Sunday, April 27, 2008

World Trade Center

People ask me what I'm doing these days. My usual response is pretty much a blank. "Well...nothing, really."

The time seems full of "activity" (of one sort or another), but unlike the days in a corporate office where at any moment one can be called to account for one's accomplishments, I can't enumerate what "tasks" I've ticked off the "to do" list, or what I've "contributed". (I am also acutely aware of the perverse contradiction, that by doing almost nothing, I'm in a sense "contributing" more than many Americans. Simply by NOT doing, by not working, I'm using a tiny fraction of the energy and resources I used while "being productive", helping produce massive volumes of wine. I know, it's a somewhat warped concept, but it is inescapable - especially when one compares the resources First World nations consume compared to other nations.)


When I actually stop and think about what I've been up to over the past couple years, a few "projects" come to mind. I have spent several hundred hours looking into the events of September 11, 2001. A ridiculous waste of time you might say, but I was trying to answer (for myself) that nagging internal question "were we complicit?"

As I've shown with a number of recent links below, some fairly intelligent people claim there is ample evidence of an internal "conspiracy" to attack the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and possibly the Capitol. As proof, they cite, among other examples, the manner in which WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed in what (from our experience) could only be likened to controlled demolitions. Were we really to believe the official narrative that all seven World Trade Center structures were destroyed by an event initiated solely by the two aircraft?

I figured my training in physics would serve me well in trying to understand what we observed that day, what the government officially reported to have happened and all the evidence of "controlled demolition" the "conspiracy theorists" point to.

Despite the many claims to the contrary, I recently arrived at the personal conclusion that I'm satisfied that the towers required no additional forces (explosive charges) to collapse them. The documented damage that all three sustained, the engineering studies and the physical laws the buildings must obey satisfactorily explain what we observed that day. The fact that, other than controlled demolitions, we had never seen a steel-frame high-rise collapse into its footprint, and though we saw three such events in a single day, this is not compelling proof of controlled demolition.

After all this time, a few days ago an annoyingly obvious question arose: "why would anyone, intent on designing a terrorist attack so horrific that our government would then have carte blanche to do whatever it desired in the pursuit of the terrorist enemy, why would they go to the trouble of rigging the towers for controlled demolition, strike them with aircraft, then bring them down in such a way as to cause minimal damage to adjacent property?"

While "terrorists" were using aircraft to strike their targets, why would the conspirators make it appear the towers were brought down, not by the aircraft, but by controlled demolition? It seems ludicrous now. Wouldn't that simply arouse suspicions of an inside job?

Because I don't accept the conspiracy theories about the World Trade Center collapses, or a missile strike on the Pentagon, or the complete "disappearance" of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, this doesn't mean I reject conspiracy theories about the planning, organization and execution of the attacks on America. There are far too many questions, few addressed by the "official" 9-11 Commission Report and these are not questions that physics will help answer. They are questions about what Dick Cheney would call the "dark side" of human nature.

After the 2000 election, the Bush Administration arrived in office with a large contingent of "neoconservative" signatories to “The Project for the New American Century” (PNAC), Dick Cheney being the most senior signatory. The PNAC called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein by force. They called for a permanent American presence in the Middle East. They demanded that America do everything necessary to maintain its unchallenged hegemony in the World. But the process of achieving these goals would be slow, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor", they wrote. This is no secret conspiracy. It was published for all to see. But most paid no heed to these extremist views. No matter. The authors of the Project were now at our nation's helm.

After less than eight months in power, September 11th delivered EXACTLY the shock necessary to invoke their plan. The path led to Afghanistan, but it was clear from Day 1, the Administration needed the path to lead to Saddam and Iraq.

Whether there was American complicity in the attacks of September 11th remains unclear. That the American people were led into Iraq by an unconscionable conspiracy to deliver regime change and the appropriation by force of another nation's wealth, there can be absolutely no doubt.

This is one of, if not the greatest criminal act perpetrated by the United States.


The September 11th attacks remain an enigma. At his Crawford Ranch in the summer of 2001, George W. Bush received the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike within U.S." The report stated "FBI information...indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

At that time, we knew these threats must be taken seriously. Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (an attempt to tip one tower into the other), following his capture in Pakistan and extradition, was helicoptered past the Twin Towers. He told his FBI escort "with just a little more money, they would have come down, it is not yet finished".

Yousef's uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "admitted" mastermind of the September 11th attacks, in the 1995 "Bojimba Plot", conspired with his nephew and others to either plant bombs on 12 U.S. airliners and blow them up over the Pacific, or alternatively hijack some of them and strike targets within the U.S. The plot was uncovered and foiled, the details widely reported.

Prior to 9-11, the CIA and Pentagon engaged in defense exercise scenarios responding to threats of aircraft striking domestic targets. Yet, what sticks in our minds is the repeated statements by Administration officials, the "talking point" that "no one" had any idea terrorists would use airliners as "missiles".

For our Administration to claim, in the aftermath of September 11th, that we had never imagined such attacks to be possible betrays such blindness, distraction, incompetence and negligence. Or, perhaps it betrays something much more sinister.


In my wanderings over the past few years, I came to appreciate tools such as “Wikipedia” as a remarkably democratic resource that has contributed so much to our knowledge base. It is a good place to start with many inquiries. Though the credibility of sources cited should not be taken for granted, the discussion is moderated and, when there is sufficient interest in a topic, most perspectives are represented. Using links and citations provided, a much more comprehensive picture can be gathered. (And if you have knowledge or expertise on the topic, you can contribute - providing your input survives the review and scrutiny of the moderators and other contributors.) What results is generally a "neutralized" forum, offering some form of the truth. While it may not satisfy all parties, it must be considered as only a starting point, from which to launch your own quest for the truth.

No comments: