right now, and who your boss is. i got your tactic down. here's what you and your colleague handling the "abiotic oil" bullshit get paid to do all day long:

sow misinformation that in the end only benefits one side in this, the bush admin.

you do this by claiming that ANY theory that deviates from the official version "weakens" the "9-11 movement". but you sure as hell don't have the best intentions for the 9-11 movement. you pretend to be a "friend", but all you do is destroy and sow confusion. you take the theories and ideas, whether it's about 9-11 or peak oil, and you attack them and the people that beleive them by a very clever little twist: associating the 9-11 truth movement with the bush admin., or the peak oil believers with the oil corporations. that's CLASSIC COINTELPRO. and it smells reader, it really does give off a very very special smell. i've seen and smelled it all before, reader. you can whine all you want that you're "on our side" but it couldn't be more obvious who's side you're really on.

Hardly 09.May.2005 19:05

reader

>>you do this by claiming that ANY theory that deviates from the official version "weakens" the "9-11 movement".

I do nothing of the sort.

The towers were demolished, the defenses were stood down from above, and something blew up at the Pentagon (likely a bomb (or several) in the commerical jet that hit it). And some group either in the Bush Admin or above and beyond, are behind it and benefit immensely from the whole scam. You and I are the losers. Having to waste my time debunking nonsense to people who have never taken a science class is the way they keep us the losers.

Sorry to say, but there likely were no pods, no holograms, no missiles, and no switched planes.

Those are the nonsense that the real disinfo people are trying to push, and what WILL weaken the 9/11 movement. I push nothing close to the official story.

Stop drinking so much coffee and getting so little sleep.

Spot the spin... 09.May.2005 23:10

Tony BLair's dog

mr."reader/repost/Already Published" claims;

"..something blew up at the Pentagon (likely a bomb (or several) in the commerical jet that hit it)."

Yes, you keep repeating the fairy tales of the Bush administration
that flight 77, a 757 crashed into the Pentagon wall full force.

So, why don't you show us the entry holes in the Pentagon wall
from the two giant jet engines?

explantory fitness is mine (& your short memory) 10.May.2005 05:31

Already Published

<p>TBD - is there a debunk of the so-called "planebomb" theory on the bogus-theories page at oilempire? (YES/NO - no diversions please)
<p>

<p>As for you, TTH - you're in for a surprise, because I have prosthetic memory at my disposal. <BR>Do you remember praising my John Flashcroft presentation of "The Mighty Eagle"? (YES/NO)<BR>
Do you remember praising my JC Penney Iraq War Games catalogue? (YES/NO)<BR>
Do you remember suggesting that people read my "Conspiracy Nuts and Bolts" compendium of evidence refuting the official version? (yes/no)<BR>
And do you remember writing this sober little piece:</P>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" BORDER="1" ALIGN="CENTER" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="0" BORDERCOLOR="#990000" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
<TR>
<TD><P><B>this thing here </B>- <B>December 02, 2002 at 04:45 PM</B></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><I>&gt;You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected
by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure
that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going
to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest).&lt;
</I>[from the article]</P>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>an aircraft strikes a tall building. a building, in other words, with hundreds
of identicle floor plates stacked on top of each other. like a stack of pancakes.
the structure in the immediate impact area (which helps support the floors above
where the aircraft has struck) is already weakened by the impact. but a jet fuel
fire breaks out, and the fire starts to melt the already weakened steel structure.
(the sprayed on fireproofing was blown off on impact, and any that remained couldn't
handle the heat of burning jet fuel) </P>
<P>even though there's no damage to the &quot;top section&quot;, the weight of
all those undamaged floors above the impact area can no longer be supported. like
a stack of pancakes falling, or an accordian contracting, the floor plates collapse
one on top of another, a verticle domino effect that keeps going until there are
no more floor plates left. </P>
<P><B>this collapse, one floor smashing down on top of another, all the way down,
<u>is why</u> the entire towers went down</B>, and not just the sections above
the impact areas. if it had been as described here, with an undamaged chunk falling
over and toppling off like a tree, there would have been maybe 70 story tall stumps
of towers left. </P>
<P><I>what always strikes me as totally insane is how &quot;perfectly&quot; and
&quot;neatly&quot; the towers collapsed</I> [my emph] into a heap of bent steel.
what if the planes hit lower down, and the towers fell over like giant trees falling
onto new york city, and killed thousands more? don't even want to think about
it...</P>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<p>?</P>

tml fix - sorry 10.May.2005 05:34

Already Published

TBD - is there a debunk of the so-called "planebomb" theory on the bogus-theories page at oilempire? (YES/NO - no diversions please)

As for you, TTH - you're in for a surprise, because I have prosthetic memory at my disposal.
Do you remember praising my John Flashcroft presentation of "The Mighty Eagle"? (YES/NO)
Do you remember praising my JC Penney Iraq War Games catalogue? (YES/NO)
Do you remember suggesting that people read my "Conspiracy Nuts and Bolts" compendium of evidence refuting the official version? (yes/no)
And do you remember writing this sober little piece:

this thing here - December 02, 2002 at 04:45 PM

>You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest).< [from the article]

an aircraft strikes a tall building. a building, in other words, with hundreds of identicle floor plates stacked on top of each other. like a stack of pancakes. the structure in the immediate impact area (which helps support the floors above where the aircraft has struck) is already weakened by the impact. but a jet fuel fire breaks out, and the fire starts to melt the already weakened steel structure. (the sprayed on fireproofing was blown off on impact, and any that remained couldn't handle the heat of burning jet fuel)

even though there's no damage to the "top section", the weight of all those undamaged floors above the impact area can no longer be supported. like a stack of pancakes falling, or an accordian contracting, the floor plates collapse one on top of another, a verticle domino effect that keeps going until there are no more floor plates left.

this collapse, one floor smashing down on top of another, all the way down, is why the entire towers went down, and not just the sections above the impact areas. if it had been as described here, with an undamaged chunk falling over and toppling off like a tree, there would have been maybe 70 story tall stumps of towers left.

what always strikes me as totally insane is how "perfectly" and "neatly" the towers collapsed [my emph] into a heap of bent steel. what if the planes hit lower down, and the towers fell over like giant trees falling onto new york city, and killed thousands more? don't even want to think about it...

?


if a theory fits you must admit but don't acquit 10.May.2005 07:31

eyes closed tight

peep this shit
watcha lookin' for?
watcha lookin' for?

Hahaha... 10.May.2005 10:07

Tony Blair's dog

"TBD - is there a debunk of the so-called "planebomb" theory on the bogus-theories page at oilempire? (YES/NO - no diversions please)"

The master of diversions starts off with a diversion then
asks people not to divert. Priceless! ;-D

So, why don't you just show us the entry holes in the Pentagon wall
from the two giant 757 jet engines so that everyone can at least believe
the Bush administration's version a little bit?

You repetedly avoid this question. Why?

Hehehe, never mind, we all know why.

eyes closed tight 10.May.2005 10:09

Tony Blair's dog

Thanks for all the great photos. Good job!

yes, for the record i did write that... 10.May.2005 15:59

this thing here

... and yes, i do not agree with every single 9-11 theory that's out there.

but that doesn't mean i worry that the entire 9-11 truth movement is getting out of hand, and somehow must "stop" all it's stupid theories. the more theories, the better. that way i can decide which i support and which i do not. the stupid ones stand out. holograms? sure, that's not one i can support. but does that mean the 9-11 truth movement is "weakened", or that it's intentional disinfo? that argument has not been made.

>Do you remember praising my John Flashcroft presentation of "The Mighty Eagle"? (YES/NO)<

i remember praising A John Flashcroft presentation. but was it "yours"?

>Do you remember praising my JC Penney Iraq War Games catalogue? (YES/NO)<

i remember praising A JC Penny Iraq War Games catalogue. but was it really "yours"?

>Do you remember suggesting that people read my "Conspiracy Nuts and Bolts" compendium of evidence refuting the official version? (yes/no)<

i remember the "Conspiracy Nuts and Bolts" compendium. but did YOU do that?

this is the internet after all. anyone can say they are anyone. and i'm more than a little surprised you held on to something i wrote over 2 and half years ago. why? why go through all that effort? oh yes, i can see that you're trying to prove a point. but that's not what i'm after. why THAT point. that's what i want to hear about.