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

9.11 investigation

911: Unanswered Questions I

10 years after the September 11 attacks, the United States government has made it clear that it had something to hide. From the White House counter-terrorism advisor to the co-chairs of the National Commission of investigation, one after the other key political figures have stepped forward to disassociate themselves from an official version that simply does not add up. Wayne Madsen flashes back to this massive cover-up operation.
President Bush's chief counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke has revealed that the CIA under George Tenet attempted to recruit some of the 9/11 "Al Qaeda" terrorists prior to the attack of September 11, 2001, but that after the attempt failed, Tenet and his senior CIA staff covered up the botched recruitment effort. The revelation is yet one more nail in the coffin of what has become the most discredited U.S. government report since the infamous Warren Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. In fact, the Warren Report received another blow after it was revealed that First Lady Jacqueline revealed in 1964 to historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. that she believed that Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was behind the assassination of her husband in Dallas. The revelations by Mrs. Kennedy and Clarke show that the United States government cannot be trusted to investigate misdeeds carried out with the full knowledge and support of senior officials of the CIA and the White House. The 9/11 attack represents one such high-level government cover-up.

Clarke's recent revelations about CIA knowledge of Al Qaeda 9/11 cells prior to the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington merely takes one to the shallowest of depths of the rabbit hole of the intelligence world, highly-compartmented cells which carefully planned the attacks and how the mass media would cover the unfolding events.

The one individual who stands tall among those intelligence and law enforcement officers who was aggressively pursuing the criminal network that would carry out 9/11 was FBI counter-terrorism top man John O'Neill. Ever since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, O'Neill's pursuit of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda had been dogged. After further terrorist attacks at the Khobar Towers barracks in Dharan, Saudi Arabia; the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the USS Cole in Aden harbor, O'Neill's biggest problem was not Al Qaeda, it was resistance from top officials inside the U.S. government.

Read More:
 http://www.voltairenet.org/9-11-Unanswered-Questions-I

I use to believe the unoffical JFK story 12.Sep.2011 05:28

justsomedude

At one time I was a true believer that someone other than Oswald killed JFK.
Bought into what Oliver Stone spoon fed me. It made perfect sense. The head going back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left.
One day I came across the Zapruder film that you could download from a known "conspiracy website". I downloaded it, and put it into Adobe Premiere Pro (which I had ).
I watched the headshot frame by frame. The head does got back and to the left right before one frame shows it going violently forward and to the right. The human eye doesn't catch it in real time but anyone with editing software could clearly see it when they move the film frame by frame.
Oliver Stone would have clearly seen this when putting together his movie, but it didn't fit the narrative, so it was ignored. As I found out Stone ignored quite a bit that didn't fit his version of the story.
Granted the film JFK is a movie, its marketed to make money, not educate.
Maria Oswald claimed her husband had shot at a Federal Judge at his home in New Orleans the prior year but missed. She said that Oswald claimed "Americans are so stupid, they don't believe you can make a getaway on a city bus."
His coworker claimed Oswald too a long wrapped package to work the day of the Assassination . When questioned Oswald claimed they were curtain rods.
Whether you believe the official story or some CIA/Castro/LBJ story, the fact is, there are many facts that are conveniently left out of all the conspiracy versions because they don't fit the narrative.

Evidence is overwhelming -- we're being lied to 12.Sep.2011 09:59

Jody Paulson

Can you agree that open fire doesn't melt steel? I mean, you're not afraid to fry your eggs on a stainless steel pan, are you?

Now explain how Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper, collapsed to the ground at free-fall speed into its own footprint with no explanation other than office fires.

That's just one of hundreds of things that don't make sense about the events of that day. I've done the research. If you haven't, go do it and then come back and tell me I'm nuts for calling bullshit. The people who died that day deserve something better than being used as an excuse for war, profiteering, an a crackdown on Civil Liberties.


Jody, you ever watched a blacksmith work? 12.Sep.2011 11:16

justsomedude

those fires were quite a bit hotter than an "open" fire on a consumer cook stove.

blacksmiths bend hot steel with "open" fire everyday.

Ever wonder how gold got shot up into quartz rock? where miners dig it out of? Gold melts at almost 2000 degrees. It gets shot into quartz with supercharged hot water. But you can't image water getting hotter than 212 degrees can you?

Its a geologic fact. look it up.

You make it sound as if someone took a bic lighter and walked up to a WTC steel girder and the entire building fell apart. when you say it like that it sounds stupid. When you aren't scared to look at the facts, you will see that steel doesn't melt but it looses its rigidity at those temperatures. With that weight on it, that's all it took to start the pancake collapse.
amazing how neither of those planes set off those any explosive -demo charges when they hit those buildings isn't it?
Building 7 was on fire. All the firefighters who would normally put that fire out were dead by that point, so it collapsed the same way.
Let me ask you a simple question. Why would someone rig building 7 to blow up? It wasn't hit by the planes, What would be the point? ?????
There is no convincing true zealots that their religion is flawed, so you are free to keep the faith.

justsomedude 12.Sep.2011 13:12

Well...

Maybe you ought to watch a blacksmith's forge work, then actually consider why what it does indeed works. You may think it's an open flame in a blacksmith's forge, but it's hardly that. It's just 'out in the open' to you. You may be surprised at how little a blacksmith's forge has to do with what went on in the Towers than what you suppose.

Fires may have the tendency to create their own environment and draw more oxygen to themselves but it's a process that is dependent upon a lot of factors, such as concentration, duration, and density (amount) of the fuel, proximity of that heated to the source, the opening through which the oxygen can contact the fuel, and the opening through which the heat can escape. Look at a blacksmith's forge. It can't draw enough oxygen to get hot enough, can it, so oxygen must be added beyond that tendency of heat and its currents to do that itself? Try it with unaerosoled kerosene or just fuel (which, incidentally, was observed flowing down through the building, disbursing it, losing concentration and density). Does the jet fuel below the surface of a puddle burn, too? NO, and limits the fuel burning at any one moment. Even at that, you hardly give any concern to the materials, the mass in configuration, or even the fact that where one building was hit almost dead-on and did likely do much damage to the central core, while the other didn't. In most observable worlds off-center loads don't fall straight down, even if fire were a major componenet of something other than personal fear and shock.

As for the gold and geysers, isn't what you're positing, even with support, conjecture? Next time one of those geologists sees the process, you let me know. Honestly, I can believe the mechanism; I just can't see where the example is of anything more than something that you really don't understand and find rather fantastic yourself.

The pancake theory?

Apparently, you don't read, or read selectively? (We all do that, so don't feel criticised.) Thoroughly dismissed years ago. Again, the simple fact is that the intact portions of the buildings were designed to support the weight in multiples of what was required in a worst imagined scenario, damaged or not. While our imagination may be lacking in some respects and we sometimes find more than we'd ever imagined, it's much more due to laziness and lack of knowledge than that research hasn't happened and the clues haven't been put together to corral our imaginations on that particular point. The remaining intact building above the damage and the debris still didn't weigh any more than what it did intact, unless somehow you could add multiples in the hundreds of tons along in with the debris and structure above that 'dropped' upon it beyond the damaged and disbursed airplane debris. The point of it not weighing any more with the exception of the debris from the airplane remains in any arguement, fire or not.

I believe that you post here just to be devil's advocate, which is a valuable function, but at least try to stay current and risk more intelligence than those to whom you direct your posts. You make no contributions, cite no valid links for support. It's your right to do this here, so go ahead, to satisfy yourself and others like you. Personally, you don't even give anyone the feel that you've done any more than cursory reading, and what that reading was is some consequence of what you already believe.

One more thing...Which religion is it to which you subscribe, and have commented, with the same zeal as Jody?

hydrothermal gold 12.Sep.2011 13:52

justsomedude

Next time you see an ape turn into a man, please let me know.

next time you see a tailpipe melt a glacier please let me know.


 http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/nativelands/ftbelknap/golddeposits.html

I will admit I'm not an expert 12.Sep.2011 15:56

Jody Paulson

but the 1,564 Architects and Engineers who refute the official story of what caused Building 7 to collapse are:  http://www.ae911truth.org/

If office fires can in fact cause steel structured buildings to completely collapse, 9/11/01 was the first time in history they have done so. You'd think people would want to study this kind of thing, but all the evidence was carted away before it could be properly studied. Editor of Fire Engineering Magazine Bill Manning called FEMA's investigation a "half-baked farce."  http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html

Listen to words out of owner Larry Silverstein's own mouth -- it was a controlled demolition:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA&feature=related


" mass in configuration " 12.Sep.2011 18:28

hmm.

There is no support, physical/evidentiary or otherwise,

for the 100% theory that the 3 buildings which collapsed in NYC that day did so, due to 'structural weakening from fire'.

1) The jet fuel fires did not burn hot enough, long enough, or in an enclosed/sealed enough area for such heat to have occurred

and even if (by some miracle or leap of faith) '1)' were true or viable,

2) the conservation of momentum -- basic physical law -- for the sequential collapse of 100 floors of metal mass, quite simply doesn't allow for "weakened by fire/heat" steel skyscraper structures to collapse at that velocity.

No, it's far more than just "heated bolts failing" or what ever other BS was stuffed into NIST's theoretically modelled (and btw not based on empirical evidence or forensic testing i.e. the debris from the site which was 98% dumped to landfills/shipped overseas within a couple weeks).

in order to collapse as fast as they did -- i.e. identical to a controlled demolition, which is what happened and is proven beyond dispute by the literally thousands of different camera shots of the WTC collapses --

they needed to have their key structural + supporting members DEMOLISHED i.e. blown and/or sheared apart, by *external* physical forces, ***ALL THE WAY DOWN*** (not just at 'one point near the top where it "weakened"' and then, magically, via Garcia's "pressure waves" -- see below -- for example became a 'self sustaining collapse' at freefall speed) - on each floor and key structural supporting member.

additionally, they collapsed symmetrically into their own footprint which is another hallmark of systematic demolition of key structural and supporting members of a steel-framed skyscraper.

there's a joke piece over at Global Warming Denier Alexander Cockburn's CounterPunch web site, by some Los Alamos (gov't nuclear) physicist named Garcia, who -- mathematically no less -- attempts to convince us mortals that "pressure waves" from the "falling" buildings caused the floors below to collapse at free fall speeds. What a laugh, and surreal read too. some low-on-work(and common sense) nuclear physicist who's a buddy of the guy who doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming (verified by hundreds of thousands of scientists' work around the world, and only opposed-'contested' by major oil/industrial interests who fund all the Denier propaganda slipped into media and politics plus the Astroturf "tea party").

WTC 1 - 10 seconds
WTC 2 - 11 seconds
WTC 7 - 7 seconds (was not even hit by an aircraft)

the Twin Tower skyscrapers by the way, held up just as they were designed to do. Go on YouTube and search for videos of the aircraft impacts -- I mean, real-time videos which hold position for more than several seconds after the impact... more like several minutes. Each building briefly swayed, but completely held up - as designed. Not just for airliners at high speed... also earthquakes, hurricane-force winds (more powerful in joules aka energy than airliner impacts).

obviously as well, when someone like justsomedude [who didn't khs yet] uses a phrase such as " mass in configuration "(whatever TF that was supposed to mean) you can not rely on it.

why 13.Sep.2011 05:37

justsomedude

"If office fires can in fact cause steel structured buildings to completely collapse, 9/11/01 was the first time in history they have done so"

Ok, when in modern history was a large office building allowed to burn uncontrolled until it burned itself out? Never.

Second, why not detonate the Statue of Liberty as well? It wasn't hit by the planes either. Why pick on building 7?

Third, you haven't answered by question. How was it that not one of these demolition charges was ignited when the planes hit the building? That was pretty lucky wasn't it. Because had one or some of them been hit and blown the top of the tower would have collapsed immediately and caused a major investigation.

Fourth, Larry Silverstein is going to blow up two huge buildings to have them replaced in lower Manhattan with a reflecting pool and oak trees? That's quite the Real Estate genius you have there.
BTW, All insurance companies have a clause where they do not have to pay out for destruction due to "wars, declared or not". Check your own homeowner's policy to see what I'm talking about.
I don't spend my life looking under my bed for Dick Cheney or some old rich Jew with mirrors, Detcord, and a plunger.
The number of people required to pull this off, and keep it quite would be higher than the total number architects physicists you claim don't agree with the official report.
That in itself makes it hard to believe if not impossible.
But let me guess, they have all been eliminated by assassination squads, and those squads have been eliminated by other assassination squads right?
I also don't spend my life trying to twist logic to fit a conspiracy narrative that makes Cheney and Bush look like murdering assholes just because I don't like their politics.
Its clear we are not going to convince each other of anything.

My logic isn't twisted 13.Sep.2011 07:39

Jody Paulson

Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit on 9-11:
"You've got to be lucky to make $4 Billion killing on a 6-month investment of $124 Million"
 http://www.heartcom.org/LuckyLarry.htm

What was in building 7? It was the emergency "command center," where I think the real crimes were planned. It also housed SEC financial records and CIA offices:  http://wtc7.net/background.html

I think the plan was to hit this building with the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. When that unforeseeable event took place, they had to get rid of the evidence somehow, so Silverstein had them, as he said, "pull it."


'justsomedude' post 13.Sep.2011 18:05

response

>>> Its clear we are not going to convince each other of anything.

who's attempting to "convince" someone? speak for your self (not "each other").

If you wilfully ignore or remain ignorant / in denial of the clear empirical evidence placed in front of you (i.e. you didn't even have to go searching for it) -- and further, you decide to come up/dutifully follow and parrot kitschy "explanations" for what happened that day with no understanding of even basic science concepts, then good luck.


>>> Ok, when in modern history was a large office building allowed to burn uncontrolled until it burned itself out? Never.

who on Earth has even bothered to posit that until you? "large office building" - WTF?? (yeah plenty of those have been allowed to burn into dust.) The point of mentioning **STEEL FRAMED SKYSCRAPERS** with reference to 9/11 is that, none of them -- until September 11th, 2001 or after that day -- have EVER collapsed into their own footprint at freefall speed due to "fire", or "weakening" / "steel softening" from fire.

>>> Second, why not detonate the Statue of Liberty as well? It wasn't hit by the planes either. Why pick on building 7?

Straw man? (i.e. what the FUCK does the Statue of Liberty have to do with the events of 9/11)

WTC 7 was not hit by an aircraft and collapsed the same way, the same day as the other two towers. No steel framed skyscraper -- until September 11th, 2001 or after that day -- has EVER collapsed into its own footprint at freefall speed due to "fire", or "weakening" / "steel softening" from fire.


>>> Third, you haven't answered by question. How was it that not one of these demolition charges was ignited when the planes hit the building? That was pretty lucky wasn't it. Because had one or some of them been hit and blown the top of the tower would have collapsed immediately and caused a major investigation.

What was "by question" ? As to where demolition materials were placed in the buildings, why a plane ... if nanothermite was utilized -- demonstrated by peer reviewed scientific analyses of residue in the WTC debris -- then these types of explosives are not affected or ignited by burning jet fuel... and as we also know, there were things such as "hijacker passports which survived the crashes...). (additionally, the areas which the aircraft struck in the towers i.e. above a certain elevation on the tower, need not have been completely rigged for demolition. The only areas necessary to rig were the full sections of the Twin Towers below the airliner impacts, each floor below that elevation)

>>> Fourth, Larry Silverstein is going to blow up two huge buildings to have them replaced in lower Manhattan with a reflecting pool and oak trees? That's quite the Real Estate genius you have there.
BTW, All insurance companies have a clause where they do not have to pay out for destruction due to "wars, declared or not". Check your own homeowner's policy to see what I'm talking about.

well Larry Silverstein did receive $861 million from insurance on the old WTC 7. and a new 52-story skyscraper replacing the old 47-story one has already been upped on the old site, didja catch that?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
(pretty neat how the original 1980s-2001 Salomon Brothers building doesn't even have its own Wikipedia page anymore, innit?)

The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount -- $7.1 billion -- on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. after a court dispute, total payout was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.

so it looks as if LS did ok on the whole deal.


>>> The number of people required to pull this off, and keep it quite would be higher than the total number architects physicists you claim don't agree with the official report. That in itself makes it hard to believe if not impossible.

That's what they said about The Manhattan Project aka the atomic bomb project during and after World War II... yet thousands of people kept it totally secret, and Harry Truman for example didn't even have knowledge of it until much later.


>>> But let me guess, they have all been eliminated by assassination squads, and those squads have been eliminated by other assassination squads right?

again, the compartmentalized nature of modern covert and spy operations -- particularly ones that operate at high levels in the military-industrial-government complex -- makes it relatively easy to keep from average citizen/public view, potentially for very long periods of time (even generations), many kinds of funding and physical operations. Operation Gladio, for example was a "stay-behind" covert operation of the Cold War which carried out anti-Communist ops all over Europe and remained totally secret for decades. then there's Operation Northwoods, cooked up by some of the Joint Chiefs themselves, to place blame of a faked hijacking/bombing on Cuba in order to have a pretext to invade that island. This stuff exists.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

>>> I don't spend my life looking under my bed for Dick Cheney or some old rich Jew with mirrors, Detcord, and a plunger.
>>>> I also don't spend my life trying to twist logic to fit a conspiracy narrative that makes Cheney and Bush look like murdering assholes just because I don't like their politics.

are you implying that you _like_ Dick and Bush politics? (even so, why would we care what you think about politics - or anything else kys for that matter) (The mirrors / Jew / detcord / plunger remark -- beyond not deserving mention at all -- is about third-grader level, which is about where you've stayed ever since arriving at this site)

crashing the pity-party 13.Sep.2011 21:59

Damos(A)

In the wake of all this post IXXI anniversary mourning, a video that speaks truth to power:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAMlF3KO1vs&feature=youtu.be