911 truth See the facts for yourself

(This is a one-page version of the proof on this website so that you can print it out)

Welcome . . . and congratulations for your willingness to look at the proof about 9-11.

No matter how painful the facts raised by this site may be, we — as patriotic Americans and people of good faith — must look at the evidence for ourselves.

This site is wholly non-partisan, and not intended to criticize or to bolster any political party. The sources cited come from across the political spectrum. The issues raised transcend political differences, and are vital to conservatives, liberals and moderates; they affect your life whether you are a republican, democratic, independent, or non-voter.

Skeptical of theories which are not based on cold, hard facts?  We encourage your skepticism, and applaud you for examining the facts for yourself.  There are many bizarre conspiracy theories floating around about 9/11, which are spread either out of ignorance or for malicious purposes. 
  • Think that no credible, high-level officials doubt the official version? Very well — you might wish to start by jumping ahead to this page.

  • Think only a handful of people question the official version of 9/11?  Okay — take a look at this national poll.

  • Think the 9/11 Commission already investigated and reported what happened on 9/11?  Fine — skip ahead to this page.

  • Think that 9/11 is a partisan issue?

  • Please read this if you're a conservative who believes that 9/11 conspiracies are something cooked up by liberals and the Democrat party to weaken the conservative movement or to undermine the President's ability to lead the country in this dangerous time.
  • Please read this if you're a liberal who doesn't think that anyone credible questions 9/11.
  • Are you Christian? A special welcome! Here is something you might find interesting.

  • Think that a 9/11 conspiracy would have been too big to keep secret? Or that you would have heard more about these facts on the news if they were true? Or that questioning 9/11 is insulting to America, or to the victims and their families, or that it gives aid and comfort to the enemy? We understand your concerns — and we will address those too.

This website provides links to credible sources, so that you can easily check the information for yourself (whenever possible, we cite mainstream news sources; at times we cite credible witnesses whose story is only covered by smaller publications). 

Just read and click.  And then make up your own mind (if you have any trouble viewing the linked video, audio or printed sources, click here to see instructions.)

If you get angry, afraid or overwhelmed by the information contained on this website ... Keep in mind that millions of Americans have felt these same things when they started to look at the facts, but they hung in there to get the full story. If they did it, you can too.

BACKGROUND:  WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the current administration is attempting to gain as much power and control over the American public as possible, and is using fear to accomplish that goal.

FBI agents, Time Magazine, MSNBC newsman Keith Olbermann and The Washington Post have all stated that the administration has issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes.

More to the point, current republican U.S. congressman Ron Paul stated that the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

A former prominent republican U.S. congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the current administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.

General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".

And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

Terror by Foreign Nations

But a government's attempt to increase power, or capitalize on fear, doesn't mean that a government would actually turn a blind eye to a known attack or itself carry out a fake terror attack in order to obtain its goals, right?

Well, this has happened before in foreign countries.    For example, it is widely known that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

And it has now been persuasively argued — as shown, for example, in this History Channel video — that Nazis set fire to their own government building and blamed that fire on others (if you have trouble playing the clip, it is because the website hosting the clip requires you to download the clip before playing it).  The fire was the event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties.

And in the early 1950s, agents of an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers).  Israel's Defense Minister was brought down by the scandal, along with the entire Israeli government.  See also this confirmation.

And the Russian KGB apparently conducted a wave of bombings in Russia in order to justify war against Chechnya and put Vladimir Putin into power (see also this short essay and this report).

And the Turkish government has been caught bombing its own and blaming it on a rebel group in order to justify a crackdown on that group.

Indeed, even Muslim governments appear to play this game.  For example, the well-respected former Indonesian president said that the government had a role in the Bali bombings.

But That's Nuts

This sounds nuts, right?  You've never heard of this "false flag terrorism", where a government attacks its own people then blames others in order to justify its goals, right?  And you are cynical of the statements discussed above?  Please take a look at these historical quotes:

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". - Adolph Hitler

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin

But NOT the U.S.

It is logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so.

Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.  As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

Why Does This Matter?

Even if America has, in the past, considered or undertaken false flag operations, it has never done so in modern times.  Right?   We will consider this question below.

In the meantime, we invite you to read what the following very smart people are saying:

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

Similarly, a current Republican Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran".

The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

And a member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.



BUT THE 9/11 COMMISSION SHOWED THAT SEPTEMBER 11TH WAS A REAL TERRORIST ATTACK, RIGHT?

Whether or not you believe that governments carry out "false flag" terror, you might reasonably assume that the 9/11 Commission investigated September 11th, and concluded that Osama Bin Laden and his group of terrorists were solely responsible.

Unfortunately, a quick look at the government's investigations reveals that -- not only has there never been a real investigation -- but the behavior of government representatives in willfully obstructing all attempts at investigation comprises evidence of guilt. Specifically, in all criminal trials, evasiveness, obstruction, and destruction of evidence all constitute strong circumstantial evidence that the accused is guilty or, at the very least, not to be believed. 9/11 is no different.

For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."

And former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

But let's back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures", so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the "pre-emptive war" doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article and this article).

The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As stated by the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government's international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, "there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about."


For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director's urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission's investigation. And the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 or any explosions in the buildings (the word "explosion" does not appear in the report). There are literally hundreds of other examples of entire lines of evidence which contradict the government's account which were ignored by the Commission.

A very well-documented book by a distinguished professor shows that the 9-11 Commission was a whitewash. According to law professor Richard Falk of Princeton, the author of this book "establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America's number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths" (Seymour Hersh, as you might know, is the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal). See a synopsis of the book here; and a summary of a portion of the book here.

Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now "question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report", and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts".

Moreover, the former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses . He has called for a new investigation.

And a leading firefighters' trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a "half-baked farce". In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center.

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

And the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any of the following evidence: the buildings’ impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses; the unexplained fact that the core of the North Tower failed first; the apparent demolition squibs; the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air; the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings; the unexplained presence of unusual compounds in the steel; the unexplained swiss-cheese like holes in the steel; and the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree

Indeed, an article from a respected civil engineering trade journal states: 

"World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations [i.e. models] of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers".

The article goes on to state "a leading U.S. structural engineer said 'By comparison [to the modeling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated' . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualization from the analysis so far.'”. In other words, the government refused to release a visual model of the collapses, and even the non-visual computer models which the government used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty.  

The same journal points out that "Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism." 

See also this question and answer exchange at a recent government press conference (skip to 1 minute and 23 seconds into the video).  And this short video on building 7 and the subsequent investigation (you may wish to disregard brief partisan portion).

And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated"?

Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found? 

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?

And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime.

Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11?

Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators. 



HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS

Current and former high-level U.S. officials have recently and publicly stated that the 9/11 attack was not as it seemed.

For example:

Current U.S. Senator states "The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?"

Current Republican Congressman states that "we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on"

Current Democratic Congressman hints that we aren't being told the truth about 9/11

Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee, has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job 

Former Democratic Senator states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog that doesn't hunt" (if you suspect he is a closet liberal, take a look at his bio)

Former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions, and who is a Catholic Archbishop stated that 9/11 was an inside job  (he also said "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.  [T]hat is treason")

Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal stated that "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'"

Former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

Former high-ranking Reagan official and very influential conservative doubts the official story about 9/11

Former Two-Star general questions the attack on the Pentagon

Former Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

Former President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguish Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals, is a member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11

Current U.S. Congresswoman, former senior CIA analyst, former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter, former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism, and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (as well as a who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath

Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required), said "If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job

A 28-year career CIA official says 9/11 was an inside job

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that there are indications that Cheney ordered a stand down of the military on 9/11

Former ambassador to Iraq is not satisfied with the official story

Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)

Numerous high-level legal scholars question the official version of 9/11. As do numerous military leaders.

And many officials from allied governments have also questioned 9/11:

Statement by former President of Italy

Statements by former German Defense Minister and current member of British Parliament

Statement by former Canadian Minister of Defense

Statements of two former MI5 (British intelligence) agents (19 minutes into video)

Statement of a high-ranking general and the former chief of NATO regarding bombs in the Twin Towers (in Danish)

Statement by the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force; and see also statement of former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces

And see this easy-to-read website for additional high-level officials.



PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS

The administration's claim that terrorists crashing planes into buildings was not foreseeable is contradicted by numerous sources:

Well, the CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 "that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected" according to a broadcast on National Public Radio

But let's go back and look at the facts chronologically:

According to MSNBC, "There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets".

In 1994, the government received information that international terrorists "had seriously considered the use of airplanes as a means of carrying out terrorist attacks" (see also this article).

In 1998, U.S. officials received reports concerning a "Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, areas." Officials received reports that al Qaeda was trying to establish an operative cell in the United States and that bin Laden was attempting to recruit a group of five to seven young men from the United States to travel to the Middle East for training in conjunction with his plans to strike U.S. domestic targets. Indeed, the report concluded that "a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center".

A 1999 report for the National Intelligence Council warned that fanatics loyal to bin Laden might try to hijack a jetliner and fly it into the Pentagon..

Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

The Pentagon tracked the hijackers before 9/11.

And the U.S. received warnings from numerous foreign intelligence services about planned attacks, many of them quite specific and detailed. Indeed, America's closest ally apparently tracked the hijackers' every movement prior to the attacks, and may have sent agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers.

According to the New York Times, "Foreign [intelligence service] agents had infiltrated Osama bin Laden's network and were carefully tracking its moves", and -- in January 2001 -- the French intelligence services gave a report to the CIA entitled "Plan to hijack an aircraft by Islamic radicals".

There were extraordinarily high terrorist attack threat levels in the summer of 2001, involving threats of attack within the U.S., and the U.S. government knew there were Al-Qaeda cells within the U.S. (or watch the video here).

In July 2001, a briefing prepared for senior government officials warned of "a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties ... (it) will occur with little or no warning.".

FBI agents recommended to FBI headquarters, in July 2001, an urgent nationwide review of flight schools regarding terrorism, and mentioned Bin Laden by name.

A pre-9/11 National Intelligence Estimate was entitled "Islamic Extremists Learn to Fly", and was apparently about Islamic people taking classes at U.S. flight schools.

President Bush was told in August 2001 that supporters of Bin Laden planned an attack within the U.S. with explosives and that they wanted to hijack airplanes.

A month before 9/11, the CIA sent a message to the Federal Aviation Administration warning of a possible hijacking "or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner".

The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".

U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes, and that information prompted administration officials to issue a private warning to transportation officials and national security agencies.

It was widely known within the FBI shortly before 9/11 that an imminent attack was planned on lower Manhattan.

An employee who worked in the Twin Towers stated "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on"

And a guard who worked in the world trade center stated that "officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks"

On September 6, 2001, Condoleezza Rice was warned that a terrorist attack inside the United States was imminent

Also on September 6th, author Salman Rushdie is banned by US authorities from taking internal US flights; the FAA told his publisher the reason was that it had "intelligence of something about to happen"

The former FBI translator who the Department of Justice's Inspector General, several senators (free subscription required), and a coalition of prominent conservative and liberal groups have claimed is credible says that the government was provided with information about the planned attacks, including the fact that the attacks would be carried out using airplanes, and some information about date ranges and targets. She says that - after 9/11 - the FBI translators were ordered to "keep quiet" regarding this information.

The National Security Agency and the FBI were both independently listening in on the phone calls between the supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on the mastermind's phone calls. The day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker "tomorrow is zero hour" and gave final approval for the attacks. The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also monitoring the mastermind's phone calls. (The NSA claims that it did not translate the intercept until September 12th; however, the above-mentioned FBI translator said that she was frequently ordered to falsify dates of translations regarding 9/11)

Shortly before 9/11, the NSA also intercepted multiple phone calls from Bin Laden's chief of operations to the United States.

The CIA and the NSA had been intercepting phone calls by the hijackers for years.

Indeed, two days before 9/11, Osama Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her "In two days, you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while." US officials later told CNN that "in recent years they've been able to monitor some of bin Laden's telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded." Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.

Newsweek stated "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns" (pay-per-view; cached version of article here)

Indeed, the military had actually drilled for aerial attacks with planes:

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland, had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run.

And the military had conducted numerous drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon. For example, see this official military website showing a military drill conducted in 2000 using miniatures; this article concerning a May 2001 exercise of a plane crashing into the Pentagon (see also this article and this one); and this article about yet another drill of a plane hitting the Pentagon from August 2001.

(Indeed, many of the drills appear to have included warning alarms and evacuation of the building.)

The military had also run war games involving multiple, simultaneous hijackings (first paragraph), so this aspect of 9/11 was not as overwhelming as we have been led to believe.

See this short excerpt of a Peter Jennings newscast on 9/11 (excuse the music and subtitles).

There are literally hundreds of other lines of evidence that prove that the government had substantial foreknowledge concerning the attacks (see this website). A former Lieutenant Colonel for the Air Force and former Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute summarized the feeling of many when he stated "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism."

 



WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH

On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that ON 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS.

On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that "Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject,' is purged from the screens". This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers' screens as part of the war game exercises.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were MOVED UP to September 11th by persons unknown.

Interestingly, Vice President Cheney was apparently in charge of ALL of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this previously-cited essay.

And while the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, this short video clip of the Secretary of Transportation's testimony before the 9/11 Commission shows that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon. How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Moreover, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen to this interview).

Additionally, this diagram shows that the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. See also this essay regarding the stand down of the military; and see this war game proposal created before 9/11 revolving around Bin Laden and including "live-fly exercises" involving real planes, later confirmed by this official Department of Defense website.

Which scenario is more likely from a strictly logistical perspective:

(1) An outsider sitting in a cave defeating the air defense system of the sole military superpower; or

(2) Someone like Cheney -- who on 9/11 apparently had full control over all defense, war game and counter-terrorism powers -- rigging and gaming the system?

Remember that for the attacks to have succeeded, it was necessary that actions be taken in the middle of the war games and the actual attacks which would thwart the normal military response. For example, Cheney watched flight 77 approach the Pentagon from many miles out, but instructed the military to do nothing (as shown in the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, linked above). Could Bin Laden have done that?

Fighter jets were also sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), so as to neutralize their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners. Could Osama Bin Laden and his sent-from-the-cave band of followers have exercised this degree of control over the military? Obviously not.

And air traffic controllers claim they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down, long after the military claims they purged the phantom war-game-related radar signals. Could Bin Laden have interfered with the full purging of false radar blips inserted as part of the war games? In other words, could Bin Laden have overridden the purging process so that some false blips remained and confused air traffic controllers? The answer is clear.

Therefore, it is statistically much more likely that Cheney and/or other high-level U.S. government and military officials pulled the 9/11 trigger than that Bin Laden did it. At the very least, they took affirmative steps to guarantee that the hijackers' attacks succeeded.

As discussed previously, a former air force colonel and director of the Star Wars program stated "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.  [T]hat is treason" 

EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Numerous experts have stated that three World Trade Center buildings were brought down on 9/11 by controlled demolition:  

A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects, stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A professor emeritus of physics and former division chairman from a small community college said "My wife and I, transfixed in front of a TV as the horror of 9/11 unfolded, watched as the topmost, undamaged floors of the WTC South Tower started to gradually lean (rotate) in the direction of the damage due to impact. In an instant, the rotation stopped, and that which was rotating began to fall, as if only under the influence of gravity! The fulcrum was no longer there! I blurted out, "My god, they wired the building."

An expert on demolition said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (and see TV interview here; both in Danish)

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use, has disputed the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (see also this video, part 2 here, and part 3 here (other architects who question 9/11 are listed here )

A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded that the Twin Towers "were brought down by planted explosives."

A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member, is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

A professor of mathematics said "The official explanation that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized"

A number of structural engineers have questioned the government's explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers .  As just two of many examples, two structural engineers at a prestigious Swiss university said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here )

A Dutch demolition expert stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority stated regarding WTC 7 that "The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

A Danish professor of chemistry said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter to grasp this" (translated)

A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, said “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

A terrorism security expert used by many news organizations asked, after commenting on the "secondary explosions", "whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coup de grace to bring them to the ground" (keep in mind that a controlled demolition involves the use of explosives both at the base of the building and in higher sections of the building)



CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS     

Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses have also discredited the Administration's version of why the world trade center buildings collapsed on 9/11:

Reporter for USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down

NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (video); or high-quality audio here

NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings

NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"

NYC firefighter stated there was a "bomb in the building ... start clearing out"

Dying heroes, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers

MSNBC reporter stated that police had found a suspicious device "and they fear it could be something that might lead to another explosion" and the police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area"

NYC firefighter stated "the south tower . . . exploded . . . At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade" (pages 6 & 7)

Assistant Fire Commissioner stated “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commissioner spoke with independently verified the flashes (see possible explanation below)(when, as here, there are no page numbers in the original firefighter transcript, you can locate the text using the "find" function in your web browser)

A firefighter said “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings.  It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.” 

Another firefighter stated "it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"  (page 4; original is .pdf; Google's webpage version is here)

Paramedic said "at first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear pop pop pop pop pop -- thats exactly what because thought it was" (page 9)

Police officer noted "People were saying, 'There’s another one and another one.' I heard reports of secondary bomb explosions . . ." (page 61, which is page 3 of a hand-written memorandum)

Firefighter stated "there was an explosion in the south tower, which . . . just blew out in flames . . . One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93" (referring to 1993 bombing of world trade center; pages 3 & 4)

A firefighter stated "it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building . . . Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV." 

Officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said about the south tower: “[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion.”  Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: “[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street.”  (pages 65-66, 68)

Dan Rather said that collapse was "reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen [when]a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" (CNN's Aaron Brown and a Fox News reporter also made similar comments)

British newspaper stated "some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a 'planned implosion' "

Peter Jennings stated "anyone who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"

A reporter for WNYC radio said "The reporters were trying to figure out what had happened. We were thinking bombs had brought the buildings down"(page 203 of Running Toward Danger: Stories Behind The Breaking News of 9/11)

A Wall Street Journal reporter said "I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, "My God, they’re going to bring the building down." And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES . . . . I saw the explosions" (page 87)

A facilities manager in the north tower "was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons"

Indeed, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center, said in a PBS documentary that Building 7 was "pulled" on September 11th. "Pulling" is a construction industry term for "intentionally demolishing", as shown in this PBS interview discussing the demolition of world trade center building 6 many weeks after 9/11.

Moreover, there is evidence that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had hit:

Prior to Plane Hit

9/11 hero, who was the last person out of the north tower, said that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit (see also this interview)

Maintenance worker who worked in the basement of north tower witnessed an explosion in the basement at around the same time the plane hit far above

Two other eyewitnesses working in the Twin Towers witnesssed explosions in the basement at about the same time the plane hit

(See also this article arguing that seismic evidence corrorborates the eyewitness testimony).

Other Testimony of Explosions Below the Impact Zone

Stationary engineer who worked in world trade center one described tremendous damage in the basement of the building more consistent in nature and timing with a bomb than with damage from jet fuel: "'There was nothing there but rubble . . . We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press—gone!'. . . They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up 'like a piece of aluminum foil.' Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, [he] was convinced that a bomb had gone off."

NYC firefighter stated “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”

Firefighter said "this, huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground"

Firefighter stated "my lieutenant said he looked down at the first floor, and he could see the first floor of the south tower like exploding out"

Firefighter said "I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake . . . It appeared somewhere below [the area where the plane had hit]. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane" (pages 3 & 4)

Similarly, employee of an insurance company in south tower heard an explosion from BELOW the impact of the airplane, an "exploding sound" shook the building, a tornado of hot air, smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying UP the stairwell, and the wall split from the bottom UP

CBS News reporter stated "All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow ... I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame...". (same reporter stated "I hear simultaneously this roar and see what appears to be a gigantic fireball rising up at ground level . . . I remember seeing this giant ball of fire come out of the earth as I heard this roar" (pages 119 & 239))

An eyewitness reported a large explosion at ground level right before the collapse of the North Tower

Police Officer described events which occurred inside Tower One after the second plane hit and well before that tower collapsed: "We went back up to the sixth floor . . . . Then there was an eerie silence and it was like you knew something was going to happen. There just seemed to be one explosion after another. I was separated from the guys from the bridge . . . by another explosion, massive again, sucking the air out of your lungs and then just a wind more intense this time with larger pieces of debris flying." (pages 94 & 95, which is page 2 & 3 of a hand-written memorandum)

BBC reporter stated "Then, an hour later, we had that big explosion, from much much lower [well below the plane impact]. I don't know what on earth caused that".

Firefighter describes elevators "blown off the hinges" which only went to lower floors (page 7)(Note: this statement about the elevators still needs to be verified)

A janitor witnessed explosions in the sub-basement A carpenter witnessed explosions in the sub-basement A Port Authority Police Department officer, who was intimately familiar with the World Trade Center from his years of police duties patrolling there, described how the hallway began to shudder as a "terrible deafening roar" swept over him, then a giant fireball exploded in the street seconds before the south tower collapsed

Firefighter stated "the Maydays started coming in to vacate the north tower . . . we started going down. At that point, we proceeded down . . . Made it down to the lobby. There were about maybe 30 firefighters that were with us. Made it to the lobby, and the lobby was like a war zone. All the windows were blown out, and the command post wasn't there. We made it to the corner of West and Vesey when the building came down." (pages 5 & 6) A WTC survivor said "We get to the 8th floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor." Another survivor experienced an explosion in the mezzanine of the tower Another survivor experienced an explosion in the lobby World trade center employee stated "the bottom of our building was blown out"

Paramedic "heard ground level explosions" (page 29)

Detective for the Port Authority reported, long before the collapse of the tower, "When we reached the 15th floor, the building began to vibrate and shake. I heard loud explosions and rumblings in the background. The stairwell shifted and gave out a large metal on metal groan. The stairwell then twisted back into place with another loud groan. The lights went out. At that point the stairwell became filled with smoke and dust." (pages 58 & 59, which is page 2 & 3 of a memo from the Office of Inspector General)

A police report states World Trade Center "Police Desk reporting an explosion on the lower level" 8 minutes after plane crash (page 17, which is page 2 of the Chronological Report of the WTC Radio Transmissions on 9/11/01)

See also witness statements here

How could the fire damage from airplanes or their jet fuel have caused such extensive explosions over so many floors over such a long timeframe below the airplane impacts? Do you remember that most of the fuel spilled outside of the towers in those dramatic fireballs, and the rest supposedly lit the paper, rugs and other office contents of the twin towers on fire?

Given these facts, how could fires or jet fuel have caused the events described above by credible eyewitnesses?

In addition, there are many eyewitness accounts of phenomena consistent with the use of explosives in the world trade center buildings:

Paramedic captain stated "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode  the popping sound and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building" (pdf file; Google's web version is here).    Compare this authenticated tape of a controlled demolition by a leading demolition company -- can you see the orange and red flashes on the near side of the building?  How about at the base of this building, the Kingdome?  Both of these tapes are posted at the "World Records" section of Controlled Demolition, Inc.'s website)

Police officer stated "you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street."  (page 5, which is page 2 of a hand-written memorandum)(what caused loud explosions many minutes apart, a series of smaller explosions going "completely around the building", and a "large fire ball"?)

Chief of NY Fire Department (Citywide Tour Commander) said "there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse" (page 4) (why was material shooting out from all four side before the collapse?)

Police officer stated "we kept hearing explosions that would shake the whole room"

Police sergeant said "Within a short period of time (approximately ¾ of an hour) one of the buildings to the World Trade Center collapsed. During this time period there were numerous explosions, causing us to leave and re-enter the incident area" (page 88, which is page 1 of a memorandum)

Fire department batallion chief said "You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors popout. It looked almost like an explosion" (pages 7 & 8)

Firefighter stated "the collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there" (page 17)(what caused the "smoke explosion on a tremendous scale" before the collapse?)

Fire chief from a nearby town heard a "high-pitched noise and a popping noise" right before the collapse of the South Tower

MSNBC reporter stated "I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last". The same reporter stated that the force of the explosion overturned cars and set them on fire

Paramedic said “Shortly before the first tower came down, I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running" (pages 5 & 6) (why was there ground shaking before the collapse?)

Same paramedic stated "by the time the debris settled from the first collapse we started to walk back east towards west street and few minutes later – really don’t remember the time frames because we were so busy in trying to account for who was in the staging area and who wasn’t we basically had the same thing the ground shook again and we heard another terrible noise and the next think we knew the second tower was coming down and again we were running for our lives . . . . ." (pages 6 & 7)(why did the ground shake before the start of the "terrible noise" of the collapse?)

Reporter mentioned explosion and the fact that "the whole building bellied out" (why did the building "belly out", as opposed to falling over?)

CNN producer stated "every few minutes you'll hear like a small sort of a rumbling sound, almost like an explosion sound and another chunk of it will come flying down into the street"; same producer stated "there was just a huge ... [explosion? word apparently erased from original CNN video] and enormous pieces of debris just falling - one right after the other" (what caused the "rumbling sounds" and the chunks flying down every couple of minutes)

Highly-reputable astrophysicist wrote in an email that, immediately before the collapse of each of the twin towers, he heard explosions and low-frequency rumbles (he also uses the phrase "demolition-style implosion")

A witness said that, right before the collapse of one of the towers, "It sounded as if you had a hundred . . . firecrackers and you lit them all off at once . . . it sounded like the finale of the 4th of July over the East River" (15:21 into the video)(what caused this sound like a hundred firecrackers?)

Unknown witness interviewed on television stating "it sounded like gunfire . . . . bang bang bang bang bang . . . and then three big explosions"

Further testimony from firefighters can be found here and from other witnesses here.

Cynical about this topic because it would have been impossible to plant explosives in the World Trade Center? Good, read this.

See also this short comparison of the collapse of WTC7 with a verified demolition; this overview of  trade center building 7;  this short essay on Building 7; these tape recordings of firefighters showing that they thought fires in the south tower were small and easily containable, even immediately before the collapse; this short video discussion on collapses;  and compare this footage of a controlled demolition and also this footage of controlled demolition with this footage of the start of the collapse of tower 1 (it is also interesting how the world trade centers are pulverized in mid-air into massive dust clouds, similar to controlled demolitions);  this short essay citing numerous eyewitness reports of molten metal under the World Trade Center buildings long after their collapse;  this contest offering a million dollars to anyone who can prove that the trade centers were brought down without explosives; and this video containing additional evidence (made by a 21-year old, so you'll have to ignore the music; also contains some speculative opinions by the filmmaker).



HOW DID THEY KNOW?

On September 11th, none of the New York City rescue people, architects, or engineers believed that the World Trade Centers would collapse.  No steel-frame modern high-rise building had ever before collapsed due to fire. 

Yet a handful of people knew in advance of the collapses.  See this article.

How did they know?    

THE SECRET SERVICE AND CHIEF OF STAFF (How Did They Know?)

The Secret Service acted in a manner contrary to all standard training and procedures on 9-11. See statement by the former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program and senior air force colonel (point number 8); statement of a former senior CIA analyst and frequent presenter of the Presidential Daily Briefings (near the bottom of the article); brief summary of argument.

In addition, the White House Chief of Staff "walked away from Bush immediately" after informing him that the nation was under attack, without waiting for any response from the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military (full article is pay-per-view).  How did he know that the Commander would decide not to respond in any way to prevent further planes from crashing into buildings, but instead would continue reading a childrens book? 



WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that the Pentagon is a heavily-defended building, with defensive weapons on the roof. This matches a Pentagon employee’s statement that she was told "you are now standing in one of the most secure building in all of the United States".

And a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand", and who handled two actual hijackings, says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen to this interview).

Indeed, the Secretary of Transportation testified to the 9/11 Commission that
"During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?"
(this testimony is confirmed here and here. See also this comment by the retired high-level CIA analyst mentioned above).

So how was a hijacked plane able to slam into such a heavily-defended building long after it had become apparent that a terrorist attack was being waged against America with hijacked airplanes, and given that the military was actually tracking the airplanes? Why did the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11 (see this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay), watch the plane approach from many miles away but say “the orders still stand”, when such orders led to the plane not being intercepted?

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

There are additional questions about the attack on the Pentagon. However, we believe that these questions are largely distractions from the vital questions raised above.

For example, there are many who question whether the hijacker who allegedly piloted the airplane had the skills to perform such a difficult maneuver, at least not without the aid of remote control equipment. We find such claims interesting, but have not come to any conclusions, and do not know if they will lead anywhere.

In addition, the government has to date not released all of the videos showing the strike on the Pentagon. Michael Moore, for example, said
"I've filmed there before down at the Pentagon-- before 9/11 -- there's got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven't seen the straight-- I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this".
We believe that it is very possible that when the videos are finally released, they will clearly show that the hijacked Boeing 757 was flown in a standard manner by the hijackers and crashed into the Pentagon. However, according to those who have watched the government videos released to date, such footage is not conclusive. While we are not convinced that anything other than a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, The government should release all of the relevant videos to give a full accounting.

Other claims have also been made about the Pentagon (see, for example, the claims made here). However, we believe that the questions regarding the government intentionally allowing the aircraft to hit the Pentagon, discussed at the top of this webpage, are the most important.

BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?   

Let's end, as we started, by talking about false flag terrorism.   You might say "But Al-Qaeda is different -- powerful, organized, and out to get us", right? Maybe, but take a look at this Los Angeles Times Article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares", which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). And a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".

And did you know that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 world trade center bombing, but had -- at the last minute -- cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake power for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view)? See also this TV news report.

And did you know that the CIA is alleged to have met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11? 

And did you see the statement by the CIA commander in charge of the capture that the U.S. LET Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan?

And have you heard that the anthrax attacks -- which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists -- used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility, the Fort Detrick military base?  Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong"; and see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer; and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert . It is also interesting that the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing Patriot Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of congress into passing that act without even reading it. And it might be coincidence, but White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred

Even the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation"(the audio is here)

If we do not learn our history, we are doomed to repeat it. See this article on the Reichstag fire and this article on the perennial ploy of those grabbing power.  

On the first page of this website, we promised to address the claim that questioning 9/11 is disrespectful to the victims and their families. In fact, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this article regarding patriotism.

We also promised to discuss why the facts presented here have not been covered more in the U.S. news. There are several potential explanations, but in fact many journalists are asking the same question (see also this interview with award-winning journalists).

Finally, we promised to address the idea that a 9/11 conspiracy would be too big to keep secret. This article addresses that concern.

See also this 9/11 Fact Sheet for the answers to other frequently asked questions.



NOW WHAT?

Congratulations . . . you have taken the first step -- getting informed.   To stay informed,check this website frequently, as new evidence is constantly added (look for new links in blue).

The implications of this information may at first feel overwhelming. Millions of Americans have felt this also, but have gotten past their shock and started to take action. Indeed, the true facts of 9/11 have spread from a handful of people to almost half of the American population (and higher percentages in other parts of the world) in a few years. Momentum is on our side . . . and if we work to spread the facts, those who know the truth about 9/11 will soon be in the majority, and justice will prevail.

Where to start?

If you are good with people, we recommend that you talk with as many people as possible face-to-face.   It is especially helpful to speak with (and give a CD to -- see below) people who have alot of friends and contacts, people who are in positions of influence (such as ministers, rabbis, community and business leaders), or people who are great at persuading others.  Studies show that these are the type of people who make social changes happen, so let's focus on them.

You can download all of the information contained on this site by using a free website download tool (if you don't know of one, we recommend Httrack Website Copier and its companion software, ProxyHTTrack).  By downloading the proof from this site (and your other favorite websites), you will help to preserve the evidence.    Please note that if you set the download program to download external links, you will also download the actual linked web pages and multimedia.  In other words, you would then be downloading and saving the referenced materials.  (Because some of these materials may be copyrighted, you should contact the copyright owners of the websites and linked materials to get their permission).

You can also copy the proof onto a CD, after you have downloaded it, and pass the CD out to others who don't have internet familiarity or who don't get their news from the web.   The entire 911Proof website and all linked materials can easily fit onto a standard CD.

Webmasters: You may consider linking to this or another 9-11 information site. 

And you can engage in freeway blogging or other ways of getting the message out to alot of people (here is one reader's idea; see also this picture).

Finally, consider leaving a public computer open to this or another trusted 9-11 site so that others may see for themselves.

We also invite you to read news sources which tell you the full story on an ongoing basis.  The best news sources will also suggest actions which have tremendous leverage, but take little of your time. Here are some recommended sources of news and hands-on actions you can take regarding the terrible events of 9-11 and related issues of concern:

Daily News Sources

We have found the following daily news sources to be insightful:

What Really Happened (focuses on 9-11, false flag operations, and power politics, with  non-partisan neutrality -- lives up to its slogan "What is mainstrem news today was here a year ago"; also contains some of the best editorials on the web)

Prison Planet (focuses on 9-11, false flag operations, and fascist threats, with a conservative slant -- scoops the mainstream news sources on a regular basis)

Global Research (excellent Canadian website)

BuzzFlash (liberal news source which regularly scoops the mainstream press on non-911 issues)

TV News Lies (posts some of the best editorials on the web)

911-Focused and Periodic News Sources

The following news sources cover 911-related issues (some focus more on  prior knowledge and war games; others focus more on the collapse of the world trade centers ):

George Washington's Blog (contains in-depth analysis and suggestions for 9-11 related actions)

Journal of 9/11 Studies (a scholarly journal dedicated to publishing papers on 9/11 truth the website of a very impressive group of physics and mechanical engineering professors, former high-level military and intelligence people, air traffic controllers and pilots, and other people with expertise relevant to 9-11)

911 Review and 911 Research (9-11 websites with a wealth of information and interesting theories concerning 9-11)

Cooperative Research (One of the most complete timelines of 9/11, citing mainstream new sources for most of the facts)

911 Blogger (blog-style site providing updates concerning prior knowledge and war games)

911 Podcasts (a collection of videos concerning 9-11 and related subjects)

Want To Know (good introductions on prior knowledge and war games, disinformation and propaganda)

There are are many other excellent websites, too many to mention by name.  You can find most of them through links contained in 911 Proof and the sites listed on this page.

Our own invitations to act will also occassionly be posted below, so check back frequently to stay in the loop.

Invitation: Sign this petition.




This website will be updated frequently as new information becomes available, so check back periodically for new links.  New links will show up on your computer in blue.  The links you have already clicked appear in purple. 

The articles, videos and audio clips linked to herein are the copyrights of their respective owners, and they are linked to under the fair use doctrine, historical footage exception to copyright law, and/or by express or implied license, and all links are provided solely for non-commercial, educational and political purposes.  Apple, Real, Microsoft and the other referenced marks are the trademarks of their respective owners. To the best of the author's knowledge, all statements made herein about any referenced person are true.























If you have any trouble viewing the linked video or audio clips, it is likely because you have not installed the necessary free software to view multimedia on your computer. You may download Adobe Reader here, Apple Quicktime here and a Codec such as the one here. If you are still having problems, then you may not have installed a basic multimedia player, such as Real Player or Windows Media Player, and make sure you have Adobe Reader. Ask a computer-savvy friend how to install the free software necessary to view these materials.

Because most online news sources change the location of their stories after an initial "free" viewing period, many links become "broken" after a couple of weeks. The 911Proof team tries to keep all of our links current. However, if you find any broken links, kindly email us to inform us of the specific links which are broken so that we can update them.












Updated April 4, 2007 • Design by